Our Religious Freedom is at stake ( Childrens rights referendum )

J C

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Well, this thread, like my driving, is going nowhere fast. For the record a kid of 17 only needs a license and a whole lot of cash to get insured. A whole lot! But not permission.

S/he cannot legally contract a contract of any description ... insurance included ... so an adult, usually a parent (and a whole lot of cash ... though not always) will be involved.
I have an insurance policy for certain vehicles that lets me extend cover to a 17 year old on a provisional licence for free - but the decsion to do so is mine and mine alone!!!

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Also, to contradict an earlier poster, there is no danger of hell if one votes yes in this referendum. :rolleyes: although posting so on boards might earn one a few centuries.

You're right about that!!!:):eek:

Your Salvation doesn't rely on the Referendum result.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
and if the child is driving their parent's car at the time they kill or injure somebody, the parent is also legally responsible.

In my opinion, the right to drive has to be earned by the young driver demonstrating to their parents that they will behave responsibly at all times when in control of a vehicle.

doctoremma
1. I doubt the veracity of the first statement. Can you support it?

The owner of a vehicle is legally responsible for any civil liabilities that arise from anybody driving the vehicle with their consent.
The driver is responsible for any criminal issues arising from their driving.

wrote:

doctoremma
2. Your opinion on the situation is fine but it's irrelevant to the legality of the situation.

Practical and financial issues aside, a 17 year old can drive against their parents wishes. There is nothing a parent can do to stop them. That's what 'rights' are.

The so-called 'right' to drive isn't worth the paper it's written on to a 17 year old ... unless they are authorised to drive by their parents ... tough ... but true!!
... and rightly so!!

... so go earn the respect of your parents, if you want to drive at 17!!

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

S/he cannot legally contract a contract of any description ... insurance included ... so an adult, usually a parent (and a whole lot of cash ... though not always) will be involved.

JC, I don't think this is true. There are some contracts a 17 year old cannot enter into, notably credit contracts. But there are some they can, like work contracts.

And car insurance.

In fact, for a parent to insure themselves as main driver, then add their child as a second driver, when in fact child will be main driver, is usually against the terms of the insurance contract.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

The owner of a vehicle is legally responsible for any civil liabilities that arise from anybody driving the vehicle with their consent.
The driver is responsible for any criminal issues arising from their driving

So your statement that the parents are responsible if their child injures or kills someone while driving the parents' car is false?

Corkfeen

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, I don't think this is true. There are some contracts a 17 year old cannot enter into, notably credit contracts. But there are some they can, like work contracts.

And car insurance.

In fact, for a parent to insure themselves as main driver, then add their child as a second driver, when in fact child will be main driver, is usually against the terms of the insurance contract.

I'm actually uncertain on this one. There are tons of legal contracts that you can enter under the age of eighteen. Buying something in a shop is a contract. In some countries it appears that parental permission is a requirement for insurance but I haven't seen anything that applies for Ireland. Any chance of someone providing an actual link that can verify it is?

doctoremma

Corkfeen - I forget and talk as if everyone is in the UK. Here, at 17, you can hold car insurance, although you can't pay for it over a year, it needs to be an upfront payment. Which will be massive, of course!

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, I don't think this is true. There are some contracts a 17 year old cannot enter into, notably credit contracts. But there are some they can, like work contracts.

Correct.

doctoremma wrote: »

And car insurance.

In fact, for a parent to insure themselves as main driver, then add their child as a second driver, when in fact child will be main driver, is usually against the terms of the insurance contract.

You are correct about the illegality of incorrectly declaring who the main driver is.
A 17 year old, who owns a car (despite not being able to access credit to pay for it) ... is practically unisurable on their own.
They will need to have the car connected to substantial insurance business held by a parent ... or more commonly, the only practical solution is for the 17 year old to simply be a named driver on the parent's car, until they have established a significant claims-free track record.

