School patronage

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, you too prefer that the majority pander to the minority, even the minority are free to go elsewhere.............

Aren't the majority being discriminated against and their beliefs ignored, in favour of the minority?

Nope. as a secular school system doesn't favour one religious group over another.

walrusgumble

Obliq wrote: »

Oh gee, thanks. That'll suit the kids twice a day, eh? Nothing to be said for people being able to send their children to the community school in their own area, where they will get to know their neighbours and have respect for each other's beliefs, no?

Here we are, you have no concern whatsoever about the children.

Ye are more concerned about the wishes of the adults/parents and the inconvenience that it may cause in order give the children the life that ye (and not them) asked/ want for them.

Its a small world now, people had no issue with boarding schools in the past. In the past kids traveled for miles to get education on foot or by bike................. People take 2 hours to commute to work to goodness sake. Suck it up.

Plenty of time to get to know the neighbours through sports and other weekend pursuits. Education first dear boy.....


There is absolutely no excuse , bar mere inconvenience , to not sending a child to a school that suits YOUR Politics/Social Needs. (which you are entitled to pass on as you are the primary carer and educator of your child)

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

Nope. as a secular school system doesn't favour one religious group over another.

Yes, if the majority are content with Status Quo (religious run school), why should the majority pander to the minority that want something else?

Look face it, it won't work.

We had these discussions on this site before. Despite all the waffle, people like me were correct - we correctly predicted that outside of places like Dublin, this scheme , this forced social engineering would fail. (Knowing the areas , it wasn't hard to predict) And here we are, the majority said No to Quinn. Yet, there are people in the minority who refuse to accept that their Ireland is not wanted, who question such findings. Off ye go boys, if they want more bloody noses ...........

There must be choice available. If a majority of a particular area vote yes to secularization , then fine, let them have it. In truth, with money problems and awareness that faith is dying in Ireland and a shortage of Priests, the Church in that area won't loose to much sleep (acceptance of the inevitable). If a majority in a particular school wants status quo, then fine. But no systematic widespread secularisation (now , quickly becoming its own form of "religion") of schools


Funny enough, many people don't seem to want to go to the Educate Together Schools.....hmmmm why is that ? Not wanting to share with them immigrants is it?

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

Yes, if the majority are content with Status Quo (religious run school), why should the majority pander to the minority that want something else?

3 out of 4 parents would send children to schools run by patrons other than Churches if they had a choice.

And even if the majority did support religious discrimination, that doesn't mean it's right to allow it.

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

Here we are, you have no concern whatsoever about the children.

That comment deserves a report. Take it back please - it's ignorant in the extreme.

Ye are more concerned about the wishes of the adults/parents and the inconvenience that it may cause in order give the children the life that ye (and not them) asked/ want for them.

Did you bother to read my first long comment from the other day - no? Then get down off your high horse.

Its a small world now, people had no issue with boarding schools in the past. In the past kids traveled for miles to get education on foot or by bike................. People take 2 hours to commute to work to goodness sake. Suck it up.

Do you have any kids? I doubt it, as that comes across as startlingly authoritarian to be willing to inflict a 2 hr car journey twice a day, 5 days a week on a 5 year old.

There is absolutely no excuse , bar mere inconvenience , to not sending a child to a school that suits YOUR Politics/Social Needs. (which you are entitled to pass on as you are the primary carer and educator of your child)

Mere inconvenience it is not. Besides, there's the teeny weeny question of the constitution requiring that children of other religions and none are not discriminated against. Pretty sure that would cover your proposed 2hr car journey each way.

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

3 out of 4 parents would send children to schools run by patrons other than Churches if they had a choice.

And even if the majority did support religious discrimination, that doesn't mean it's right to allow it.

Polls? Yah Polls are just that.

Many parents have actually been asked,since April 2012 and guess what? Status quo stays, Quinn's revolution ain't happening. (granted alot to do with better the devil you know)

Secondary Schools have been split up with Religious Orders Schools, VEC's / COmmunity Colleges (though more secular, still , with the amount of Catholics in them...) The former remained and remain popular

What religious discrimination?

A school built and run by a religious order, is naturally a school to cater for the followers of that religion. Makes no sense for other groups to go there .

