P
- Status
P
PickyPicky
Guest
As you know, Church of England schools over here tend to be popular (although I suspect some parents aren’t particularly aware that a school is CofE). Of course it’s possible that the CofE governs with a somewhat lighter touch, if you see what I mean.
A
abucs
Guest
What does ‘set up’ mean?
Did the English enact legislation ending their draconian banning of educating Catholics and start to work with them in educating the children? Great. Did that include eventually reversing their stance regarding tax payers funds? Great. Is that what ‘set up’ means?
The schools were often on church land next to parish churches, with textbooks, teachers and day to day organisation and running done by the Catholic church.
These schools built on the Irish Catholic Church’s foundations that didn’t appear from nowhere. Just like the Chinese dealing with Christians today if the British government’s effort to suppress educating Catholics failed, as it did, then the next step was to stop killing teacher priests, allow the teaching of Catholics and after some time co-opt any resisting school system into a state body.
At the time of ending the banning on educating Catholics, tens of thousands of schools had been set up in secret with teachers and resources. This was the basis of the new system ‘set up’ by the British government a few decades after the ban was lifted when their efforts of suppression failed.
60% of the members of the newly created education board came from the Irish Catholic sector which sprang up when the ban was lifted. These were funded by the Catholic community and church with many of them having a ‘hedge school’ historical past. This would be expected because 80% of the students were from that sector.
From Wikipedia.
Did the English enact legislation ending their draconian banning of educating Catholics and start to work with them in educating the children? Great. Did that include eventually reversing their stance regarding tax payers funds? Great. Is that what ‘set up’ means?
The schools were often on church land next to parish churches, with textbooks, teachers and day to day organisation and running done by the Catholic church.
These schools built on the Irish Catholic Church’s foundations that didn’t appear from nowhere. Just like the Chinese dealing with Christians today if the British government’s effort to suppress educating Catholics failed, as it did, then the next step was to stop killing teacher priests, allow the teaching of Catholics and after some time co-opt any resisting school system into a state body.
At the time of ending the banning on educating Catholics, tens of thousands of schools had been set up in secret with teachers and resources. This was the basis of the new system ‘set up’ by the British government a few decades after the ban was lifted when their efforts of suppression failed.
60% of the members of the newly created education board came from the Irish Catholic sector which sprang up when the ban was lifted. These were funded by the Catholic community and church with many of them having a ‘hedge school’ historical past. This would be expected because 80% of the students were from that sector.
From Wikipedia.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
I agree with this also but the question is how should this be done and should the state take schools off other groups?
Personally I think the secular model is not to build anything up from the community but to talk rights and equality and force government to take off others. In effect try to create a new form of ethics which justifies theft under the banner of secular social justice.
Instead of organising people who want secular education, teachers, parents, (mature age) students, benefactors etc the secular model is to demand their form of ‘justice’ though the state. This necessarily weakens both community and the state. People stop providing for themselves, they stop even trying to build things like community education and the state becomes something to fight over which no one respects as a moral authority but which every partisan ideological group wants to control to force their power on people that their community was not strong enough to do build organically.
If secular people want their children taught in a secular way then fine. In fact, good. Organise it yourselves and when you are big enough and have some sufficient quantity of people and resources and demand in place then you are entitled to tax payers money so that you can build your school system. There are too many secular ideologues who not only want to take some schools away from the Catholic church but they want all of them. This is the authoritarian nature of this side of politics which revolves around their concept of the state belonging to their ‘secular’ (Godless) philosophy.
Such an attitude has always brought, and will always bring conflict and weaken society.
Personally I think the secular model is not to build anything up from the community but to talk rights and equality and force government to take off others. In effect try to create a new form of ethics which justifies theft under the banner of secular social justice.
Instead of organising people who want secular education, teachers, parents, (mature age) students, benefactors etc the secular model is to demand their form of ‘justice’ though the state. This necessarily weakens both community and the state. People stop providing for themselves, they stop even trying to build things like community education and the state becomes something to fight over which no one respects as a moral authority but which every partisan ideological group wants to control to force their power on people that their community was not strong enough to do build organically.
If secular people want their children taught in a secular way then fine. In fact, good. Organise it yourselves and when you are big enough and have some sufficient quantity of people and resources and demand in place then you are entitled to tax payers money so that you can build your school system. There are too many secular ideologues who not only want to take some schools away from the Catholic church but they want all of them. This is the authoritarian nature of this side of politics which revolves around their concept of the state belonging to their ‘secular’ (Godless) philosophy.
