• Archives

  • Categories

  • Named one of the top Atheist / Agnostic Blogs by Unreasonable Faith

  • Recent Comments

    nancyabramsblogger's avatarnancyabramsblogger on World Blasphemy Day
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Shane's avatarShane on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Laura's avatarLaura on Constitutional Convention Dead…
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on HAI’s EGM on 26 June 201…
  • Locations of visitors to this page

  • Meta

  • Wikipedia Affiliate Button

Constitution of Ireland, if Article 41.2 removed, will still show duty of parents in Articles 42 and 42A

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

The Dáil and Senate have on 23 January 2024 passed 2 Bills for 2 Referenda to make 2 changes to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland.

Voting Day for the 2 Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

Each voter will receive 2 Ballot Papers, one for each Amendment/ Referendum.

To help people to decide how they will vote, the Mid-West Humanists will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday 20 February 2024.

One Referendum, for Amendment no 40, will remove Article 41.2, if a majority of the people vote Yes. Part of this Amendment will thus remove reference to a mother’s … duties in the home.

Some voters are concerned that this duty will then be entirely absent from the Constitution.

This is probably not true: the duty exists in some other Articles of the Constitution.

To help with people’s decisions, we show here the text of Articles 42 and 42A. These will remain the same after one Referendum or both is/ are passed by the people.

We show here how Article 42 (Education) and Article 42A (Children) say that the State respects the duty of parents to provide for the education of their children (42), and respects the duty of parents, generally (42A).
We here emphasise in blue the words that show these duties.

The duty of parents in Article 42 is that they provide for the education of their children. They may do this by sending their children to a school, but the parents still do other education generally at home, that does not happen in schools.

The duty of parents in Article 42A is not specified; but in section 2 of Article 42A their failure to do that duty may involve the State supplying the place of the parents. This permits the law that a Court (a Judge) can take a child, whom the parents have so failed, away from those parents.
Thus the duty of parents in section 2 of Article 42A is to give all the care and support that is normal for parents to give. This is wider than a mother’s … duties in the home. It includes the same duty of fathers, and the duty of both parents when the child(ren) are neither at home or at school.

 

ARTICLE 42                          Education

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.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3        1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

 

ARTICLE 42A                       Children                (inserted by a Referendum in 2012)

1       The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws respect and vindicate those rights.

2       1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3       Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4     1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—

i      brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii      concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child,

the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

We hope that people’s knowledge of these Articles will help people when deciding how to vote.

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  You can read about the Open Meeting, on Tuesday 20 February 2024, about the Amendments and the Referenda.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3.  We show the present words of Article 41, together with the words as they will be if each Amendment is passed, and if both Amendments are passed.

 

Filed under: constitution, Dáil Éireann, education, ireland, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Text of Constitution of Ireland 2024, Article 41, now and when or if amended

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

The Dáil and Senate on 23 January 2024 passed 2 Bills for 2 Referenda to make 2 changes to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland.

The day to Vote on the 2 Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

Each voter will receive 2 Ballot Papers, one for each Amendment/ Referendum.

 

To help people to decide how they will vote, the Mid-West Humanists will hold an Open Meeting on Tuesday 20 February 2024.

To help with people’s decisions, we show here the text of Article 41 as it is now.

After that, we show the text of Article 41 as it will be –

if Amendment no 39 is passed by the people;
if Amendment no 40 is passed by the people;
if both Amendments nos 39 and 40 are passed by the people.

 

Article 41, as it is now

1.      1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

4.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

————————————————-

In the versions of Article 41 that are possible after being amended,

bold indicates words that will be added;
strikethrough indicates words that will be removed.
plain text indicates words that will remain the same

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment no 39 is passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

4.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

————————————————-

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment no 40 is passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

         2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

As Amendment no 40 deletes all of Section 2, it reduces the number of each later section by 1

2.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

3.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Amendment no 40 inserts a new Article, with the title “Care”

ARTICLE 42B               Care

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

 

————————————————-

Article 41, as it will be if Amendment nos 39 and 40 are passed

1.      1° The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2.      1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

         2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

As Amendment no 40 deletes all of Section 2, it reduces the number of each later section by 1

2.      1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i      there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
ii      such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iii      any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° Provision may be made by law for the recognition under the law of the State of a dissolution of marriage granted under the civil law of another state.