No one is that stupid (clearly they are or they go out of their way to ask for trouble) to not be aware of what goes on in schools. They are free to go elsewhere. Many decent sized towns have Educate Together Schools now and can cater for many towns and hinterland within 50 km radius

Again, you are content on discriminating the majority and refusing to allow them to run their schools they way that they were established, to suit your (minority) position. You accept religious discrimination , to suggest otherwise is a lie

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

Polls? Yah Polls are just that.

and an orange is an orange.

Many parents have actually been asked,since April 2012 and guess what? Status quo stays, Quinn's revolution ain't happening. (granted alot to do with better the devil you know)

Secondary Schools have been split up with Religious Orders Schools, VEC's / COmmunity Colleges (though more secular, still , with the amount of Catholics in them...) The former remained and remain popular

What religious discrimination?

Students (and teachers) can be excluded from a school because a Catholic child is given a higher priority. Even though all taxpayers fund the schools. That discrimination.

A school built and run by a religious order, is naturally a school to cater for the followers of that religion. Makes no sense for other groups to go there .

Yeah. What were parents thinking living in a village that only had one school? Don't they know tis only for Catholics:rolleyes:

No one is that stupid (clearly they are or they go out of their way to ask for trouble) to not be aware of what goes on in schools. They are free to go elsewhere. Many decent sized towns have Educate Together Schools now and can cater for many towns and hinterland within 50 km radius

That's a cop out. Why should any parent be required travel 50km each way to a school when they live 5km from a school? There's no good reason for it.

Again, you are content on discriminating the majority and refusing to allow them to run their schools they way that they were established, to suit your (minority) position. You accept religious discrimination , to suggest otherwise is a lie

You clearly don't understand what secularism is if you are to suggest that it is religious discrimination. And it's a bit rich coming from yourself seeing as you're pro-religious discrimination at this point in the conversation.

walrusgumble

Obliq wrote: »

That comment deserves a report. Take it back please - it's ignorant in the extreme.

I will report you for bigotry.

You refuse to address and rebut the point made against you, and attempt to use censure to shut me up. The statement stands. Your statements reek of more concern that your believes and wishes are heard, as oppose to the child. You talk about others forcing beliefs (that you reject) down the throats of your children , yet, what about your beliefs being push onto your child (to be fair, as is your right)

Obliq wrote: »

Did you bother to read my first long comment from the other day - no? Then get down off your high horse.



Do you have any kids? I doubt it, as that comes across as startlingly authoritarian to be willing to inflict a 2 hr car journey twice a day, 5 days a week on a 5 year old.

Two children, (15 and 11) and a niece who goes with them to school

Your making pathetic excuses! Many parent would do whatever it takes to ensure that the child's education to taken care of. You just want everything handed to ye

50-60 km is NOT much of a travel either ; This country is very small, so you would not need to travel too far to find a more appropriate school. If 2 hours were required, so be it

Obliq wrote: »

Mere inconvenience it is not. Besides, there's the teeny weeny question of the constitution requiring that children of other religions and none are not discriminated against

The children are not being discriminated against actually. The parents are being given a choice. Guess what? Most of them REJECTED Quinn's proposals.

There are now Educate Together Schools, obviously, people like you look down on them.

Wanna show me where the Courts have ruled against the School for it's practices ? Last time I checked religious groups are covered by Equality Law. Last time I checked the Constitution is also pretty loud about the right to a religion and practice.

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

50-60 km is NOT much of a travel either ; This country is very small, so you would not need to travel too far to find a more appropriate school. If 2 hours were required, so be it

it is if you don't own a car, which a lot of parents don't!

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

and an orange is an orange.

Please stop trying to sound smart............
A poll is as useful as a tits on a bull.

The Real poll was put before parents recently, and, they rejected Quinn's vision.

SW wrote: »

Students (and teachers) can be excluded from a school because a Catholic child is given a higher priority.

Catholic school serving for Catholic children, what is your problem? Why should non Catholics being prioritized over Catholics at a Catholic school?

Why should a Teacher be allowed to work at a Catholic school if they undermine Catholic Values (likewise if it was a Jewish/Muslim/ Protestant school)

SW wrote: »

Even though all taxpayers fund the schools.

Not a patch on what the owners have paid over the decades and even centuries

SW wrote: »

That discrimination.

The law suggests otherwise.

