Fall of the Catholic Church

So they want their kids to have the same school hours as non-relgious kids? Fair enough. I'm on board wit that.

Anyway I'm still waiting for explanations of the GAA analogy (which I apparently misunderstood but no one cane explain anyway), as to why a religion-free school is exclusionist or segreagated, why equal resources shouldn't be divded equally by those who contribute them and why it would be acceptable to tell a non-catholic to go 30 miles to another school or conform, but not to tell a boy to go 30-miles to another school or transition, so there's a bit of a backlog.

What's your source for the increasing participation in sacraments in ET schools please?

That's certainly not my experience, but even if it was, there is no comparison. You can't compare two disparate groups of parents and assume same behviours.

My source? Me. It’s based upon the observation that ET schools were originally founded on the basis that they provided an alternative to Catholic Education, and in the 50 years since their establishment, the demand for preparation for the sacraments outside of school hours has grown exponentially, primarily driven by the fact that the majority of children in ET schools are Catholic, and their parents organise the preparation for the sacraments in conjunction with the Church. Belmayne ETNS is just one example of the type of provision you described in your earlier post where the preparation is provided at a small cost to the parents -

http://belmayne-etns.ie/parent-council/catholic-parents-group/

BTW you absolutely CAN compare two disparate groups of parents and assume similar behaviours. It’s exactly what you did in making your point that if preparation for the sacraments was done outside of schools, participation rates would drop. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but it’s not one that’s borne out by the evidence of parents who already participate in sacramental preparation outside of school hours.

Every school is NOT oversubscribed. Around here, the ET school is oversubscribed by 400% and one church school hasn't turned anyone away in years. 

I didn’t say every school was oversubscribed? Your point was that ET schools are oversubscribed, my point was that every TYPE of school is oversubscribed, primarily in Dublin. Dunno where you are but I’m not surprised the ET school in your area is oversubscribed by 400% and the Church school hasn’t turned anyone away in years.

I can’t find the article now, but I think it was either the Irish Times or the Examiner had an article about two schools in Dublin - one ET and the other Catholic, the student population in the ET school was almost exclusively immigrants, whereas in the Catholic school there were none. This is also reflective of my experience in certain Catholic schools where they are determined to apply underhanded discrimination in their admissions in a bid to keep “their” schools free of immigrants, travellers, children with special educational needs, etc, leading to increasing pressure on other schools in those areas which means they appear to be oversubscribed, on paper at least.

That’s all true, but you were making the point that 94% of schools will not employ non-Christians. This simply isn’t true. Notwithstanding the fact that it would be unlawful discrimination and only permissible in limited circumstances, schools are not permitted to discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.

The fact that some schools do, is absolutely true too though, they’re prepared to run the risk of an employment discrimination claim. And if they cannot prove that they did not discriminate, they’re going to be hammered for it. The case I provided a link for provides evidence that discrimination on the grounds of religion in schools IS just as unlawful as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or any other ground listed in equality legislation.

Taxes are collected without distinction to religion, it is quite simply unjust therefore to use them to fund religious instruction. There is also a provision in the Constituion preventing the State from endowing a religion, however the Supreme Court in decades past took an extremely restrictive view of this provision.

Public funds are not used to fund religious instruction, and the idea that it is unjust that public funds are used to fund religious education is no different than claiming it is unjust that I as a taxpayer have to pay taxes, yet I’ll never use many of the healthcare and social welfare services that are funded by public funds. It’s absolutely not. That’s how a society functions. It doesn’t matter that I’ll never use them, public funding is meant to provide for public services, it doesn’t matter how much anyone pays in tax or whether they pay tax at all.

Plenty of people who are non-religious don’t pay any tax apart from taxes on their social welfare payments, and plenty of people who are religious pay enormous amounts of tax. I detest that sort of “I pay more in tax than you do so I should have more of a say in public policy” attitude. That’s just not the way ether taxes, public policies, or representative democracy functions. Nobody’s vote is based upon whether or not they’re also a taxpayer.

You’re aware of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Separation of Church and State v Ireland case, so you know that the State providing FOR education, does not prohibit the State providing for religious education. Successive Governments since that decision have never been pressured to provide for education which is suitable for every child’s needs, and Government aren’t going to spend public funds where they feel they don’t have to. They’re also not going to pass legislation they feel they don’t have to either to address these sort of nonsense restrictions by the Department of Education -

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/educate-together-schools-oversubscribed-3840735-Feb2018/?amp=1

Grand. Where are those state schools? In buildings owned by the church? Buy them so. Hope you're willing to stump up for that!

The fact that any specific group pays tax money is in no way a justification to use that tax money to impose religion on those who are not members of that religion.

