Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

Alan Dillon is in a tricky situation but as a legislator he is bound to make a complaint to the Gardaí so that the Law is seen to be upheld.

Ideally, you wouldn’t give this crowd more oxygen and the chance to disrupt Courts when that is what they want.

Of course the Burkes will not appear at a Garda Station by arrangement for interview. Will there be a stand off at the Burke compound? (Getting way ahead of myself, I know).

Garda: ‘Now Mrs Burke, will you shake Mr Dillon’s hand and say you’re sorry so we can put this matter to rest?’

MB: ‘I will not! MY SON….TRANS…. WHERE IS JOHN ROGERS???….’

Garda: ‘oh, FFS’

There is always the chance that the operators/landlord agents of the shopping centre/Tesco might decline them entry due to their anti-social behaviour towards the customer caught on premises security cameras and broadcast by the Burkes themselves to the public over a Facebook page sponsored by Isiah Burke himself.

When it comes to the Burke's, it's spelled 'Wacko'.

Just a thought. If indeed Young Enoch has decided his religious beliefs were being violated (which they weren't) by the school, then the question really needs to be asked, why should Enoch Burke's religious beliefs be allowed to dictate school policy? If indeed his argument is about religious freedom and right to one's own held beliefs, is it not more appropriate that all religions or non-religious beliefs be equally respected and acted upon in a fair manner?

Or more to the point, that religious opinions be kept to oneself? If Enoch Burke's belief his religious beliefs has been compromised, and someone else believes theirs has not, then who's belief do you side it with?

And one aspect of the freedom of religion is also the freedom to believe religion and religious ideology is stupid and inherently wrong? In that scenario, who's right?

The point is, there's no argument that can be made by Burke that this is about religious freedom, when by demanding his religious views be given primacy, he is therefore advocating for religious intolerance and the imposing of un-wanted religious instruction upon others, thereby negating his own original argument. Or as it's known, hypocrisy.

An utterly hypocritical argument should not be the basis for an objection or a defence, be it legal or otherwise.

All of which is bollox, given he's in bother not for his religious belief, but his ignorant behaviour. But it does display how utterly hypocritical, stupid and fundamentally ignorant his own argument is.

If they keep getting into trouble like this, they'll run out of family members to come along for the shouting.

Severe unless they had earplugs.

Or, to flip the coin, what bout the freedom of expression of athiest teachers working in religious schools regardless of affiliation? Shouldn't they be allowed right to refuse to teach religious education or train kids for sacrmients? (I assume the training is till done by teachers - correct me if I'm wrong)

To be fair atheists are probably better informed on religious matters.

nah, you don't have to lie at an interview, you just need to acknowledge that the school has christian ethics and that you're happy to teach the syllabus in that context. it's not a big deal. it's like a barista who doesn't really like drinking coffee but that shouldn't stop them from knowing how to turn out a decent flat white. in burke's case though, it's like asking for a flat white with soya milk and being harangued out of the coffee shop for being a vegan weirdo by the barista.

anyway, the ethical side of this is a moot point. burke had a duty under the law and the terms of his employment contract to ensure all students and colleagues in the school are treated equally and with respect, which he failed spectacularly to do. he should never be allowed to teach again.

Sample Interview Answers 2 - Irish Primary Teacher

you're not 'graded on your faith'. you might be asked how to promote and work within the catholic ethos of the school, but that's easily answered.

you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion. ability to teach within a religious context is another thing altogether.

The primary teacher is not given any options apart from promising how religious they are, according to your link. It even skates around whether this is a question and answer situation by just giving bald statements about what the interviewee would be doing. Presumably if you can remember those four sentences and recite them you will be ok. (sarcasm)

THE faith Andrew, not their faith (or indeed lack thereof). It’s assessing their competence to impart and promote THE faith. The only time their faith or indeed lack thereof in terms of employment might be an issue is when their employment could lead to the undermining of the ethos of the school.

Enoch’s faith, or his personal religious beliefs aren’t in question. What’s questionable is his competence as a teacher and whether or not the school’s disciplinary process was fair, and whether or not they acted in accordance with Irish employment law. Enoch has purposely avoided helping himself by his further contempt of court.

There is so much wrong with your perceptions of the interview process. I am an assessor and I can categorically assure you that candidates are not awarded points for "faith" nor can they be questioned about their own religious faith. The purpose of the interview board is to recommend the best candidate to the BOM for ratification. A breakdown of the scores for each candidate under the different criteria should not be provided to the BOM.