TotD: Education

I have been having difficulty titling this particular blog post. Here are some alternatives to give you a better idea of what I'm going to be talking about.
TotD: No cutbacks, no changes, no Labour in the chambers.
TotD: The death of the Labour Party.
TotD: Why this time of year Ruairi?
TotD: Teachers preparing to strike.

I don't know if anyone is following the news regarding teacher pay. I have only been barely following it myself but have some interest because teaching happens to be my profession, even if the government have already made it nigh on impossible for us to get jobs.

So to briefly summarise what I know Croke Park 1 did to teachers pay:
Pay was cut by 14%-30% depending on what stage in your career you were.
Pensions were cut by 4%
Schools with teachers on trips could no longer hire subs.
33 hours of, pretty much, pointless hours were added to a teachers year, just so the government could feel they were getting more for less.
Supervision classes that a teacher does unpaid were increased from 2 to 3.

There are other things too but one of the most important is that Croke Park set teachers' pay and promised to protect it until 2014.

The Labour Party and Fine Gael promised no further changes to pay would be discussed until that time.
Now they are looking for another change.

Croke Park 2 (CPX) would introduce the following (on top of Croke Park 1):
-further pay cuts of 5.5% plus 4.4% in supervision cuts. Add that to the previous 14% (low end) and teacher pay has been cut by 23.9% in the past couple of year.
-Supervision payments will go completely (totally around 1,800 a year)
-Pension money will be further reduced (at least from a lower income)
-Promotions will not get more pay.
-Increments will be frozen.
-New teachers will not increase salary until 24 years into the job (so if I start now and work and have a family and they go to college, by the time my oldest finishes college I might get a pay increase). That puts that into a scary perspective doesn't it?
-Extra pay given for further education (higher rates for those with masters compared to just a BA) has gone and will stay gone.
-A teacher's career increases from 40 years of service to 47 years, meaning eventually with the ban on recruitment we will have very old teachers.
-Supervision for non permanent teachers will be cut (meaning I will not even get a day of teaching in the year, effectively creating no work at all for NQTs). This cut takes off the first day of substitution for a sick teacher, if they are ill a second day a sub can be found.
-JobBridge comes in, under this the Government could employ a teacher for 50 Euro a week.... yes, read that again... Effectively it would mean teachers working for pittance, practically for free. Imagine the effects that would have on the classroom!
-The amount of supervision a teacher does will increase by 12 hours/year from 37 paid hours to 49 unpaid hours.
-The Croke Park Hours, as we unaffectionately call them, will increase from 33 to 36.
- This means teachers will be expected to work 85 hours a year for FREE! (49 + 36)


Okay, there's more there too but I hope you get the point from what I have there and can see, a little better, the plight of teachers.
The media makes it out that we/teachers are just uncooperative rebels who want to bankrupt the country but that is not the case. An almost 25% pay cut and an extra 85 hours of work is just insane. Plus the effects that CPX will have on students are unacceptable. No subs would cause chaos in schools it's ridiculous.

Students need stability in their education. If a student has many teachers for one subject they are more likely to perform badly in that subject than if they have one or two teachers over the course of their cycle (JC and LC)

Ruairi Quinn, the Labour Party and the Government have broken a deal with Teachers and despite a vote against the CPX 'Deal' the Gov. plans to legislate (their proposed cuts in CPX) anyway.

This unfortunate situation leaves teachers in the difficult position of DEMOCRATICALLY rejecting a 'deal' that shouldn't be mentioned until next year, at the least, according to Government promises to those who educate the future of this country.

Teachers HAVE to strike. There is nothing else left to them except to lie down and take whatever is thrown at them, which they did last time and lost between 14 and 30% of their income (by the way if 30% last time it increases to just under 40% [39.9%])


Personally I believe this act has signed the death warrant of the Labour Party, as a member of that party it makes me sad. The party that stood for equality and change have turned out to be just as bad as Fianna Fail.

Also, I will be standing with the teachers when they strike. I hope you will too!

Remember Fianna Fail are equally as bad when the local elections and European Elections come around. Ireland needs real change. That means the death of FF, FG and Labour in the way that the Greens (also sell outs) and the PDs (who were meant to be an FF alternative and ended up spending their only time in government with FF). I think a whole new system is needed at this point!

TotD: So Today the Pope Said Atheists Go to Heaven.

