Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Is the Republic a secular or a religious state?
Turkey is scene of some of the most explicit tensions between a jealously secular republic and its post Islamist government (Morning Ireland). But, however faint, there may be similar echoes in the Irish Republic. Indeed, Conor Lenihan was somewhat stumped when when after asserting that Sikh Garda officers could not wear their turbans because they could not display religious symbols, Will Crawley asked whether such a ban should not also apply to crucifixes and crosses? It’s a theme ably followed up by Fintan O’Toole in today’s Irish Times:
For my own part, I do not think Sikh officers should be allowed to wear turbans, or Muslim officers allowed to wear hijabs. I entirely agree with Garda spokesman Kevin Donohue when he says that “the person standing in front of you should be representative of the police force - not a Sikh police officer, not a Catholic police officer, not a Jewish police officer”.
Such a stance can be hard on Sikhs and members of other faiths, but it is the only way to avoid a Balkanisation of State services, not just in the Garda or Army, but in schools, hospitals, the Dáil and the courts. The preservation of a public realm that everyone enters equally as a citizen is a value of greater importance than any individual’s right to express a personal identity while performing a State service.
The problem is that this State has absolutely no right to take such a stance. So long as we refuse even to discuss a non-sectarian education system, so long as we evoke a specific religious belief system in every aspect of our system of governance, we have no right to tell anyone that they have to keep their religion separate from their public function. Unless we are to practise naked discrimination, the logic of our current system is that our police officers can wear turbans, hijabs or Jedi light sabres - anything that is required by their faith. We also have to provide a range of religious schools in every community, all paid for by the taxpayer. We have to start Dáil sessions not with one prayer, but with at least 25 - one for each of the main religious groupings in the State - and with an atheist evocation of humanist principles.
Or we could just cop on to ourselves and start creating a public realm in which all religions are respected because none is invoked.
Mick Fealty @ 08:32 AM
Slightly shocked to find myself on the same side as Fintan O’Toole. I think the need to debate the religious control of the southern education system is particularly acute.
Worth noting though that Saturday’s Irish Times reported that:
“The Garda is to review the wearing of ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday, of crucifixes and of pioneer pins with the official uniform, a spokesman for the Garda has confirmed.”A good first step.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:15 AMThe effects of immigration on life on the island of Ireland are fascinating.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:17 AMA point that is overlooked: Sikhs are not required to wear a turban. They are required to not cut their hair. There are two very different things and, I for one, don’t care how long a guard’s hair is.
Very disappointing headline, Mark, and the leading two sentences that link the Republic and Turkey are downright ignorant if not verging on insane. Do you honestly believe that such tensions, however “faint” as you call them, exist in the Republic?
A “non-sectarian education system”? First, religious schools are slowly being taken over by communities as the religious orders decline in number. Second, I don’t know of any that discriminate against entry on the basis of religion - as far as I know, unlike north of the border and east across the water, it is illegal for a school in receipt of state funding to do so (no?). Third, I don’t know of anyone who could really give a damn because religion is just plainly a non-issue.
As for starting Dáil sessions with a prayer - scrap it - but is this not also standard practice in a certain jurisdiction where the head of state is also the head of the established church?
Of course, none of these would be reasons to tip off a supposedly informed blog with the question, “Is England a secular or a religious state?” Seriously, grow up.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:20 AMThe Republic started off in 1921 as almost a client state for the Vatican but is now almost completely secular,the under 30`s down there have little or no interest in religion in any shape or form. Good on them. Divorce has been legal for years now and the recent paedophile skandal regarding their priests has really damaged any remaining influence the Church ever had upon it`s populace. To be frank, all the past legitimate reasons for northern protestsnts rejecting a united Ireland are eroding away. We live in a rapidly changing country.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:34 AMIt’s Mick OilifĂ©ar. The question for the Republic arises from Lenihan’s logic that as an officer of the Republic a Garda would be required to eschew all religious symbols, rather than out any binary with the UK.
See this note on Whataboutery as a tactic for evading awkward questions.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:44 AMO’Toole sees a chance to beat his drum in favour of state-run education rather than the parental choice we have now.
Parental choice and the fact that virtually every “Catholic” school is now mixed, is leading to, as OilifĂ©ar mentions, the beginning of the end for purely Catholic school boards.
As things are in 2007, schools are not sectarian but the boards that run them are.
The changes all too slow for my liking but it’s hardly surprising this area isn’t keeping up with the pace of change Ireland is undergoing.
But it is happening and is the right way to go. I don’t want an education system devoid of religion and I don’t believe the majority of people in Ireland, north and south, do.
Even good old Sweden is moving away from state-run education and towards the Irish education model of parental choice.
As for taking the references to a Christian God out of the Constitution, I seem to recall the PDs wanted that one. Once again, I don’t know if the majority in Ireland want that one.
The Garda, meanwhile, look like they’ll be banning the crucifixes and ashes on Ash Wednesday.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:52 AMApologies, Mick, but didn’t I mean any “whataboutery.” In terms of the Republic, I answered all questions in relation to the Republic. Comparasions with England were intended to demonstrate the insanity of the headline (leading to the last paragraph), not to argue “we can’t be bad because you’re worse.” It’s the headline that’s bad, not the UK or Ireland.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:53 AMOilifĂ©ar, it’s entirely legal for Catholic schools in the 26 Counties to admit children only upon production of their baptismal certificate. Because of oversubscription an increasing number of them are doing so and, in fact, it’s been reported that some non-religious parents are having their children baptised for that reason alone.