Such an attitude has always brought, and will always bring conflict and weaken society.
Last edited:
C
Caldera
Guest
Bannon says Populism will make EU and Europe stronger:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Venom has its medicinal uses as well.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
We are way off topic, but since this matter evidently exercises you greatly it would be ill-mannered of me not to respond.
How the Irish educate their children is a matter for them, of course, but I will risk two points: first, given the nature of Irish society, it would seem natural that integrated schooling should increase; second, in the North, where I have perhaps more right to express an opinion, I think the Church should be leading the move to integrated schooling.
As to faith schools generally, here are some very general points:
1 The people have the right to determine how they spend their education budget and political parties have the right to propose alterations in education provision.
2 But changes in education systems, while sometimes necessary, always carry risks to generations of children, and should be carried out only after deep consideration and careful planning.
3 The Catholic Church has a long and distinguished history of education provision, and discarding its contribution would seem thoroughly unwise.
4 I have no objection to state support of faith schools in principle, so long as they are open to children of all faiths and none, and provide education suitable to children of all faiths and none.
5 There can be problems, though. Giving state support to schools of one faith can make it difficult to avoid state support for schools of faiths less benign than Catholicism. Scientology schools? No thanks.
That’s my two penn’orth.
How the Irish educate their children is a matter for them, of course, but I will risk two points: first, given the nature of Irish society, it would seem natural that integrated schooling should increase; second, in the North, where I have perhaps more right to express an opinion, I think the Church should be leading the move to integrated schooling.
As to faith schools generally, here are some very general points:
1 The people have the right to determine how they spend their education budget and political parties have the right to propose alterations in education provision.
2 But changes in education systems, while sometimes necessary, always carry risks to generations of children, and should be carried out only after deep consideration and careful planning.
3 The Catholic Church has a long and distinguished history of education provision, and discarding its contribution would seem thoroughly unwise.
4 I have no objection to state support of faith schools in principle, so long as they are open to children of all faiths and none, and provide education suitable to children of all faiths and none.
5 There can be problems, though. Giving state support to schools of one faith can make it difficult to avoid state support for schools of faiths less benign than Catholicism. Scientology schools? No thanks.
That’s my two penn’orth.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
You implicitly asked me to reply to this when you ignored the issue we were speaking about and said
There are some points I agree with in your list and some I would make distinctions about. A lot of this is people’s idea of the role of the state and to bring it back somewhat to the thread many of these different ideas are reflected in what powers and direction nation states should within and without the European Union.
I think the continuing division in politics in the western world is based on the differing views on the powers of the state and in particular those with a secular Progressive view, akin to a religion who want such a view to be underwritten by the state.
I think in years to come we will see this as nothing less than a (attempted) religious take over of politics by a people taught to not think of their ideology as a religion. In some ways it is the continuation of the Bolshevik and National socialist programs. I think it will fail again (inevitably) but hopefully long before it turns anywhere near as violent in forcing the state cultural reformed dictates on the people through open persecution.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
Well first of all my discussion regarding hedge schools was with PickyPicky and I didn’t assume any knowledge or lack of knowledge on his part, so your comment
Please correct me if I am wrong but in my long reply to you regarding education, I don’t think I mentioned the term (nor concept) of hedge schools once.
Regarding my ‘somewhat polemic’ comments in the discussion with PickyPicky…………
when we are talking about the state taking schools off groups today and pointing to the fact that the forerunner state used to execute priests who set up schools then there is rightly going to be some polemics.
What I am addressing is the dangers in people allowing the state control over all facets of life including education without thinking about the ethical wrongs and past historical examples of such thinking.
It is basically fascism. To add to the polemics, Hitler’s socialists actively and aggressively ended Christian education and by the start of WW2 there were no Christian schools left in Germany. It is rather a good historical lesson to draw from when addressing the state’s relationship to teaching our young with our own money today.
It is also instructive because there are people today, who like the National socialists, Bolshevik socialists etc believe the that all children must be schooled in the state ideology rather than on the Christian ideology such schools were originally created for and by.
is a little bit polemic in itself.