3.     Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Amendment no 40 inserts a new Article, with the title “Care”

ARTICLE 42B               Care

The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.

 

In the versions of Article 41 that are possible after being amended as above,

bold indicates words that will be added;
strikethrough indicates words that will be removed.
plain text indicates words that will remain the same.

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  You can read about the Open Meeting, on Tuesday 20 February 2024, about the Amendments and the Referenda.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3. We show the words of Articles 42 and 42A, because they contain State support for duties of parents that will remain in the Constitution if a majority of the people vote Yes to Amendment no 40. Here are 3 reasons to read these Articles –
    1. Article 42 supports the duty of parents to provide Education to their children.
    2. Article 42A supports the duty of parents to provide all aspects of care to their children.
    3. Both Articles 42 and 42A refer to parents, that is, both mothers and fathers (non-sexist).

 

 

Filed under: constitution, Dáil Éireann, ireland, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, social issues | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid-West Humanists to hold Open Meeting on the Referenda on Article 41

Posted on February 10th, 2024 by peterohara

 

The Voting Day for the Referenda will be Friday 08 March 2024.

The Mid-West Humanists will hold a meeting, about the 2 Referenda about Article 41 of the Constitution.

Any person can attend. A person can speak their views, hear others’ views, and discuss this matter.

We hope that by the end of the meeting people will know better how they will vote.

The meeting will be –

Date                      :             Tuesday 20 February 2024

Time                     :             20:00

Venue                   :             Strand Hotel, Ennis Road, Limerick 

The meeting is in a room on the 6th floor. There is a lift from Reception; there is a lift from the car park to Reception.

The meeting is open, and all people are welcome.

Make sure that you are registered to vote in the Referenda which will be on Friday 08 March 2024.

Purpose of the Meeting

This meeting is an opportunity for all persons interested in the Constitution of Ireland, and in improving or modernising the Constitution – an opportunity to consider carefully which way to vote in the coming 2 Referenda about Article 41.

We can only vote Yes or No to what the Dáil and Senate send to us. It looks likely that many of the people who want to change Article 41 want to change it more extensively or profoundly than that.
The meeting is to help you decide whether to vote Yes or No when the proposals are not how you would write them.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality recommended in 2021 that the Constitution –

  1. continue to recognise the Family, and protect private and family life, including forms of family life beyond the Family based on marriage; and that
  2. the text of Article 41.2 (woman, mothers’ duty, in the home) be replaced by language that is not gender specific and recognises the principle of valuing and sharing care and commits the State to ensuring that its policies reflect this principle.

In January 2024 the Dáil and Senate passed 2 Bills to amend Article 41 of the Constitution. The Oireachtas (Dáil and Senate) now send them to the people in 2 Referenda, for the people’s vote, Yes or No.
Amendment no 39 is about the Family – item 1 by the Citizens’ Assembly

Amendment no 40 is about woman in the home – item 2 by the Citizens’ Assembly

The Bills propose changes that are less than what the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality recommended. We the people cannot enlarge the changes to what the Citizens’ Assembly sought; we can only vote Yes or No to what the Dáil and Senate send to us.

Conduct of the Meeting

This meeting will try to allow every person, who so desires, to give their opinion. While one person is giving their view, we ask all others to listen, and not to talk.

Any person can have a view on what another person has said. We want to hear these opinions also – if you have such a view, please wait until the other person has finished speaking and until the chairperson has indicated that it is your turn to speak.

We hope that both speaking your own opinion out loud and hearing other opinions will make things clearer in your mind as to the best way for you to vote.

You may also ask questions of any person and of us who are running the meeting. Please answer as best you can if someone asks a question of you – though you are not obliged to answer.

At the end of the meeting, the good result will be that as many people as possible will know how they will vote, for their own reasons.

 

We have 3 further posts relevant to deciding how to vote.

  1.  We show the present words of Article 41, together with the words as they will be if each Amendment is passed, and if both Amendments are passed.
  2. We show a list of changes that a voter might have wanted, though most of these are not included in the 2 Referenda. You could read this list to see if you can be clearer in your own mind what changes you wanted. You could compare your idea to what is included in the 2 Referenda. That may help you decide which way to vote.
  3. We show the words of Articles 42 and 42A, because they contain State support for duties of parents that will remain in the Constitution if a majority of the people vote Yes to Amendment no 40. Here are 3 reasons to read these Articles –
    1. Article 42 supports the duty of parents to provide Education to their children.
    2. Article 42A supports the duty of parents to provide all aspects of care to their children.
    3. Both Articles 42 and 42A refer to parents, that is, both mothers and fathers (non-sexist).