So Pope Francis the First is probably the most amazing and godly of those who have sat on the Papal Throne (or in Francis' case, stood near it). Today it is being reported that the Pope made the statement that all people, Christian or not, go to Heaven.

I guess you need some context.
Pope Francis is reading the Gospel of Mark in a public Mass/Homily when he reads this:
"John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me." (Mark 9:38-39 ESV)

The Pope then went on to say the following:

“They complain, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, "were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation.”

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Now here the Pope is saying that we are all Redeemed by the work Jesus has done. Though I don't technically agree I can agree that, even the Atheists have the chance to be redeemed, as do all Catholics and others. It is not an automatic thing.

It is possible to distinguish between redemption and salvation (some would argue that Jesus has already forgiven everyone, therefore all have been redeemed, but not all are saved and headed for Heaven)

I think it is the last sentence that confused early reporters of this story "we will meet one another there." This could sound like some throw away to meeting everyone who has done good in Heaven. That is not what the Pope is saying. He is saying we can meet each other at the thought that we should all do good and not evil. Both Christians and Atheists believe in doing good and living a good life. This is the starting point the Pope is speaking of. He isn't saying all atheists go to Heaven but that all Atheists should, as all Christians should, do good.

Why can't doing good get you into Heaven?

If the Pope were saying that good deeds alone, with no faith in God, no religious acts etc. could get you into Heaven he would really be shooting his own organisation down.

If you can go to Heaven without penance, confession, ritual and belief then why would anyone bother with Church. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the Pope meant Atheists go to Heaven by his statement. The Catholic Church would become null and void if that the supreme, infallible, head of the Church made that statement.

Biblically, a person gets into Heaven once they have repented of their sins and turned to God.

Repentance is a haughty theological word the world has pretty much forgotten about these days, it simply means to apologise and turn away from you sins and to God and His perfect will for your life.

This inside change is reflected in good deeds (where they once weren't any) as well as other things. Jesus Himself said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6 NIV)

There is no getting to God without believing in Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for sins and recognition of Him as Lord of your life.

Note: The Pope isn't necessarily being heretical, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Also note, even if the Pope does say everyone goes to Heaven automatically/by doing good works, God, Jesus and God's Word (the Bible) do not agree. There is "one way God said to get to Heaven", as the well known children's song goes, "Jesus is the only way."

TotD: Why I'm not a Martha

Okay, so those of you who know me and have been to/lived in the house I live in at a dinner party time (the only type of party I actually, genuinely enjoy btw) will have at one time or another, at least thought, he is such a Martha.
This has been said to me by people enough times to warrant a response. Here is that response.

Probably best to start with the story for some context:

"Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42 ESV)

In this episode of Scripture Jesus goes to the home of two women, one sits and listens to Him while the other prepares food for the three of them. The one who prepares the food gets annoyed by the one who listens and complains to Jesus who says that Mary (the one sitting at Jesus' feet and learning from Him) chose the right thing to do.


1. So firstly I think it is important to note these two foundational scriptures: "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." (Colossians 3:17 ESV) and "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men."
(Colossians 3:23 ESV)
So, if having the dishes washed and food prepared just so are part of how I serve God through serving you that doesn't make me a Martha.

2. Secondly, I get really irritated when I know there is a mess and so for this ("Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God." [James 1:19-20 ESV]) to be true for me I have to feel comfortable, which involves knowing there is no mess.
I don't know if you have watched me when there is but I get irritated and slightly angry (or a lot angry, depending on the day) and I talk a lot to cover up my nervousness about the mess, and I don't listen because all I'm thinking about is the mess.

3. Having people in my house is an exercise in stressfulness. The build up to people coming over is stressful (don't get me wrong I love it immensely once people are there, but before that it is maddening). So the way the house is clean and the whatever else is Martha-y about me (according to some) is a thing I do to get that stress out of my system. I have learned that, even though I hate doing them, one of the times I talk to God most is doing a moderate amount of dishes... too many is too much but just some makes me and God talk, which calms me down.

4. This extends to the dishes being done while people are in the house too. Large crowds of people freak me out (large is relative to the size of the space, in Number 6 large was about 12 people, in No. 2 it was maybe 7 and in 87 it's about 6). Therefore I like to escape the large crowd (of 6 people) and go do something else and doing the dishes can be (it isn't always) God's way of taking me out of a freaked out situation into one where He has an opportunity to calm me down. Once calm I can be outgoing and happy again and have those wonderful chats about life with God.

