"no, I'm actually an athiest"

AudreyHepburn

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Actually the camparison was between the largest organisation of peadophiles and child rapists the world has ever seen, who have left no stone unturned in their disgusting attempts to cover up the true horror of their systemic child abuse and who have unbelievably given the CEO job to the cover-up-merchant-in-chief......and the mafia.

Expect defamation suits aplenty from Sicily.

Not every member of the Catholic church is a paedophile/child molester you know. Nor do we all advocate the covering up of it.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

I would facepalm this a million times if i could.

Go do it.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Way to dodge the question, but your support of discrimination against children is already evident in this thread.

Really? Despite supporting secular education for all.

Galvasean

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not every member of the Catholic church is a paedophile/child molester you know. Nor do we all advocate the covering up of it.

But what are you doing to alleviate the problem when the hierarchy is so corrupt?

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

Bizarre reasoning? A school with a Catholic ethos catering ostensibly for a Catholic education discriminates against others by not accepting them. Then why does a Camogie team, catering ostensibly for women, not discriminate against men by refusing them a place on the team?

Man - the whole point of the argument is not that Catholic schools provide exclusively for Catholic children - it is that for centuries we have had little or no choice in how our children are educated and that many believe this should change.

prinz

Galvasean wrote: »

You believe that denying one child the same educational opportunities as another based on their faith (or lack of) is not discrimination. REALLY?!?!?!!??

If that school has been set up with a particular ethos then no. Would you think it discriminatory if a secular school refused to accept a kid demanding Catholic instruction?

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not every member of the Catholic church is a paedophile/child molester you know. Nor do we all advocate the covering up of it.

No but millions still remain members of the club. The 'infallible' leader was & is complicit in the covering up of child abuse. Unforgivable.

AudreyHepburn

Galvasean wrote: »

But what are you doing to alleviate the problem when the hierarchy is so corrupt?

The Ryan report. The resignation of several bishops and other priests. I could be wrong but I think some of these monsters have been put in jail.

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

... many believe this should change.

Including me. However I won't indulge in hysterics trying to call foul where I don't see it.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

If that school has been set up with a particular ethos then no. Would you think it discriminatory if a secular school refused to accept a kid demanding Catholic instruction?

AGAIN - the point is that there are no real options out there for people who DONT want their children indoctrined into catholicism.

Osgoodisgood

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not every member of the Catholic church is a paedophile/child molester you know. Nor do we all advocate the covering up of it.

I didn't suggest otherwise. I just couldn't idly sit by and read the new RCC CV that talks about the charity work blah blah blah and doesn't mention the child abuse.

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

No but millions still remain members of the club. The 'infallible' leader was & is complicit in the covering up of child abuse. Unforgivable.

So we must automatically support and condone what they did? Jesus!!

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

Including me. However I won't indulge in hysterics trying to call foul where I don't see it.

Fair play to you

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

AGAIN - the point is that there are no real options out there for people who DONT want their children indoctrined into catholicism.

...and the fault with that lies in the State. The State should be providing the options, not the RCC.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So we must automatically support and condone what they did? Jesus!!

If I was a member of a club and I found out that hundreds of children had been abused and not only had this been ignored but the perpetrators were free to continue this abuse, I would not continue to support it or be a member. You can believe in god/gods without subscribing to this particular brand.

Deus Ex Machina

Atheist, apparently one of the hardest words in the English language to spell correctly.

optogirl

I also must point out that OP's thread it titled with a polite response to a question and he/she spelled atheist wrong.


Edit: Ha! Deus - great minds...or fools seldom differ

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

If that school has been set up with a particular ethos then no. Would you think it discriminatory if a secular school refused to accept a kid demanding Catholic instruction?

If catholic instruction was on the national curriculum, then yes.

Naturally, a secular school should accept all children, even if they don't provide for all of the extra cirricular activities that each child wants. Currently, catholic schools can reject non catholics (not just refuse to instruct them in their chosen religion; reject them outright).