SW wrote: »

Yeah. What were parents thinking living in a village that only had one school? Don't they know tis only for Catholics:rolleyes:

More pathetic excuses. Name one village that is over 20 - 80 km from a decent sized town, that has more choice in schools.

SW wrote: »

That's a cop out. Why should any parent be required travel 50km each way to a school when they live 5km from a school? There's no good reason for it.

Eh, because, the school 50 km is more suitable to the needs of the parent ? (look, not concern about the child's political / social needs)

Why should a majority have to pander to you? 50 km is not very far! Many a Protestant has done it over the decades without much whinging

SW wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what secularism is if you are to suggest that it is religious discrimination.

I never said that. What I did say however is that you refuse to allow the status quo, ie People to reject secularism and to accept only their faith in their schools.

In reality , these people are prevented from being taught in a Catholic ethos principled school (or Protestant, Muslim....)

SW wrote: »

And it's a bit rich coming from yourself seeing as you're pro-religious discrimination at this point in the conversation.

You evidently don't understand the legal concept of "discrimination", or where it is justifiable. I have already stated in previous posts, that I have no issue with a majority group voting for secularized or other schools , so maybe reading posts could be taken up, right..

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

I will report you for bigotry.

You refuse to address and rebut the point made against you, and attempt to use censure to shut me up. The statement stands. Your statements reek of more concern that your believes and wishes are heard, as oppose to the child. You talk about others forcing beliefs (that you reject) down the throats of your children , yet, what about your beliefs being push onto your child (to be fair, as is your right)

I did address and rebut the point. Now you've called me bigoted, on top of not caring whatsoever about my children. Nice :mad:

Two children, (15 and 11) and a niece who goes with them to school

Hard to believe that if the tables were turned you wouldn't be shouting loudly about the distance you had to travel to ensure your children were treated equally in their school, whatever the school's ethos.

There are now Educate Together Schools, obviously, people like you look down on them.

People like me? Want to explain what you mean by that deliberately antagonistic comment? As it happens there is no Educate Together school within 1 1/2 hrs and that is WAY too far away to consider. Plus, I like my community and they like me. They would prefer me to have my children attend the local school, as would I.

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

it is if you don't own a car, which a lot of parents don't!

Ah more excuses, cop on .

School buses! Beloved neighbour, don't people have to leave the village to go to work?

"alot of parents" don't have a car? Don't they?

Plenty of parents are not even near A school , never mind one or two

What ya gonna do when the kid goes to Secondary School and there is no Secondary School in the area

No, pure excuses. Pandering to a minority cause they want something else and refuse to get over the obstacles.

robindch

walrusgumble wrote: »

Please stop trying to sound smart. A poll is as useful as a tits on a bull.

Cut out the attitude and start being civil, walrus, or you'll be carded or banned.

That is all.

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

Ah more excuses, cop on .

School buses! Beloved neighbour, don't people have to leave the village to go to work?

"alot of parents" don't have a car? Don't they?

Plenty of parents are not even near A school , never mind one or two

What ya gonna do when the kid goes to Secondary School and there is no Secondary School in the area

No, pure excuses. Pandering to a minority cause they want something else and refuse to get over the obstacles.

Jaysus wept. There are no school buses that will take you to the school of your choice - you get to go on the one that covers your catchment area.

Brian Shanahan

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

Are you sure he's not just trying to undermine the future of Limerick hurling from the inside?

Below U-16's our hurling isn't up to much at the moment. Our u-14 team is too young*, and the smallies (as we call them) are too small to be any good yet.

*Despite managing to get picked to go to Derry for the feile.

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

Please stop trying to sound smart............
A poll is as useful as a tits on a bull.

The Real poll was put before parents recently, and, they rejected Quinn's vision.

Link?

Catholic school serving for Catholic children, what is your problem? Why should non Catholics being prioritized over Catholics at a Catholic school?

The problem is that the government has a public school system that gives priority to Catholic children. This is not acceptable in a modern democratic state.

Why should a Teacher be allowed to work at a Catholic school if they undermine Catholic Values (likewise if it was a Jewish/Muslim/ Protestant school)

So all single parent teachers should be removed from schools, as well as homosexuals and non-Catholic teachers? They're publicly funded schools, religious discrimination (as you have just supported) is just wrong.

Not a patch on what the owners have paid over the decades and even centuries

Centuries? The state hasn't existed for one!