Please correct me if I am wrong but in my long reply to you regarding education, I don’t think I mentioned the term (nor concept) of hedge schools once.
Regarding my ‘somewhat polemic’ comments in the discussion with PickyPicky…………
when we are talking about the state taking schools off groups today and pointing to the fact that the forerunner state used to execute priests who set up schools then there is rightly going to be some polemics.
What I am addressing is the dangers in people allowing the state control over all facets of life including education without thinking about the ethical wrongs and past historical examples of such thinking.
It is basically fascism. To add to the polemics, Hitler’s socialists actively and aggressively ended Christian education and by the start of WW2 there were no Christian schools left in Germany. It is rather a good historical lesson to draw from when addressing the state’s relationship to teaching our young with our own money today.
It is also instructive because there are people today, who like the National socialists, Bolshevik socialists etc believe the that all children must be schooled in the state ideology rather than on the Christian ideology such schools were originally created for and by.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
Of course Ireland is not National Socialist WW2 Germany.
It is a matter of discussing issues which make sure we don’t repeat mistakes from the past. Schools are places where much is taught - history, politics and ethics amongst them.
There is a danger in having people who control the state, which is a small political class, directly in control of a societies children’s ideas of these things sometimes against the traditional culture of the people at large.
Historically while the people’s of the world have had their small political elite classes, the people at large have been responsible for their children’s education. In the last 100 years we have had the emergence of those that want their ideology taught to children through the power of the political class controlling schools. This is a very new phenomena and I think it has a very bad record. The National socialists and the swathe of Bolshevik socialist state controlled and mandated education sectors are the obvious bad examples.
All of these were secular and anti Christian. All professed to unify the population but were at their heart anti Christian and sought to create a new unChristian citizen in line with their own prevailing ideologies.
It is a matter of discussing issues which make sure we don’t repeat mistakes from the past. Schools are places where much is taught - history, politics and ethics amongst them.
There is a danger in having people who control the state, which is a small political class, directly in control of a societies children’s ideas of these things sometimes against the traditional culture of the people at large.
Historically while the people’s of the world have had their small political elite classes, the people at large have been responsible for their children’s education. In the last 100 years we have had the emergence of those that want their ideology taught to children through the power of the political class controlling schools. This is a very new phenomena and I think it has a very bad record. The National socialists and the swathe of Bolshevik socialist state controlled and mandated education sectors are the obvious bad examples.
All of these were secular and anti Christian. All professed to unify the population but were at their heart anti Christian and sought to create a new unChristian citizen in line with their own prevailing ideologies.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I agree.
I agree.
I have a secular progressive view, but it is in no way akin to a religion.
There may be some people who regard their progressive secular views with the fervour that some religious people hold theirs, but I would ask you to consider that there are many more progressive secular people whose views are perfectly reasonable and moderate.
You paint an ugly picture, and indeed there are ugly forces at work in the world. People of sense and moderation, whether religious or not, should concentrate on opposing real evil. Conjuring ghosts of National Socialism into a debate about sensible differences of policy is particularly unwise when the spirit of fascism really is alive and active in the world and needs strenuous opposition.
A
abucs
Guest
Yes there is ideology in every school. The question is whether a small political class should have control over that for their own uses or if control of that should be more distributive over the population and be based on a communities organic strength and ability to create their school system.
Irish education has shifted to be less Catholic in recent decades and a former Fine Gael prime minister made this point in argument for existing schools to be even less Catholic.
Make no mistake that this is one of the many problems of mass migration and Ireland would do well to think of this with their 2040 program.
It also must be said that secularism is not a neutral ideology or community and mass migration in connection with secular ideas of rights and equality is a way of making that ideology dominant by attacking Catholic cultural successes such as the school system. As we can see by what has happened both in America and with these latest EU elections this is causing problems all over the western world.
I would say by its very nature the secular project is divisive and aggressive and wishes a power grab even if it portrays itself to people as some sort of neutral, benign common ground movement.
Saying that, I do agree that while Catholic schools should be able to favour their own, requiring students to be baptised is not something I would support.
I have taught in Catholic schools in Australia where enrolments favour Catholics, and mass going Catholics at that. I think this is fair. These schools are very popular and educate about 25% of all Australian school children. The schools attracts non Catholic students and these represent 30% of Catholic school children. The sacraments in some Catholic schools were part of the curriculum but non Catholic students were not mandated to join. In Asia some Catholic schools are almost entirely made up from Muslim students who are not required to be baptised. This I agree with you should be the case in Irish Catholic schools.