... either way, a parent has every right to determine if their child is responsible enough to be trusted to safely drive.
This can mean, for example, that a parent allows their child to drive to work or school ... but doesn't allow them to take the car out at night when other young people are likely to be carried in the car ... thereby greatly increasing the risk of speeding and dangerous driving - as they 'show off' to their friends.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Corkfeen - I forget and talk as if everyone is in the UK. Here, at 17, you can hold car insurance, although you can't pay for it over a year, it needs to be an upfront payment. Which will be massive, of course!

A seventeen year old can hold car insurance in their own name in Ireland as well - but most insurance companies won't cover them.
In my own case I held such a policy, when I was 17 ... but my father had to sign a bond for me to be covered in my own right.
The exact legal position is somewhat 'grey' with a 17 year-old, as they cannot sign valid finance contracts ... and this is usually resolved by including the young person as a named driver on the parents policy ... which is adequate to gain experience in order to pass a test.
Where the young person needs to drive in their own right and they have passed the test ... the only way that they will be insurable is, if they are connected to substantial other insurance business and the parent effectively agrees to cover the car for them.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

So your statement that the parents are responsible if their child injures or kills someone while driving the parents' car is false?

... how is it false? ... the parent is legally responsible for any injuries to persons or property caused by the young driver in the parent's car.

... which will affect their entire insurance portfolio, if a serious claim has to be paid.

... and a parent who allows a child to continue driving without imposing strictures, despite observing (or being informed) of dangerous or irresponsible driving, also bears moral responsibility for any accident that may result.

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm actually uncertain on this one. There are tons of legal contracts that you can enter under the age of eighteen. Buying something in a shop is a contract. In some countries it appears that parental permission is a requirement for insurance but I haven't seen anything that applies for Ireland. Any chance of someone providing an actual link that can verify it is?

Buying a few sweets in a sweet shop with their pocket money is just about it ... because a 17 year old cannot hold a credit card or access credit in their own right.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Ah yes the good old 'regulating the menstrual cycle' argument last seen in the sixties with Roman Catholics trying to get around the church ban on the pill for 'family planning' purposes!!!!
... either way, the parent should know about it ... if it is required for medical purposes there should be no issue about the parent knowing no more than if an other medicine was prescribed ... and if it's to facilitate illegal sexual activity with persons unknown ... the parent should also know about it.

That is not the doctors decision to make. If the girl wishes to discuss what she needs to use the pill for with her parents that is up to her.

The doctor doesn't decide the girl must be having sex so therefore he must report it to the parents. Do you know how creepy that sounds?

What, should the doctor start following the girl around, waiting for her to have sex so he can take a photograph to show the police?

J C wrote: »

You can't buy two packets of Paracetamol in a supermarket to avoid accidental poisoning ... and if a child were to discuss poisoning themselves with a doctor, I would expect that the parents (and social services) would be immediately informed!!!

You ignored the question. Would you assume that anyone who asked for paracetamol was attempting to kill themselves and report them to their parents?

J C wrote: »

Informing Social sevices would be over-the-top ... but parents should know about all prescription medicines that their children are on!!!

You are the one who is going on about this being illegal? Surely the police should be informed and a social worker?

Or is it that you don't actually care about the legality, that is just an excuse to make this seem a bigger deal than simply your hang-ups over sex?

Hypocritical to the last JC :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

... If that is the standard to be applied to all cases of sex abuse ... that the doctor has to actually witness the pervert in action ... before reporting it to the parents, it would be God help our children!!!:(

So the girl is a pervert doing something illegal, but we shouldn't inform the police or social services, just the parents.

You don't care about any harm the girl might be doing, you just care about the threat of her parents finding out she is having sex being used to guilt her into not having sex.

Tim Robbins

Onesimus wrote: »

THAT'S where I am coming from. and like I said it's proven that children are not classified as having an adult intelligence and do not have the ability to reason and make sound decisions. It is my duty as a Catholic parent until they reach the age of due reason at 18-21 to bring them up Catholic. Any refusal from my child to come with us all to Church on any given Sunday and be left at home could end up in court and the state making decisions in the best interest of my child.