The law suggests otherwise.

Actually it doesn't. The law specifically exempts the schools from equality legislation. Clearly protecting schools from being prosectuted for discrimination.

More pathetic excuses. Name one village that is over 20 - 80 km from a decent sized town, that has more choice in schools.

Why should someone be required to travel 20km+ to get to school when there are schools in the town/village?

Eh, because, the school 50 km is more suitable to the needs of the parent ? (look, not concern about the child's political / social needs)

By virtue of the religious monopoly on national schools. This is not the way to do things in a modern democracy.

Why should a majority have to pander to you? 50 km is not very far! Many a Protestant has done it over the decades without much whinging

So what? Doesn't make it right. And no-one is pandering to me. I'm suggesting all children be treated equally in schools. What a monster I am!! :rolleyes:

I never said that. What I did say however is that you refuse to allow the status quo, ie People to reject secularism and to accept only their faith in their schools.

In public schools, I definitely reject religious discrimination. Private schools can do as they like.

In reality , these people are prevented from being taught in a Catholic ethos principled school (or Protestant, Muslim....)

That's a job for parents and their respective church, not a public school.

You evidently don't understand the legal concept of "discrimination", or where it is justifiable. I have already stated in previous posts, that I have no issue with a majority group voting for secularized or other schools , so maybe reading posts could be taken up, right..

You're in favour of discrimination as long as the majority agree with it. Bravo for being one of the herd.

Cabaal

walrusgumble wrote: »

A school built and run by a religious order, is naturally a school to cater for the followers of that religion.

One big massive flaw in what you just said,
The school is tax payer funded, if the want a specific faith school then let the "faithful" fund it

Again, you are content on discriminating the majority and refusing to allow them to run their schools they way that they were established, to suit your (minority) position. You accept religious discrimination , to suggest otherwise is a lie

Nobody is stopping anybody from following their faith,
But wasting 10% of primary school time on religion is a very bad use of tax payer money.

If the faithful want to learn about their faith then let them go to mass like they are supposed to,

The catholic church knows right well that if all tax payer funded schools were not catholic ethos then the amount of people that get their kids to do communion etc would drop through the floor,

why? Because most parents can't be arsed to bring their kids to mass even though its required by the religion they apparently really really want to follow.
:rolleyes:

walrusgumble

Obliq wrote: »

I did address and rebut the point. Now you've called me bigoted, on top of not caring whatsoever about my children. Nice :mad:

Eh, you addressed nothing! And have done little to rebut the allegation.

Obliq wrote: »

Hard to believe that if the tables were turned

For a start, they are not, so , if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle

Obliq wrote: »

you wouldn't be shouting loudly about the distance you had to travel to ensure your children were treated equally in their school, whatever the school's ethos.

For a start, you know absolutely nothing about me. Secondly, the 15 year old, is , at , boarding school, by choice, in a different county. Regular travel being required. The other child needs to be driven around the county a far bit for football and music lessons, regularly during the week.

Secondly, I am not one who makes excuses for the needs of my kids.

"treated equally" WFT? Serious get the hell over yourself. There is no utopia. There is no such thing as an equal world, its liberal nonsense.

Obliq wrote: »

People like me? Want to explain what you mean by that deliberately antagonistic comment? As it happens there is no Educate Together school within 1 1/2 hrs and that is WAY too far away to consider. Plus, I like my community and they like me. They would prefer me to have my children attend the local school, as would I.

1 and 1/2 hours is not very long! If you were that concerned, you would send the child to the said school. Pure excuses , you want everything handed to you

The only ground that I would take it back is if, when the vote at your school comes, the majority (ie people who are status quo) only win by a margin - or of course if your side wins the vote but for some reason it's rejected

You would be content on shouting and roaring and ignoring the wishes of those , in the majority, to wish to continue with a religious ethos school, all because, you can't be bothered to travel 1 1/2 miles a trip to send your beloved to school. What ya gonna do when they are in Secondary School, when there is no choice whatsoever but to travel roughly that distance? (presuming that there is no Secondary School in the area)

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

1 and 1/2 hours is not very long! If you were that concerned, you would send the child to the said school. Pure excuses , you want everything handed to you

It's 3 hours as the child has to be brought home too. And if the parent doesn't work in that time, then there's travel time to and from work.