I think there is something very wrong though for the secular ideology to dictate what happens in Catholic schools. Part of the problem is that many with the secular ideology believe in a strong state which should dictate their ideology. That is always going to be a problem.
Irish education has shifted to be less Catholic in recent decades and a former Fine Gael prime minister made this point in argument for existing schools to be even less Catholic.
Make no mistake that this is one of the many problems of mass migration and Ireland would do well to think of this with their 2040 program.
It also must be said that secularism is not a neutral ideology or community and mass migration in connection with secular ideas of rights and equality is a way of making that ideology dominant by attacking Catholic cultural successes such as the school system. As we can see by what has happened both in America and with these latest EU elections this is causing problems all over the western world.
I would say by its very nature the secular project is divisive and aggressive and wishes a power grab even if it portrays itself to people as some sort of neutral, benign common ground movement.
Saying that, I do agree that while Catholic schools should be able to favour their own, requiring students to be baptised is not something I would support.
I have taught in Catholic schools in Australia where enrolments favour Catholics, and mass going Catholics at that. I think this is fair. These schools are very popular and educate about 25% of all Australian school children. The schools attracts non Catholic students and these represent 30% of Catholic school children. The sacraments in some Catholic schools were part of the curriculum but non Catholic students were not mandated to join. In Asia some Catholic schools are almost entirely made up from Muslim students who are not required to be baptised. This I agree with you should be the case in Irish Catholic schools.
I think there is something very wrong though for the secular ideology to dictate what happens in Catholic schools. Part of the problem is that many with the secular ideology believe in a strong state which should dictate their ideology. That is always going to be a problem.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
I don’t think fervour is the opposite to reasonableness and moderation. You can have fervour for anything, say football, but be reasonable and moderate. Having fervour with religion is not somehow debilitating one of reasonableness and moderation. This is perhaps one belief that has been strongly pushed in the last 50 years and again I would criticise secular education systems for helping do this.
I accept your point that there are secular people who are reasonable and moderate but I would also ask you to consider the history of nations which actively tried to undermine Christianity as a cultural base and replace it with a secular replacement. This is a big and complex issue but one that I think is very important. At the moment through many western education systems any criticism of this secular project has been met with the new secular ethical ‘sins’ of racism, inequality, sexism etc. To me this is akin to a new religion teaching children secular dogmas to influence society.
I agree with the first part of your comment but again to criticise secular education, controlled by the Left, there are many lessons to learn about the mistakes of the rise of National socialism that will not be taught nor have been taught that people should be aware of. The secular nature of the Nazis and their opposition to Christian education in stated efforts to de-Christianise an ‘outdated school system’ is part of that.
I have taught in both Catholic and secular schools and been involved with the teaching of teachers in universities. You will find many secular ideologues there who actively encourage the removal of Christian culture in deference to a secular Godless replacement based on an ethics of political correctness. i.e. a conflict thesis of history of oppressed and oppressors and equality used to bring down existing non secular power bases and victim identity politics as the new identity and shared moral system together with climate change. I have seen it first hand and been told directly about such things from (forgive me) fervoured secularists trying to convert me and in some cases threaten if their policies are not followed. Sometimes this has been in clear violation of what parents want.
It can be an ugly world in aspects but on the whole it is a beautiful world that sometimes some would wish to transform on the dream of secular ideology.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
I disagree the stasis was due to Catholic education or Catholic culture generally or that Ireland’s relative success in recent decades was by somehow breaking away from that.
Well now we are talking about Ireland’s history and causes and consequences. The famine of course was a disaster that probably had an effect lasting decades. Then there was the devastating First World War that disrupted trade and while Ireland was not directly attacked many Irish including some in my own family either fought for the British or migrated to England to help with the war effort where there was employment. Of course there was the Easter rising and black and tans and then the post treaty fighting and then the second world war followed by the Troubles.
All of this as well as being on the periphery of Europe and not really ever having a strong national government in history and being an economic colony for Britain was mostly a negative. I think when Fianna Fail (from memory) dropped corporate tax rates the country began to turn around. With the peace in Europe and (relative) peace in Ireland I think the Irish were able to participate and benefit from capitalism.