If a child is not capable of reason until age 18, why not keep them away from religion until they are 18? Then you can know they genuniely believe in Christianity rather than just believing in it because you say so.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If a child is not capable of reason until age 18, why not keep them away from religion until they are 18? Then you can know they genuniely believe in Christianity rather than just believing in it because you say so.

Because Christ is the truth and the light, and it would be wholly irresponsible to keep it from ones child. No loving parent with such knowledge would keep the most important thing they could ever come to know from their child. Especially since he/she be getting all kinds of 'life lessons' from all kinds of sources as he/she grows.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Because Christ is the truth and the light, and

This doesn't make any sense. It is not even grammatically correct.

"the" is the definite article. So what does "the truth" and "the light" mean?
And how can anything be "the truth" and "the light" at the sametime?

I can see how a lightbuld or the sun could be light - but I can't see how it could be a form a truth. I can see how a fow has four legs being true but I can't see how it can light.

What you have said there is non - sensical.

it would be wholly irresponsible to keep it from ones child. No loving parent with such knowledge would keep the most important thing they could ever come to know from their child. Especially since he/she be getting all kinds of 'life lessons' from all kinds of sources as he/she grows.

But why not just present the evidence (or lack of) and let the child make up their own mind? Why try to control their judgement when there's open admission that a child can't think as critically as an adult? It seems like glorified brain washing.

I am atheist. I don't want my kids to become atheist just because I am. Or because it is important for critical thinking and intellectual development. I would prefer if they thought about it themselves and made up their own minds.

Why are religious people so terrified that their children could have different opinions to them? I would prefer my children to be creationists - if that's what they really believed in after looking at the various options and evidence available to them; then to just think the same as me because I believe it's truth.

Onesimus

Another thing to consider in this referendum, is that it really is not about the little children as the state would like us to believe. they really are more worried about saving money in the country than the welfare of children. Foster parents get paid quite a big amount for their services. Putting permanent adoption in place would mean that such payments would stop and money gets saved.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

Another thing to consider in this referendum, is that it really is not about the little children as the state would like us to believe. they really are more worried about saving money in the country than the welfare of children. Foster parents get paid quite a big amount for their services. Putting permanent adoption in place would mean that such payments would stop and money gets saved.

The demands for a children's referendum go back far further than the current government or even the economic crisis. The constitutional review group is simply going over topics in the constitution that have been dire need of updating. Unfortunately, I suspect you will be an objector to many of them and claiming that they are all an attack on the religious which they are not.

Not every single child who is in foster care is going to be put up for adoption but there are scenarios where they should be. For example, a person who is fostering a child for many years but are not currently able to adopt a person who is in their care until shortly before their eighteenth birthday. That child may not even have a relationship with their biological parents but they are still in limbo with their foster parents. This is a rather absurd issue that shouldn't exist but it does. Or how about Baby Ann where the rights of the biological parents superseded the rights of the child even though they had chosen to give the child up. It's far more worrying that it is actually possible to reclaim your child after they were adopted.

charlietheminxx

Onesimus wrote: »

Another thing to consider in this referendum, is that it really is not about the little children as the state would like us to believe. they really are more worried about saving money in the country than the welfare of children. Foster parents get paid quite a big amount for their services. Putting permanent adoption in place would mean that such payments would stop and money gets saved.

Or you know, people who come from awful families get a chance to be adopted into a new, permanent one.
One of my best friends was in foster care since she was a small child, her parents were married but her dad had left as he couldn't cope with her mother's alcoholism. She lived in 7 different houses, with 7 sets of different people. She's lucky she is a smart person and turned into a wonderful young women, but I know she would have loved a proper family growing up.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What you have said there is non - sensical.

Only to those who are perishing.

But why not just present the evidence (or lack of) and let the child make up their own mind?

Thats what essentially happens. Or are you saying, you should make them empiricists and materialists, stack all the cards, and then say choose?

Why try to control their judgement when there's open admission that a child can't think as critically as an adult? It seems like glorified brain washing.