The only equitable and sane solution is to use taxes to fund secular education and services. "Unto Caesar what is Caesars"... religious activities must be entirely voluntary and funded voluntarily.

You’re not getting one 😂 Aside from anything else I don’t understand what this obsession with apologies and retractions is and all the rest of it. You’re not the only one that does it, but it’s unnecessary IMO. It’s an Internet forum, might be some basis for it if we were actually in a Court of Law, but otherwise? Stop that, goodness sake, I’m not falling out with anyone over such trivial nonsense 😒

You’re referring to Section 37 -

37.—(1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or

(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos

That provision absolutely does NOT mean that religious institutions are exempt from any provisions on religious discrimination in employment law. I showed you the case already from 2015 where the school was found to be in breach of Equality legislation on the basis that the school discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of religion -

The Labour Court has upheld a decision of the Equality Tribunal that a teacher was entitled to succeed in her claim that she was discriminated on the grounds of age and religious belief in the course of an interview for the position of principal of the school in which she worked.

https://hayes-solicitors.ie/Employment-Law/Religious-Discrimination-exemption-examined-in-a-case-involving-a-teacher-and-a-school

This isn’t unusual or anything else. There are a number of exemptions to the general prohibition on discrimination in equality and employment legislation which allow for exemptions in certain limited circumstances -

https://www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-good-and-services/what-does-the-law-say/exceptions/

You’re being disingenuous there in referring to state schools and you know it, because you pointed out the history earlier as to why they are referred to as National schools - state aid does not mean state owned:

In the Republic of Ireland, a national school is a type of primary school that is financed directly by the state, but typically administered jointly by the state, a patron body, and local representatives. In national schools, most major policies, such as the curriculum and teacher salaries and conditions, are managed by the state through the Department of Education and Skills. Minor policies of the school are managed by local people, sometimes directed by a member of the clergy, as representative of the patron, through a local 'board of management'.  Most primary schools in the Republic of Ireland fall into this category, which is a pre-independence concept.

While there are other forms of primary school in Ireland, including a relatively small number of private denominational schools which do not receive state aid, there were just 34 such private primary schools in 2012, with a combined enrollment of 7,600 pupils. By comparison there were, as of 2019, over 3,200 national schools in Ireland with a combined enrollment of 567,000 pupils.

Ireland has never been a theocracy in the first place, and your reprimanding other posters for being unfamiliar with the concept of human rights, while knowing full well the relationship between human rights regarding freedom of religion and the right to education…

I dunno man, can’t even finish that sentence because it’s logical conclusion is that you want to deprive people of their human rights because the State is failing to uphold people’s human rights, and that’s your plan for achieving equality?

It’s like the lads you hear going on that men should have ‘paper abortions’ because women can have abortions, and that’s their idea of ‘gender equality’, or how it’s ‘unfair’ that public funds are spent on providing abortions and they as taxpayers don’t want their taxes going to pay for it, or they don’t want their taxes being used to fund gender affirmation treatments and all the rest of it. I’m not going to be rude to you, and sure I might be religious and all, but that doesn’t exclude me from giving that sort of person the middle finger, without feeling an ounce of guilt. It’s nothing more than they deserve.

Several little details you're forgetting

Every working adult is a taxpayer regardless of religion.

Paying taxes doesn't entitle anyone to call the shots.

It's not winner take all - everyone is supposed to have equal access to the funded services.

Lots of toxic traditions change. The tradition of driving home from the pub after five pints has changed. The tradition of spending nights in the pub in a toxic cloud of stale smoke has changed.

The tradition of indoctrinating seven year olds in State funded schools needs to change.

You know it's a **** idea when the main promotional point is 'tradition'.

Which medical services are you referring to?

We replace them with non-faith based personnel and carry on, probably with better staff, because an artificial obstacle is removed and the applicant pool is bigger; consequently the tax-payer gets the best person doing the job and not the best Catholic.

As far as I know, that happens in the medical profession anyway.

Yes Princess, even those who want every school in the Country to convert to educate together, or other format, then they don't get to call the shots either, according to that criteria.

Where are the thousands and thousands out marching into Mass on Sunday mornings?

A lot of assumptions there sunshine.

No.1 I don't use or never have used Twitter (or Twatter as I label it)

No.2 Did I ever anywhere say opposition to christian control was automatic support for islamic control?

I did draw attention to fact a lot that are very vocal in condemnation of say catholic church are very fond of condoning and excusing excesses in islam.

No.3 I am atheist and have been for a long time, but please point out where I supported or justified church control of state services or influence over society?

Anywhere in all my posts ?

And yes you will probably find me actually state somewhere in jest they should have left the nuns in charge of hospital because at least they appeared to be more hygienic.

Come on now, man up or woman up and admit when you are wrong.