That's already a system favouring two parent families (with at least 1 car) where one parent is a stay-at-home/work-from-home parent.

So feck the single parent/unemployed and working poor families. :rolleyes:

walrusgumble

Cabaal wrote: »

One big massive flaw in what you just said,
The school is tax payer funded, if the want a specific faith school then let the "faithful" fund it

Flaw? Really?

1. Tax payers funds are not a patch on what it costs to run the school, and what was spent over the decades / centuries

2. Who are the tax payers?, but those who actually made up of the said schools, and, if they vote on Quinn's scheme, people who either accept or reject status quo. You must think that the tax payers are snow fairies

3. No one is stopping the others from setting up their own schools or succeeding in a vote to change the ethos of a said school -

the issue is those people forcing their views on others where they are not a majority .

Cabaal wrote: »

Nobody is stopping anybody from following their faith,
But wasting 10% of primary school time on religion is a very bad use of tax payer money.

For a start, making the comment "wasting" and "bad use of tax payer money" highlights utter bigotry

Secondly, again, who is the "tax payer" You suggesting the parents of pupils of catholic/faith schools are not tax payers?

Let us see who actually pays more? (evidentally it won't be the non car owner like our friend from this debate)

Thirdly, you and your sort have a choice to establish yer own schools if you don't like 10% of yer time being "wasted" on religion..............

Cabaal wrote: »

If the faithful want to learn about their faith then let them go to mass like they are supposed to,

Can't see how you, the minority, should dictate to how another group works. People are not "suppose" to go to mass. Failure to go to mass does not make a person any more non religious or good/bad as another.

Anyhoo, looks like you are in the minority on that one.

Cabaal wrote: »

The catholic church knows right well that if all tax payer funded schools were not catholic ethos then the amount of people that get their kids to do communion etc would drop through the floor

Your point is what? So, far, funding schools and facing the usual legal bills (eg personal injury) on top of the current scandals, where there are few priests and less charitable donations, are a drain on the coffers of the said local churches

Cabaal wrote: »

why? Because most parents can't be arsed to bring their kids to mass even though its required by the religion they apparently really really want to follow.
:rolleyes:

Where does it say that it is essential that you must go to mass?.

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

It's 3 hours as the child has to be brought home too. And if the parent doesn't work in that time, then there's travel time to and from work.

That's already a system favouring two parent families (with at least 1 car) where one parent is a stay-at-home/work-from-home parent.

So feck the single parent/unemployed and working poor families. :rolleyes:

Pure excuses - I tip my hat off to the single parents who don't let pathetic excuses like that get in their way

AS for the single parent (what? They disabled? Don't they have to leave the village to work?) unemployed , pheasants.... . Beggars can't be choosers (especially since they are NOT TAX PAYERS) Great for putting the hand out for "hand outs" though

How far is the nearest Secondary School?

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

Eh, you addressed nothing! And have done little to rebut the allegation.

This was your "point":
Here we are, you have no concern whatsoever about the children.

Ye are more concerned about the wishes of the adults/parents and the inconvenience that it may cause in order give the children the life that ye (and not them) asked/ want for them.

I rebutted it by telling you it is ignorant to say I have no concern whatsoever about the children and asked you to retract it. I addressed it by telling you to read my posts from yesterday/day before in which I very clearly state my wish for a cohesive community ABOVE my wish for a catholic ethos to be removed from the local school. Try reading it.

For a start, you know absolutely nothing about me.

Something that fills me with joy. However, I did say "hard to believe", which indicates that indeed I do not know what you would do. I do find it unbelievable however that you think many parents could afford to drive their kids 1 to 2 hrs each way a day, never mind think it's good for them.

"treated equally" WFT? Serious get the hell over yourself. There is no utopia. There is no such thing as an equal world, its liberal nonsense.

Ah. No need to strive for equality and fairness then. You have me told now, eh?

Obliq

SW wrote: »

It's 3 hours as the child has to be brought home too. And if the parent doesn't work in that time, then there's travel time to and from work.

That's already a system favouring two parent families (with at least 1 car) where one parent is a stay-at-home/work-from-home parent.