Is telling a child that 2 + 2 = 4, brainwashing?

I am atheist. I don't want my kids to become atheist just because I am. Or because it is important for critical thinking and intellectual development.

Ha ha. You and your intellectual insecurities.:)
Firstly, as a Christian, I don't want my kids to love God because their parents want to. Just the same as I don't want them to Love me, because I tell them to. In fact, thats not how Love works. You don't seem to display much insight.

I would prefer if they thought about it themselves and made up their own minds.

Of course. We want the same things so.

Why are religious people so terrified that their children could have different opinions to them? I would prefer my children to be creationists - if that's what they really believed in after looking at the various options and evidence available to them; then to just think the same as me because I believe it's truth.

Its not being terrified (You unfortunately have a habit of assuming you know what you're talking about), its being responsible. You seem to think that a Christian could believe in Gods Kingdom, and the Good News, try to tell perfect strangers about it so that they too can partake of this free gift of life but decide not to tell their children. Its an absolutely ridiculous position to take, showing a spectacular lack of empathy or insight. Essentially, in general, we all make up our own minds, but as parents, we guide our children as best we can and hope they make the right choices in life.

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

Another thing to consider in this referendum, is that it really is not about the little children as the state would like us to believe. they really are more worried about saving money in the country than the welfare of children. Foster parents get paid quite a big amount for their services. Putting permanent adoption in place would mean that such payments would stop and money gets saved.

What is that cost in relation to the entire budget?

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Is telling a child that 2 + 2 = 4, brainwashing?

I think if you can't differentiate between axiomatic maths and subjective theology you are crazy.

Of course. We want the same things so.

You call indoctrinaing kids - letting them think for themselves!!

Its not being terrified (You unfortunately have a habit of assuming you know what you're talking about), its being responsible. You seem to think that a Christian could believe in Gods Kingdom, and the Good News, try to tell perfect strangers about it so that they too can partake of this free gift of life but decide not to tell their children. Its an absolutely ridiculous position to take, showing a spectacular lack of empathy or insight. Essentially, in general, we all make up our own minds, but as parents, we guide our children as best we can and hope they make the right choices in life.

They should tell their children the difference between facts and opinions.
Your Christiantiy is based on opinions. 2 + 2 = 4 is based on facts.

Religious zealots don't differentiate. This is a shame as it hinders intellectual and educational development of children.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think if you can't differentiate between axiomatic maths and subjective theology you are crazy.



You call indoctrinaing kids - letting them think for themselves!!



They should tell their children the difference between facts and opinions.
Your Christiantiy is based on opinions. 2 + 2 = 4 is based on facts.

Religious zealots don't differentiate. This is a shame as it hinders intellectual and educational development of children.

Well, I await the gulags when you come to power Tim.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, I await the gulags when you come to power Tim.

If I was in power, I would have schools teach the facts about religion and leave it at that. Similar to educate together but do it quicker and devote less time to it. The time saved I'd teach critical thinking, economics and things that have objective reality.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not the doctors decision to make. If the girl wishes to discuss what she needs to use the pill for with her parents that is up to her.

The doctor doesn't decide the girl must be having sex so therefore he must report it to the parents. Do you know how creepy that sounds?

... I'll tell you what is 'creepy' ... and that is advocating that a doctor should put an under-age girl on the pill without investigating exactly why she wants to go on the pill!!!
... pseudo-liberals, like yourself, have worked themselves up into a self-righteous fury of sanctimonious indignation over under-age sex abuse in the nineteen seventies ... that would do a Phariseee justice ... and now you are advocating putting under-age girls on the pill to facilitate under-age sex abuse and to undermine the most important piece of child protection legislation on our statute books!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

What, should the doctor start following the girl around, waiting for her to have sex so he can take a photograph to show the police?