5. This is the last one.
The story of Martha and Mary is one where they invite Jesus to their home and give Him some dinner or some such.
If Jesus was in my house I would be doing nothing but 'sitting at His feet'.
However, I would never invite Jesus into my house (not for food) because my house is not good enough for the creator of the universe to come for dinner to. If I had the opportunity to get Jesus dinner we would be going to the 62 Euro for a main course place in Disneyland Paris (or the equivalent thereof in Cork). Unless He specifically wanted me to cook (at which point I would have dinner ready for a time specified to Him to come over and freak out in the privacy of His presence because He is everywhere anyway) and then sit at His feet once He got here and clean up when He left. (In this scenario there is no one else, except maybe Andy and Jon, or that type of number, at the dinner too).

I don't know, I find it a little presumptuous when people say that when you aren't around them that you are being a Martha... As if everything everyone says is as good as Jesus' words.
I mean no offence and I have had wonderful conversations with everyone who comes to those parties and has said I am a Martha, whether in jest or seriousness. However, Jesus... Just think about that :P

There you go five reasons I am not a Martha.

TotD: Why I'm Against Gay Marriage

I clearly no longer agree with a younger, dumber, slightly brainwashed version of myself. But I wanted to leave this here so people can see how humans and knowledge and acceptance can develop in an individual.

I am partially scared to put this up as I imagine the backlash will be quite severe but shur, I have not shied away from the controversial before so why start on blog post number 55.

This thought is in response to France legalising gay marriage. This thought is backed up by things I have read though I cannot remember details of specific studies... I can do a proper one with the studies quoted sometime but the TotD are never meant to be comprehensive, just what I think based on what I have looked up and seen.

So France recently legalised gay marriage, and while the world celebrates (or at least most of it does) I facepalm.

For a long time now I have been anti-gay marriage for a number of reasons.

1. Marriage, by it's definition, is between a man and a woman. Seriously, Google it. It has always been that way and should not change. A relationship, recognised by law, between two consenting members of the same sex is not marriage. It is something else and it should be called something else.

2. Marriage equality makes no sense. A marriage between a man and a women and two men, or two women, cannot be equal. There are things that a man and woman can do that two members of the same sex cannot, for example have children without outside assistance. The status of a marriage and a same sex union cannot be the same. There is a difference and that difference should be recognised and not ignored.
I am aware there are clinics where gay male couples can both fertilise eggs and have twins with one child being one man's and the other the other's but that is still not equal. There is no 'marriage equality' for gay marriages to work the differences need to be noted and worked out.

3. Children: Most people can attest to being somewhat messed up by their parents. Many people have issues resultant from an absent father. Time will tell but I imagine there will be many more issues when a generation is raised by gay parents. Too many no mother or no father issues in that storm.

4. For some people, possibly most, homosexual actions are a symptom of something else going on mentally. I am aware that homosexuality was removed as a mental illness from many psychological organisations world wide and while I'm not technically against this move I do wonder about it.
Recently things like bi-polar disorder, manic depressive disorder and OCD have also been removed from lists of solely psychological disorders. While I don't compare them I do think that the move to acceptance is too fast. It leads to people who just have issues being told they are gay, were born gay and need to accept they are gay and get on with it.
This makes no sense! If they are some issues that are embedded deep in a person's psyche and a symptom of this is to act in a homosexual manner, or have gay feelings, that shouldn't be ignored and once that can be ruled out then look to genetics and environment but don't go there first.
I know, for a fact, there are people who were gay because they were abused by a man when they were younger. This experience, for whatever psychological reason, made them become attracted to people of the same-sex. Others have homosexual tendencies because of father issues (absent dad's). These are real and serious issues that should be dealt with and not swept under a rug because we are accepting.
I think civil unions (not gay marriage, that should never exist) should only be allowed if these issues (if they exist) have been worked on; otherwise it will cause problems later on in life.

5. Because I am a Christian I believe the Bible says it shouldn't be allowed either. That is not an issue that I feel is particularly important when it comes to how laws are effected and decided on in our society. In the same way as I don't anticipate being expected to follow the laws of Saudi Arabia unless I am in Saudi Arabia I don't expect non-Christians to follow the laws of Christianity. So that is a personal thing, that is important to me, but not really a reason that, as a legislator, I would believe to be important.