Filed under: constitution, cultural issues, Dáil Éireann, humanism, Meetings, political issues, Seanad Éireann, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Why the Mid-West Humanists favour Repealing the 8th Amendment

Posted on February 26th, 2018 by peterohara

The Mid-West Humanists are campaigning to Repeal the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. This includes printing a leaflet, for the public, that contains rational arguments for removing Article 40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) from the constitution. We welcome any comments on the leaflet and its arguments, particularly if there are any less rational elements in it.

The Mid-West Humanists’ meetings have discussed abortion and abortion law several times between 2013 and 2018. At the start there was not so much consensus on these, and it has been a difficult subject, but consensus has increased.

Secular Society

Like most humanists, the Mid-West Humanists believe that societies should be secular – that is, societies should not be tied to or biased towards religions, or to any other kind of group within society (where such a group seeks to have society close to what that group prefer). Mostly we pay attention to the models or plans for society that religious groups prefer.

These models, both in Ireland and in other countries and other parts of the world, reduce the freedom of people to do things that cause no harm. In the biased models of society, the proponents see advantages for the religion or religions that believe in the particular model. Often leaders of those religious groups (often unelected) say that a society like their model society will give greater benefit and freedom to people, meaning largely people who belong to that religion.

The religious models of society often do this by having State institutions or laws limit or prohibit acts (which cause no harm to other persons) that that religion prohibits.

As well as from people of no religion or of other religions, such a set of institutions and laws takes freedom from people who belong to the religion that chose this model. You can belong to a religion and still not agree with all of its ideas, especially the things that it likes to prohibit. The official leaders of the religion are usually not elected by the members.

Democracy includes that people have freedom of thought, and of action that does no harm. This includes freedom to join or not to join a religion. A society that includes people of many religions and of no religion must have no bias towards any religion. Except in prohibiting actions that really do harm other people, the society must also not have a bias against religion.

Secular Society, Humanism, and Abortion law

The Mid-West Humanists’ interest and actions, that societies should be secular, means looking at any restriction in society that is a bias towards religion, or towards any group or any idea of any kind, that reduces people’s freedom to do things that cause no harm.
Laws, that limit getting a pregnancy terminated, come from a bias from religious doctrines; and they also come from a bias towards people in society quite rigidly obeying rules in the society. This second bias is from a model of society in which social rules are counted as just as firmly fixed as the laws of physics and chemistry (sometimes this is called the tribal type of society).

The Mid-West Humanists have no reason to support either of these 2 biases, and a secular society should make its rules and laws by reason.
Humanism means that there is no value from gods or their revelations for choosing features of society or for choosing moral rules.
Humanists have compassion for human embryos and fetuses, not yet born, but when comparing that with their compassion for girls and women who have been independently alive for one or more decades, humanists use reason to reach a decision.

Many meetings of the Mid-West Humanists between 2013 and 2018 have discussed abortion and the law on abortion. We have not all agreed on all aspects of this – as humanists say humans can make moral rules, so a group of humanists do not all reach the same moral rule. Yet between 2013 and 2018 we have come much closer to a consensus.
The most salient balance that any of us have achieved when there is a conflict on compassion for humans and respect for their rights, between a human carrying a fetus and that human fetus, is that most of us have set the right of the person who is alive for decade(s) higher than that of the fetus. In this view, we don’t see it as right that society or the state would force a woman, once she is pregnant, to stay pregnant if she does not want to continue.

All of the Mid-West Humanists do not want any law that forces anyone to terminate her pregnancy. A law that lets a woman choose to end pregnancy must leave the decision with her.

How it makes sense to campaign for a Yes vote to repeal the 8th amendment to the Constitution

The context described above is a consensus among the regular attenders at the Mid-West Humanists that the nearly complete prohibition on abortion in the constitution is due to a bias from religion, and also due to a bias from the rigid tribal model of social rules; and a large majority of the Mid-West Humanists consider it should be removed, under the principles of humanism and secularism.