Looking for the pill may be a 'cry for help' from a girl that is morally and sexually 'out of her depth' ...
... it may also be her testing what a responsible adult thinks about under-age sex ... either way a doctor cannot claim ignorance of what is happening when they are prescribing the pill for an under-age girl.
It's like a publican claiming that selling drink to an under-age child is OK once he doesn't see her drink it!!!
... or that she is doing the responsible thing by asking for drink in a pub ... rather than drinking cider in a field!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

You ignored the question. Would you assume that anyone who asked for paracetamol was attempting to kill themselves and report them to their parents?

Parcetamol is generally used for pain relief ... and is very rarely used in suicide. The pill is basically a contraceptive ... and is sometimes required to assist in regulating periods ... and a doctor would be fully aware of which reason the Pill was being prescribed for.

wrote:

Originally Posted by Zombrex
Neither the parents nor social services need to know if the girl is regulating her menstrual cycle.

J C
Informing Social sevices would be over-the-top ... but parents should know about all prescription medicines that their children are on!!!

Zombrex
You are the one who is going on about this being illegal? Surely the police should be informed and a social worker?

I was talking about the medical use of the Pill ... to regulate her menstrual cycle ... which you were referring to ... and which isn't illegal!!!.

Can I ask you to not twist my words by giving the impression that I was answering a different question to the one I was answering!!!
I would ask any observers to see what was done to my words by you in the exchange above!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

Or is it that you don't actually care about the legality, that is just an excuse to make this seem a bigger deal than simply your hang-ups over sex?

I have no 'hang-ups' about God's gift of sex within Christian Marriage ... and it's curse outside of a marriage commitment.

Zombrex wrote: »

Hypocritical to the last JC :rolleyes:

I'll let others be the judge of that ... but I think that I'll need to puke the next time I hear a sanctimonious, self-righteous pseudo-liberal 'bleating on' about a child's right ... to be put on the Pill.

... and no, that isn't a 'hang-up' ... its just a normal Human reaction to the wanton destruction of chidhood innocence!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

So the girl is a pervert doing something illegal, but we shouldn't inform the police or social services, just the parents.

You don't care about any harm the girl might be doing, you just care about the threat of her parents finding out she is having sex being used to guilt her into not having sex.

An under-age girl isn't a pervert ... but she could be the victim of a pervert ... and I was referring to your suggestion that it is only "when the doctor witnesses her having "illegal sexual activity" he should inform the parents and the police".
... and I was pointing out that such a child protection 'standard' would be a 'Perverts Charter'!!!:(
... please stop twisting my words ... you're going to get caught ... and lose all credability every time you do!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by Zombrex
And when the doctor witnesses her having "illegal sexual activity" he should inform the parents and the police.

J C
... If that is the standard to be applied to all cases of sex abuse ... that the doctor has to actually witness the pervert in action ... before reporting it to the parents, it would be God help our children!!!

__________________

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If I was in power, I would have schools teach the facts about religion and leave it at that. Similar to educate together but do it quicker and devote less time to it. The time saved I'd teach critical thinking, economics and things that have objective reality.

And what would you prescribe for us parents who are abusing our poor childrens minds?

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

And what would you prescribe for us parents who are abusing our poor childrens minds?

Good question ... but I'll not frighten you with the answer!!!:eek:

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The time saved I'd teach critical thinking, economics and things that have objective reality.

... would that be the 'economics' that has broke this country ... and made life a misery for nearly all it's citizens ... that you now want to brainwash our unfortunate children with?

Your assumption that the Christian Faith ... and Creation Science doesn't improve critical thinking ... is certainly not supported by the out-turn on this forum ... where I have, practically single-handed, showed up glaring flaws in the thinking of you guys ... and without any substantive rebuttal from ye on practically every issue!!!:eek:

marienbad

J C wrote: »

... would that be the 'economics' that has broke this country ... and made life a misery for nearly all it's citizens ... that you now want to brainwash our unfortunate children with?

Your assumption that the Christian Faith ... and Creation Science doesn't improve critical thinking ... is certainly not supported by the out-turn on this forum ... where I have, practically single-handed, showed up glaring flaws in the thinking of you guys ... and without any substantive rebuttal from ye on practically every issue!!!:eek:

Maybe it was our lack of economic know-how that has us in the state we are in- so it is more teaching of same required, not less.