Of course the EU has been good regarding investing in transport and other things although being in hoc to European banks during the financial crisis was not so great when the debt was transferred to the Irish government (for all intensive purposes).
The whole capitalist world is benefitting especially since the fall of the Berlin wall from Brazil to India. Ireland and Europe generally, especially the old soviet bloc have also been part of this economic success. Ireland increase in those of a secular view I don’t think credits this economic benefit shared by much of the world.
Well now we are talking about Ireland’s history and causes and consequences. The famine of course was a disaster that probably had an effect lasting decades. Then there was the devastating First World War that disrupted trade and while Ireland was not directly attacked many Irish including some in my own family either fought for the British or migrated to England to help with the war effort where there was employment. Of course there was the Easter rising and black and tans and then the post treaty fighting and then the second world war followed by the Troubles.
All of this as well as being on the periphery of Europe and not really ever having a strong national government in history and being an economic colony for Britain was mostly a negative. I think when Fianna Fail (from memory) dropped corporate tax rates the country began to turn around. With the peace in Europe and (relative) peace in Ireland I think the Irish were able to participate and benefit from capitalism.
Of course the EU has been good regarding investing in transport and other things although being in hoc to European banks during the financial crisis was not so great when the debt was transferred to the Irish government (for all intensive purposes).
The whole capitalist world is benefitting especially since the fall of the Berlin wall from Brazil to India. Ireland and Europe generally, especially the old soviet bloc have also been part of this economic success. Ireland increase in those of a secular view I don’t think credits this economic benefit shared by much of the world.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Well, yes, although fervour can be dangerous. Fervour for one’s football team can be dangerous — happily football holds no attraction for me
— fervour for one’s religion can be dangerous, as we have seen in recent decades particularly. Personally I favour moderation over fervour. I don’t see the actions of reasonable moderate opponents as threatening to introduce national socialism, even when it is plain to me that they are in error.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One could argue that Ireland’s success was due to becoming an extension of America’s east coast through technology. I remember well when Ireland suddenly became the place where all the insurance adjusters and tech advisors were. You had a fender-bender, you would as often as not, end up talking to an Irish adjuster. They spoke English perfectly, were well-educated, worked for less, and could do the job through electronic connections.
Later, American (and other) countries’ companies located in Ireland. Ireland’s main disadvantage was in being a very small society that couldn’t “have an economy” all its own. Its main advantages were facility with English and a good educational system.
A
abucs
Guest
Yes I think this helped reverse the emigration problem Ireland had suffered from since probably the 1840’s famine. With it’s young staying at home and working in the new industries and indeed attracting recent emigrants back home, the tax base of the country started to grow. Infrastructure was being built and more companies would take advantage. This would lead to a housing and construction boom and suddenly Ireland was on the move with businessmen keen to provide development services in exchange for the new wealth.
Ireland was no longer losing its educated young to emigration and having to look after a population both top and bottom heavy in the age brackets putting great strain on he working age citizens.
I think this is also a good advertisement for a country to have its own independence in forming its laws such as with tax rates and which industries to subsidise.
I remember at the time that I was young and breaking away from the Left side of politics and trying to use this argument as an example to my very political and left orientated family. They’ve all since changed over now, although my Dad still has a soft spot for Sinn Fein.
Ireland was no longer losing its educated young to emigration and having to look after a population both top and bottom heavy in the age brackets putting great strain on he working age citizens.
I think this is also a good advertisement for a country to have its own independence in forming its laws such as with tax rates and which industries to subsidise.
I remember at the time that I was young and breaking away from the Left side of politics and trying to use this argument as an example to my very political and left orientated family. They’ve all since changed over now, although my Dad still has a soft spot for Sinn Fein.
Last edited:
F
Feanor2
Guest
So I live in the US so much of this is difficult for me to understand.
Is there a take away message by the electoral results?
I am hoping for a rejection of the anti-immigration, rightist, nationalists we hear so much about over here.
Is there a take away message by the electoral results?
I am hoping for a rejection of the anti-immigration, rightist, nationalists we hear so much about over here.
G
grotto
Guest
It seems at times that Obama was not kept in the “big chair”, his assistant Val Jarrett was ever present and decisions were made behind the curtain.
A
abucs
Guest
My answer would disappoint you Feanor2.
- Status