So feck the single parent/unemployed and working poor families. :rolleyes:

Thank you SW.

robindch

walrusgumble wrote: »

For a start, they are not, so , if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle [...] "treated equally" WFT? Serious get the hell over yourself. There is no utopia. There is no such thing as an equal world, its liberal nonsense.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Pure excuses - I tip my hat off to the single parents who don't let pathetic excuses like that get in their way [...] AS for the single parent (what? They disabled? Don't they have to leave the village to work?) unemployed , pheasants.... . Beggars can't be choosers (especially since they are NOT TAX PAYERS) Great for putting the hand out for "hand outs" though

Carded for incivility immediately after a direct moderator warning.

If you persist in this unpleasantness, you will be red-carded, then you will be banned.

BTW, you're not casting your side of the argument in an especially tolerant light, I have to say. I don't know whether that's your intention.

walrusgumble

Obliq wrote: »

Jaysus wept. There are no school buses that will take you to the school of your choice - you get to go on the one that covers your catchment area.

Still no excuse. You find away of getting them there, or convince your community to agree to changing to the school to your way of thinking (ie removing the RC patronage)

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

Thirdly, you and your sort have a choice to establish yer own schools if you don't like 10% of yer time being "wasted" on religion..............

Non-curricular religion. It is failing children across the country from every kind of belief system for our PUBLIC SCHOOLS to continue this practice. The curriculum is tough enough to get through within a school year even without them being held back by the teaching of the sacraments by our PUBLIC SCHOOL teachers.

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

Still no excuse. You find away of getting them there, or convince your community to agree to changing to the school to your way of thinking (ie removing the RC patronage)

I'm thinking that anything short of corralling all us secular liberal types into "sucking it up" will always fall short of a reasonable solution for you, eh? You do realise how unfair you're sounding?

walrusgumble

robindch wrote: »

Carded for incivility immediately after a direct moderator warning.

If you persist in this unpleasantness, you will be red-carded, then you will be banned.

BTW, you're not casting your side of the argument in an especially tolerant light, I have to say. I don't know whether that's your intention.

The "if my aunt had balls ...." statement was first published at 17.18

The hand out comment was first published at 17.33

Your warning arrived at my inbox at 17.35. Your statement on this thread was 17.40

So, you are incorrect to state what you said. The said statements were not made immediately after your post.


With regard to "tolerance". I suppose you will not be "carding" the poster who referred to practice of religion in religious patroned schools as "waste of time". Sounds rather bigotry there

What is intolerant with copping onto reality? There is no such thing as all people are equal. It is an myth.

We are being told that the tax payers pay for these schools, yet, all I do is point out that those who support the status quo are tax payers, AND those who are unemployed are not substantial tax payers, and should not be allowed to dictate. Fair comment

My intentions? I am responding to what I preceive to be is a load of unsubstantiated nonsense in response to comments made by other posters.

I have no issue with people looking for a school that suits them, but I have an issue with them forcing their will on a majority who do not share the same views

I heard a lot of talk about discrimination (yet I get carded for pointing out that that is legally rubbish) yet my very first post (which was not responded too) asked whether it was okay for a minority (here the secularists) to "discriminate" against the majority (those who want status quo) The only grounds that have been put forward are (a) teaching of religion being a waste of time (b) tax payers money - which happens to be many in the majority vs unemployed who don't work and don't pay tax (c) because there is not enough of them - boo hoo.

robindch

walrusgumble wrote: »

The "if my aunt had balls ...." statement was first published at 17.18

The hand out comment was first published at 17.33

Your warning arrived at my inbox at 17.35

You were warned at 17:10 and you ignored it, much as you've ignored many of the points that other posters have been making.

And as I said above, you are presenting your side of this debate in an intemperate, obstreperous fashion. I don't know whether this is your intention, but it certainly is what you are achieving. If you don't tone down your rhetoric and learn to debate in a civil fashion, your time here in A+A is likely to be short.

walrusgumble

Obliq wrote: »

I'm thinking that anything short of corralling all us secular liberal types into "sucking it up" will always fall short of a reasonable solution for you, eh? You do realise how unfair you're sounding?

I will ask the simple question, which I started.

Would you have any issue with a Majority, who seek to keep the status quo (who are also tax payers) and wish to continue enjoying their Constitutional Rights (education and religious education) ,

being forced to pander (despite wining the vote) to the minority (the secularists and Anti Catholic/other groups), who despite having other avenues (eg school within 1 - 1 1/2 hours)

You see no problem with that "discrimination".

"Unfair", Lol