As for creationism ! Self praise is no praise , and it is easy to prove your case (to yourself) when you ignore everybody and every argument and just repeat your own ad nauseum

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

... would that be the 'economics' that has broke this country ... and made life a misery for nearly all it's citizens ... that you now want to brainwash our unfortunate children with?

There's major benefits to educating people on economics. You learn how markets work and what drives consumer demand and the likes. But the way you stated that is as if there's simply one economic theory and it's a closed environment with no debate. Would you prefer that young people have no knowledge of how the world works day to day? Sure, we won't teach maths or physics either, didn't that bring about the nuclear bomb? :pac: I'm hoping you meant it in jest.

In terms of educating children on religion, i'm fine with it. However indoctrinating one specific faith in schools should not occur. Send them to a Sunday school or teach them yourselves. It's not the states duty to teach a specific faith.

J C

marienbad wrote: »

Maybe it was our lack of economic know-how that has us in the state we are in- so it is more teaching of same required, not less.

The point I'm making is that professional economists (who presumably would construct any course on Economics) got it spectacularly wrong, with a few notable exceptions, on our fatal embrace with property using other peoples money, to fool ourselves into thinking, that we were all millionaires.
The economic 'knowhow' that we need is found in the Bible ... do not be a borrower ... because the lender will 'own' you, if you do!!!
... and take everything you hear with a pinch of salt ... and run when everyone else is sitting ... and vice versa.
... now, can I teach some classes in 'economics' in these new irreligious schools that ye guys are proposing!!:eek::):D

marienbad wrote: »

As for creationism ! Self praise is no praise , and it is easy to prove your case (to yourself) when you ignore everybody and every argument and just repeat your own ad nauseum

You are correct that self praise is no praise ... but I am still right about you guys having no substantive rebuttal to anything I have said!!!

... and I give any praise due ... to the Holy Spirit.

lmaopml

Corkfeen wrote: »

There's major benefits to educating people on economics. You learn how markets work and what drives consumer demand and the likes. But the way you stated that is as if there's simply one economic theory and it's a closed environment with no debate. Would you prefer that young people have no knowledge of how the world works day to day? Sure, we won't teach maths or physics either, didn't that bring about the nuclear bomb? :pac: I'm hoping you meant it in jest.

In terms of educating children on religion, i'm fine with it. However indoctrinating one specific faith in schools should not occur. Send them to a Sunday school or teach them yourselves. It's not the states duty to teach a specific faith.

Corkfeen, religous freedom that is - whether one is an Atheist or No - is about being able to 'be' who you are and practice your faith in public, to live that life, express that opinion, whether a person thinks it's way down at the end of their productive nose is besides the point of Liberty - and freedom of expression.

It's not about being told to live it only 'indoors' where it belongs according to another? That's as bad as any oppressive regime.

That's not freedom, that is living your life according to another persons view - the fact is, that we don't all have the same view, but we're all equal.


We're not all Atheists, we're not all Spiritualists, we're not all Christians, we're not all Moslem, etc. etc. - but we are all people with freedom of expression, so long as it doesn't hurt another and is democratic - we're free to fight for a right in the public sphere to be as such - and not always necessarily see another as the enemy...unless it suits a 'zealous' agenda!

I think the 'enemy' in this country is being exaggerated by some, it's arguing the next door neighbour, they want to see things change 'right now', and feck the rest.

I will muscle in with, and have done so with minority groups to be represented and feel they have a place, a comfortable place in this country - even as a Catholic - but that doesn't mean that I consider every single opinion valid - Like the one who just 'knows' what is best for me too....That's a bit mad and kind of counter to the argument in the first place no?

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

There's major benefits to educating people on economics. You learn how markets work and what drives consumer demand and the likes.

... this stuff will be covered ... but you'll never be told how the World really works !!!