When the government is in this year 2018 going to let the people vote to remove the prohibition, I and the others in the large majority believe it is right to campaign to make people aware of the arguments to remove Article 40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) from the constitution. All the arguments in the leaflet for the public are rational; and if any of those arguments are not so rational, we welcome comments on this post, or on the related post that announced the campaign, or in the Facebook group.

Filed under: constitution, cultural issues, debate, ethics, humanism, ireland, law, Meetings, morality, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid-West Humanists on Radio LCCR

Posted on December 4th, 2016 by peterohara

Mid-West Humanists

Limerick City Community Radio (LCCR)

The Mid-West Humanists have broadcast their second radio program today Sunday 04 December 2016, at 15:00 in the afternoon – on Education.

You can listen to this again on LCCR at lccr.ie on Tuesday 06 December 2016 at 19:00.

If you view the LCCR Schedule for Sundays, our program is part of the Community Focus series at 15:00. If you view the schedule for Tuesdays, Community Focus at 19:00 is to be the program in that series already broadcast on the preceding weekend.

Limerick City Community Radio (LCCR) broadcasts on 99.9 megacycles per second on Saturdays and Sundays from 08:00 to 24:00 (midnight) – reception is only within a short distance of Limerick City – and on its website. On weekdays LCCR is only available on its website, for various hours (less than the weekend).

On weekdays the 99.9 megacycles per second channel in the frequency modulation (FM) service on Very High Frequency (VHF) band 2 (87.5 to 108 Mc/s) broadcasts Wired FM, which is the radio station of Mary Immaculate College, Limerick. Thus the radio data signal, on a radio that shows this, will display “Wired FM”, even on Saturdays and Sundays.

How Mid-West Humanists  came to be on the radio

Limerick City Community Radio ran 36 hours of sponsored programs by community groups on 31 October to 01 November 2016. LCCR accepted our live studio discussion program in that series.

Program 1.

Broadcast at 21:00 on 31 10 2016

Discussion on humanism, education, and the humanist vision of society – 3 Mid-West Humanists and one of us chairing, live in their studio.

On 01 11 2016 (the day after Program 1), LCCR asked us to make a program to be in the Community Focus series every month.

Program 2.

Broadcast at 15:00 on 04 12 2016

On education – recorded in advance in the LCCR studio.

We interviewed Maria Collins-Harper, who has been involved in securing the new secondary school to open in Limerick in 2018, followed by discussion with 2 Mid-West Humanist and Maria, on what Ireland needs in the education system so that people growing up can be truly educated and also integrated in the society in which people live.

Future Programs

Future programs will be at 15:00 on about every 4th Sunday. The precise Sunday for our next program is not settled yet.

Program 3 will be about the celebration and the celebrations of life.

Filed under: announcements, audio, constitution, education, humanism, radio, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Minister’s public meeting 22 January on Patronage of Mungret Second-level school

Posted on January 28th, 2016 by peterohara

On Friday 22 01 2016 there was a meeting in the South Court Hotel, Raheen, Limerick, about the process of choosing what group will be Patron of the Second-level school in Mungret, due to be open for pupils in 2017.

Jan O’Sullivan T.D. Minister for Education and Skills described the process to decide who will be the Patron, and answered questions about this from the people who filled one of the large conference rooms in the hotel.

The meeting was NOT about hearing people’s choice about which patron group they want, but about telling us about the process.

Department of Education’s process to choose a Patron for a new Second-level school

The Department will choose a group of people who will be independent from them. Just how to choose them, and which sort of people, was not clear.

Collecting the views of parents is up to a group that wants to apply to be the patron, and so is the method of receiving parents’ views. They should check parents by the electoral register.

The aspiring patron group or organisation would put its case to the independent deciding group near the end of 2016. Some people said this might not let the school be ready to take children in September 2017, and the minister said she would see about making this nearer the middle of 2017.

The new school would be part of the common application system for secondary schools in the Limerick area, and so the parents whose views are to be sought are all parents in this area.

A person attached to Educate Together (ET) spoke, and said that they will hold a public meeting at the South Court Hotel on Thursday 04 02 2016 at 20:00, as their process of receiving the views of parents. They distributed a leaflet about this, which says to go to Limerick Educate Together Second Level and fill an Expression of Interest form.

A person connected to the Eduation and Training Board for Limerick and Clare (ETB; previously called Vocational Education Committee, VEC) said they collect parent’s views by visiting schools in turn. They have already done one visit.