Scanlas The 2nd

My name is URL wrote: »

Only once that agenda is faith orientated though, right? Irish speaking schools have an agenda, as do various other groups which deal with kids.. like the scouts etc. Should parents have no say in whether or not their children are part of those things also?

I fully agree that the connections between state education and religion should be cut. But it's a socio-political issue rather than a religious one.

A good point. I'll refine my argument. In general the benefit of the child and society in general should be of utmost importance when designing the curriculum. Nothing that is not fact should be taught as fact. Preventing a child from access to a public school due to their religion is not or lack thereof is not in the best interest of the child.

The decisions that parents have over their education should be ones that don't affect fundamental rights or warp a childs beliefs to reality.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Really? Despite supporting secular education for all.

THis is not the issue. The issue is that you have gone on record as to say that children being discriminated against due to their religion is not a big deal.

Disgusting!

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

Currently, catholic schools can reject non catholics (not just refuse to instruct them in their chosen religion; reject them outright).

How dare Catholic schools prioritise Catholics...

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

THis is not the issue. The issue is that you have gone on record as to say that children being discriminated against due to their religion is not a big deal.Disgusting!

Yeah whatever, how far have we gotten on the face-palming? :rolleyes:

dvpower

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Atheist, apparently one of the hardest words in the English language to spell correctly.

The Christian Brothers thought me that it was always i before e, except after c. They had it in for atheists even back then:eek:

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

How dare Catholic schools prioritise Catholics...

... using state funds. I'm with you there Prinz.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Yeah whatever, how far have we gotten on the face-palming? :rolleyes:

Not far but i see you've gotten the hang of condescention.

I hope those who read my points earlier about condescention being a human and not exclusively Atheist trait are readding now.

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

... using state funds. I'm with you there Prinz.

....and those state funds should be going into secular state schools. I'm with you there dvpower.

Doesn't the GAA receive state funds?

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Galvasean wrote:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why people oppose a secular education system. Misconception.

But isn't that what it is? Taking religion out of schools altogether? Making sure it's not taught? A serious answer please.

You missed the serious answer posted immediately before your question.

Here it is again:

robindch wrote:

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A refusal to allow them to learn about religion?

No.

I do not want my child to hear from people in authority that whatever religion they happen to hold is true.

On the contrary, I want her to learn about religion in an agenda-free environment.

There is a profound difference between the two that you seem to be having a hard time understanding.

mossyc123

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I didn't suggest otherwise. I just couldn't idly sit by and read the new RCC CV that talks about the charity work blah blah blah and doesn't mention the child abuse.

So every point made about the Church has to come back to the Child Abuse and subsequent cover-up's?
Despite perceptions to the contrary, the likelihood of engaging in Paedophaelia is no more or less whether your a Clergyman or Lay person.
The level of tendency towards paedophilia remains constant across society's and throughout time. There's been an attempt to deal with it now, not enough in my opinion, but something. Child abuse has been ignored and covered up countless times throughout history. It's NEVER going to happen again in the RCC so shouldn't be used as a stick to beat the Church.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Doesn't the GAA receive state funds?

I love how you keep using other organisations you think are discriminatory to defend the fact that children are being discriminated at schools!

Great logic there Prinz. In school i learned that "2 wrongs don't make a right".... just as well i was baptised eh? otherwise i'd have never learned that!

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I agree with all your points and they were exactly mine as well.

We all pay tax so we all get a say not just the athiest sector or the religious sector.

Of course I don't agree with discrimination on a religious basis.

Education is about the child not whether the parent agrees with the school's ethos or not.

And yes I think would be in everyone's interest to provide both faith and non-denominational schools.

The problem with that tends to be that suddenly, you need twice the number of schools.
And I personally don't see why money should be wasted to indulge people's personal choices.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

....and those state funds should be going into secular state schools. I'm with you there dvpower.

We're agreed then. The state should prioritise state schools, open to all, teaching the national curriculum, pretty much agnostic about a child's religion.

If someone wants a non standard education then they should fund their own schools. If the state has some left over money in the education budget, after it has provided a universal state system, it could try and help out with some funding for these non standard schools.[/QUOTE]