Corkfeen wrote: »

But the way you stated that is as if there's simply one economic theory and it's a closed environment with no debate. Would you prefer that young people have no knowledge of how the world works day to day? Sure, we won't teach maths or physics either, didn't that bring about the nuclear bomb? :pac: I'm hoping you meant it in jest.

... there was a bit of jest involved ... it's no harm to have as broad an education as possible ... but the acid test of how 'closed' or 'open' the 'environment' is ... is whether Creation Science will ever be taught in schools.
I know the answer ... and it's never ... so don't start with this sanctimonious waffle about having an 'open' environment accepting of diversity ... when all that is being done is the repacement of monolithic religion ... with monolithic irreligion!!!

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

... this stuff will be covered ... but you'll never be told how the World really works !!!

... there was a bit of jest involved ... it's no harm to have as broad an education as possible ... but the acid test of how 'closed' or 'open' the 'environment' is ... is whether Creation Science will ever be taught in schools.
I know the answer ... and it's never ... so don't start with this sanctimonious waffle about having an 'open' environment accepting of diversity ... when all that is being done is the repacement of monolithic religion ... with monolithic irreligion!!!

You underestimate economics....

Where did I say that schools shouldn't be accepting of diversity? I'd personally prefer to see people of every creed sharing a classroom, how much more diverse do you want it to be? Religion classes could discuss the various religions across the world and students could explain what they do or don't believe in. (Excessive hours spent on religion shouldn't exist as it does now) Separating those of different religious inclinations only serves the purpose of creating an unnecessary divide between people.

I'll simply say the education system doesn't exist to teach pseudoscience but I don't think you are supposed to be discussing that here.(This is referring to 'creation science' being taught as a bloody science which is a statement of fact in terms of it being a pseudo science)

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

You underestimate economics....

... not really ... it's not called the 'dismal science' for nothing!!!!

Corkfeen wrote: »

YWhere did I say that schools shouldn't be accepting of diversity? I'd personally prefer to see people of every creed sharing a classroom how much more diverse do you want it to be?

I said that you were advocating diversity (that you agree with) out of one side of your mouth ... while doing your best to suppress any diversity (that you disagree with), out of the other side of your mouth ... which is utter hypocracy ... and is grossly disrespectful of diversity of opinion and faith!!

Corkfeen wrote: »

Religion classes could discuss the various religions across the world and students could explain what they do or don't believe in. Separating those of different religious inclinations only serves the purpose of creating an unnecessary divide between people.

... you'd like them sharing a classroom .... and being taught irreligion!!!!

... there is no need for anybody to be offended or go into a fit when a Christian prays beside them ... or when Christian children are taught about their faith beside them. We still live in a country that is 90% Christian ... and 'the tail would be wagging the dog' if we end up with schools that are predominantly irreligious in character.

... and comparative religion could also be taught, in a respectful and fair manner. ... and that includes beliefs, like Creationism that are held by Christians in all churches and by Jews and Moslems as well.

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll simply say the education system doesn't exist to teach pseudoscience but I don't think you are supposed to be discussing here.

... and you also wouldn't be respecting the 'diversity' that you claim to love, by making such a bigoted statement.

totus tuus

Religion aside, the Referendum is NOT about children's rights, it all about removing parental rights and handing it over to the state - it's a bad call!

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

pseudo-liberals, like yourself,

Ah, "pseudo-liberal", the term of choice for fundamentalists when referring to their opponents.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

is certainly not supported by the out-turn on this forum ... where I have, practically single-handed, showed up glaring flaws in the thinking of you guys

Did you mean turn-out? There may be a reason you've been practically single-handed in "showing up the glaring flaws" JC :pac:

doctoremma

Obliq wrote: »

There may be a reason you've been practically single-handed in "showing up the glaring flaws" JC :pac:

It's because most of the others here realise that they aren't, in fact, glaring flaws.

Tim Robbins

J C wrote: »

... would that be the 'economics' that has broke this country ... and made life a misery for nearly all it's citizens ... that you now want to brainwash our unfortunate children with?