The applicants to be patron are to tell the independent deciding group their model of how they will operate the school, with an ethos, admission policy, and other features; and the parents’ views that they obtained. It was not clear that there is a mechanism to ensure that this admission policy will be identical to the one they told to the parents.

The Department of Education and Skills is already negotiating with Limerick City and County Council about the roads and other services to enable the school to be built and to operate.

Parents’ comments on the process to choose a Patron for a new Second-level school

About 10 or more people present commented on the procedure taking the views of parents in the whole Limerick second-level application system. Several of these mentioned children travelling long distances to schools outside their own area, and if the new school is not what a parent or pupil in the south-west suburbs of Limerick would prefer, many children will still be travelling far. The minister did not offer to change this rule.

While there is a limit to the money an applicant to be Patron may spend in taking parents’ views (on the screen at the meeting a limit of €300 was shown) the meeting did not hear of any monitoring of the money they spend. The chosen  patron must pay a €50,000 maximum contribution to the intitial construction or fitting of the school.

At least 10 parents said that their child is at an Educate Together primary school, and they have no choice for second-level school when the child reaches that age. Near the end of the meeting a parent said that schools with Roman Catholic patrons accept children of all religions and races, and the community of such schools is not full of racists. The minister’s next reply was that the meeting is to give information; and that one of the criteria in deciding which group will be patron of the new school is how big will be the diversity of second-level school patrons after the decision.

Filed under: education, ireland, Meetings, political issues, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Mid-West Humanists ask Minister for Education not to entrench religious control of National Schools

Posted on April 27th, 2015 by peterohara

A delegation from the Mid-West Humanists met Jan O’Sullivan T.D. Minister for Education and Skills on 24 April 2015, about the Leases of National Schools.

Our National Schools – origins and rules

Now most people believe that our National Schools are tied to principles of various religions (mostly the Roman Catholic religion).

Well, the popular awareness of the origin of National Schools is correct, that the United Kingdom government set them up from 1830 onwards. The government wanted Trustees for each school to include people of a mixture of religions. No such mixed Trustees volunteered, and only sets of clergy of a single religion became Trustees. From the religion of the Trustees, National Schools got called Roman Catholic schools, Church of Ireland schools, etc.

Historians have described the one-religion nature of every set of Trustees as the churches subverting the UK government’s plan. However the plan was subverted only in that the Trustees do not include a mixture of religions.

The Lease of each school vested the running of the school in Trustees, who thereby promised to run the school by the Lease and by the rules from the Minister for Education. From the beginning to the end, the Leases did not mention a religion.

The Leases write “…the object of the system of National Education is to afford Combined literary and moral, and Separate Religious Instruction to children of all persuasions, as far as possible in the same school, upon the fundamental principle that no attempt shall be made to interfere with the peculiar religious tenets of any pupil.”

This may be a surprise to readers, as our National Schools are indeed controlled by clergy of religions – and to most people this includes the idea that those clergy as Trustees run the schools in the style of that particular religion, and that they are entitled to run them in a religious manner. This is actually contrary to the statement in the Lease that we just mentioned. Continue reading →

Filed under: atheism, constitution, education, humanism, ireland, law, political issues, religion, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Minister for Education responds to our request for State Secular schools, and we reply

Posted on March 19th, 2015 by peterohara

The Mid West Humanists met the Minister for Education and Skills Jan O’Sullivan TD on 28 November 2014. We told her then that we seek a system of State secular schools to replace the present system of schools devolved to patrons. We put our detailed requests in writing also.

On 10 March the Minister responded to our request. We sent a reply to the Minister on 16 March. We show both of these here. You will see that the Minister and Department of Education and Skills are making some changes. Yet the need for a peaceful society is still for schools to be secular and not divided by religion, and the State should own the schools. The Minister’s letter does not mention this our main idea.

In our reply we noted to the Minister that at present, because 92% of primary schools are under the Roman Catholic patrons, those schools could feel some duty now to adapt to pupils who are not Roman Catholic. Recently the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland wrote a report about this adaptation, and the publication alone shows that they feel under some such pressure. Our response to the Minister is about this pressure, and how even that pressure will disappear if the country’s schools come to contain a substantial minority of schools with patrons which treat all children in a secular, egalitarian manner. The RC schools would then be more like their own ethos than they are now, and children at those schools would hear little of the variety of cultures that exist in Ireland.
We are not endorsing the particular plans in the report, which Atheist Ireland has reviewed and found greatly wanting.