Also:
religious schools are slowly being taken over by communities as the religious orders decline in number
At last glance, 95% of primary schools here were still run by the Catholic church.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:57 AM... the headline and two leading sentences.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 09:58 AMAs O’Toole points out, far from being secular enough. As for parental choice, individual rights must be balanced against the good of the society that guarantees those rights. Abolish religious education.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:00 AM“As O’Toole points out, far from being secular enough. As for parental choice, individual rights must be balanced against the good of the society that guarantees those rights. Abolish religious education. “
Or alternatively, the state should keep it’s nose out of parental choices.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:14 AMKensei,
Not if what has come to be called parental choice (a Thatcherite buzzword for the state abrogating its responsibilities if ever I saw it) is damaging to the fabric of society. As it has been in the north. And has the potential to be in an increasingly more diverse south. And as it will be if that moron Blair’s plans for more faith schools in the UK come to pass.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:18 AMWednesday, I find you that you are right. From the “Equal Status Act” 2000:
“(3) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that—
...
(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,”
It was apparantly not until 2000 that such decisions were possible (Educate Together). I now wonder to what extent they occur. What does a school have to do to “prove” that the “the refusal is essential”? Off the bat it would read as if it would act more in protection of Church of Ireland schools (by preserving numbers), but I wonder how a Catholic school could get away with it and do you know of any reported examples?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:22 AM... ah, just reread line before about “refusals” - a school can discriminate “in preference to others”, so I suppose an over-subscribed school can take a “Catholics first” policy. Shocking.
Has it caused problems that anyone knows of?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:25 AMPeople talk of parental choice in education as if they decided the Church should have a part to play.
What nonsense! The Church assumed authority at the formation of the state and had no consultation with the laity.
The Church’s aim was to create a catholic ethos in our schools irrespective of the views of parents, but as most of the parents were Catholic there was no objection.
Things are now moving so fast that education should be run by the State.
Let the parents have an opportunity to speak.Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:34 AMOilifĂ©ar, read that text from the Equal Status Act closely. The school only has to prove that the refusal is essential in cases where it can’t use as an excuse that there are no places left for the student because Catholic children were given priority. The problem these days is that so many schools are oversubscribed, it’s quite easy for them to fill up all their available spaces with Catholic children, and then they can just say “Sorry, no room for the rest of youse.”
I’ve heard of a number of such cases anecdotally, but proof that it is actually the schools’ policy in Dublin can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/2uo688
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:36 AMGaribaldy,
“parental choice (a Thatcherite buzzword for the state abrogating its responsibilities if ever I saw it)”It’s been around for 70 years in Ireland and is enshrined in the Constitution. It means the parents (aka the taxpayers) decide how their children are educated and the State (aka their servants) provide it.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:37 AMUnfortunately George, as the Educate Together crowd will tell you, the State isn’t doing very well at providing non-religious education to those parents who choose it.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:47 AMWednesday, thanks - disgraceful!
The “refusals” bit I can understand and think it’s only right (nobody would want a rural Church of Ireland school with 10 pupils being flooded with 50-odd Catholics, that just wouldn’t be fair) - but the “preference” bit is a bit rich! Schools are a valuable resource, it’s not as if an over-subscribed Catholic school faces any real threat to its “ethos” from a handful of protestant, Muslims, Jews, athiests and non-give-a-crap-ers. It’s just plain wrong.
On the other hand, it does put pressure on government to provide more school places to undercut the issue, but of course, as we all know, that’s no easy task with the population rocketing.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 10:52 AMGeorge,
I see no sign of the phrase “parental choice” in the 1937 constitution. I do see that the constitution says that no family will be forced to send children to schools against their conscience. I don’t see where it says that the state has to pay for religious education. All of which is beside the point.
We aren’t talking about what the constitution does say and what policy is, but what it should say and what policy should be. Perhaps we could start by removing the references to the Holy Trinity at the start of the constitution, and all the rest of the religious references in it to create a modern secular state.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:02 AM“Not if what has come to be called parental choice (a Thatcherite buzzword for the state abrogating its responsibilities if ever I saw it) is damaging to the fabric of society. As it has been in the north. And has the potential to be in an increasingly more diverse south. And as it will be if that moron Blair’s plans for more faith schools in the UK come to pass.”
Why not go the whole hog and ban religion then, seeing as it is so divisive to our society?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:04 AMKensei, while nobody’s calling for religion to be banned, there is no need for the State to subsidise it. The Church can certainly well afford to cover its indoctrination from its own pocketbook.
Another point on the religious ethos exemption is that it can be used as an excuse to discriminate against qualified teachers: http://tinyurl.com/3daklb
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:09 AM“Kensei, while nobody’s calling for religion to be banned, there is no need for the State to subsidise it. The Church can certainly well afford to cover its indoctrination from its own pocketbook.”
Are you prepared to give me a rebate on my taxes? If I now have to pay to send my child to a Catholic school (that pocket book will ultimately be the parishes), my taxes are subsidising other people’s kids. Hardly fair, is it?
And if I want my future kids “indoctrinated”, well, it’s none of your business.
“Another point on the religious ethos exemption is that it can be used as an excuse to discriminate against qualified teachers: http://tinyurl.com/3daklb “
There are several solutions to that problem short of the total removal of Catholic education.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:13 AMGaribaldy,
Article 42.1
“The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.”Supplemented by:
Article 42.4The State shall provide for free primary education.
In other words, the State will provide for the wishes of the primary educator - the parent.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:15 AMKensei:
If I now have to pay to send my child to a Catholic school
Did you read what I wrote? I said the Church should pay for it.
if I want my future kids “indoctrinated”, well, it’s none of your business.
It is if my taxes are paying for it.
There are several solutions to that problem short of the total removal of Catholic education.
Agreed. But those solutions aren’t likely to be implemented while the Church retains its stranglehold on the education system.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:21 AM