If people understood economics better it would mean people would understand the risks associated with reckless politicians who are more interested in kissing babies than getting macro economic policy right.

Your assumption that the Christian Faith ... and Creation Science doesn't improve critical thinking ... is certainly not supported by the out-turn on this forum ... where I have, practically single-handed, showed up glaring flaws in the thinking of you guys ... and without any substantive rebuttal from ye on practically every issue!!!:eek:

Well perhaps apply your critical thinking skills to your punctuation. You keep using ... when you shouldn't be.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well perhaps apply your critical thinking skills to your punctuation. You keep using ... when you shouldn't be.

That jibe might have been more effective if you had inserted a comma after the first word.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah, "pseudo-liberal", the term of choice for fundamentalists when referring to their opponents.

It's accurate ... as it describes somebody who is ultra-liberal about their ideas being promoted ... while being ultra-conservative sometimes to the point of suppression about ideas they disagree with.

... they preach tolerance of 'diversity' (that they like) ... but they are grossly intolerant ... of 'diversity' (that they disagree with).
... so they're not truly liberal at all ... they're just pseudo-liberal.

J C

Here is a video summarising what is happening to parental rights in America, courtesy of the 'childrens rights' agenda.

JimiTime

J C wrote: »

Here is a video summarising what is happening to parental rights in America, courtesy of the 'childrens rights' agenda.

I've recommended it many times here, but you should get your hands on the book, 'A Queer Thing Happened To America'. Its where I learned about the cases alluded to in the vid, about kids from kindergarten up getting indoctrinated with the LGBT stuff. A real eye opener in relation to the rather insidious agenda afoot. A must read IMO.

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

I've recommended it many times here, but you should get your hands on the book, 'A Queer Thing Happened To America'. Its where I learned about the cases alluded to in the vid, about kids from kindergarten up getting indoctrinated with the LGBT stuff. A real eye opener in relation to the rather insidious agenda afoot. A must read IMO.

Homosexuals need our love and understanding ... but I do think that it is totally inappropriate to go discussing homosexuality (or indeed hetrosexuality) with very young children.
It is wantonly destroying childhood innocence ... for no good reason.

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

I've recommended it many times here, but you should get your hands on the book, 'A Queer Thing Happened To America'. Its where I learned about the cases alluded to in the vid, about kids from kindergarten up getting indoctrinated with the LGBT stuff. A real eye opener in relation to the rather insidious agenda afoot. A must read IMO.

J C wrote: »

Homosexuals need our love and understanding ... but I do think that it is totally inappropriate to go discussing homosexuality (or indeed hetrosexuality) with very young children.
It is wantonly destroying childhood innocence ... for no good reason.

You know what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway - take it to the megathread.

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You know what I'm going to say but I'll say it anyway - take it to the megathread.

I believe something was posted with the context of a parents rights, no? In the US, there are cases whereby schools have forced on their pupils, against parents wishes, and upheld by the courts, a curriculum designed by GLSEN. It is an example of the issues mentioned in relation to bestowing certain powers on the state, and the very real activists that may exploit it, and indeed have exploited such things elsewhere. This is NOT a reference to homosexuality as an act or indeed a reference to homosexuals as people. Its a reference to activists, and how they can exploit laws like the ones we are asked to vote into our constitution. It has everything to do with this thread, and I wholly resent and reject your implication.

JimiTime

J C wrote: »

Homosexuals need our love and understanding .

Absolutely no question! The activism is a different kettle of fish though, and its this activism that is the issue in your video, and indeed what I alluded to in my post.

Orizio

So...how do I vote to get the priests out of the schools?

JimiTime

Orizio wrote: »

So...how do I vote to get the priests out of the schools?

Definitely No. So can we count on your vote?

Orizio

JimiTime wrote: »

Definitely No. So can we count on your vote?

I'll make it a 'yes' vote then.

JimiTime

Orizio wrote: »

I'll take as a 'yes' vote then.

If I say yes, will you vote no? If so, go with that.