 

The Minister’s letter to the Mid West Humanists: –

10  March 2015

Dear Mr O’Hara,

 

I refer to your correspondence following our meeting in November 2014.  Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to you. Continue reading →

Filed under: atheism, constitution, education, humanism, ireland, political issues, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Respect for persons; no respect for ideas; Limerick school was right to let Charlie Hebdo in the classroom

Posted on February 7th, 2015 by peterohara

While I would like to vote in a referendum to remove the sentence from Ireland’s Constitution that makes blasphemy a crime, I am writing now to help distinguish between (1) respect for humans and their rights, and (2) culture and ideas (including religious culture and ideas) having no rights to respect. Instead, ideas should be open to criticism, and people have rights to make criticism and to live in a society where other people make criticisms too.

Especially when you are a child, but also throughout all of life, a really good society is one where various people are making criticisms of various ideas and elements of culture and society, with no long intervals between such criticisms both in the public news and in your private life. In so far as I have a right to have a good society in which to live, I have a right to such criticisms going on all the time.

 

The Limerick Leader reported on 05 February 2015

that a teacher at Limerick Educate Together School recently asked pupils to bring in matter relevant to the French Revolution of 1789 and freedom of speech; and a pupil took in a copy of the Charlie Hebdo of 14 01 2015, which the teacher showed to the pupils, and this offended a pupil who is Muslim;
and –
that a parent of this second pupil, as well as complaining to the school, gave the following view to the Limerick Leader – that the cover picture has caused great insult within the Islam community in Ireland and the world; and that the child was “subjected” to seeing the magazine; and that parents teach children to have respect for all peoples and for their cultures and for their religions, of which educators should be mindful. This read as if the magazine being shown in the class took away from such respect.

I agree fully with respect for all people, but disagree entirely with the idea of an obligation to have respect for any culture.

1. I favour respect for all persons and their legal, constitutional, and human rights, and the special rights of children: and special rights means, because they are growing up, that children need both protection from dangers AND open availability of information so that they can grow into good citizens, which includes understanding the cultures of the society in which they live.

Continue reading →

Filed under: blasphemy, constitution, cultural issues, education, islam, law, religion, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Media Release – Mid West Humanists meet Minister for Education and ask that Ireland have a State Secular system of schools

Posted on November 29th, 2014 by peterohara

This is what we sent to the local press after the visit to the Minister for Education and Skills

Mid West Humanists

An Atheist Community in Limerick, Clare, and Tipperary

www.midwesthumanists.com/                        info@midwesthumanists.com

www.facebook.com/groups/midwesthumanists/                        28 November 2014

MEDIA RELEASE

 

For Immediate Release

 

Mid-West Humanists meet Minister for Education and Skills and ask that Ireland have a State Secular system of schools

 

Members of the Mid-West Humanists (MWH) met Jan O’Sullivan TD Minister for Education and Skills on 28 November 2014 to ask that Ireland’s system of schools, primary and second-level, be changed to a state system of entirely secular schools.

The Mid West Humanists said to the Minister that the present education system discriminates against children who have no religion and breaches their human rights by denying them access to an education free from the teaching of religious beliefs as facts. These children have the same rights as those of any religion to be taught in an objective manner by the teachers, whom their parents also pay through their taxes. In the last census in 2011 there were 256,000 people who stated that they had no religion, though the true number is substantially more.

The present system – the Patronage system – is biased towards religion, and towards some few religions even more strongly.

There are 3200 primary schools in Ireland. For 94% of these schools, the Patron is a religious organisation, and for 90% the Patron is Roman Catholic. Of the 3200 schools, 1800 are each more than 10km from the nearest other primary school. These all have Roman Catholic patrons. These schools are smaller than average, and these districts cannot support 2 schools.
The changes that the Mid-West Humanists seek to Ireland’s education system, in addition to removing the bias and the discrimination, will make it easier for government to deal with the increasing variety of religions to which people in Ireland belong – including making it easier to provide education.

The secular system that we propose would also liberate teachers who are unhappily forced to teach values in which they no longer believe.

Continue reading →

Filed under: atheism, Census, education, humanism, ireland, political issues, religion, Secularism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Next Page »