Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?
Comments
-
I think Physicist Paul Dirac's quote about the ongoing teaching of religion sums it up for me;
If we are honest — and scientists have to be — we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards — in heaven if not on earth — all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.
Comment made at the 1927 Solvay Conference.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Right, so in your mind 'freedom of religion' means freedom for everyone else to be educated in your religion?
Actually, the head of ET has said that they are having to turn away non-catholics, who then have to attend Catholic schools, because they are oversubscribed with Catholic children, and that since, unlike Catholic schools, they have a non-discrimination policy they won't turn them away. Going by that it seems that there are an awful lot of Catholic parents who want secular education for their children.
Bunreaht ha hÉireann:
Article 40 on Fundamental Rights
"1° the state guarantees in its laws to respect, and,
as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and
vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."
Note the bold part .
On Religion
1 the state acknowledges that the homage of
public worship is due to almighty God. it shall
hold his name in reverence, and shall respect and
honour religion.
2 1° freedom of conscience and the free profession
and practice of religion are, subject to public
order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° the state guarantees not to endow any
religion.
3° the state shall not impose any disabilities or
make any discrimination on the ground of
religious profession, belief or status.
Obviously, the bold bit here, deals with nut jobs like Scientologists.
There is absolutely nothing from stopping parents who oppose Catholicism from setting up their own schools and then seeking to get State funds. The children can also be taught at home, so long as they meet the State requirements.
Ruairi Quinn offered a solution, not enough parents took it up.
Article 42 Education
the state acknowledges that the primary and
natural educator of the child is the family and
guarantees to respect the inalienable right and
duty of parents to provide, according to their
means, for the religious and moral, intellectual,
physical and social education of their children.
2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in
their homes or in private schools or in schools
recognised or established by the state.
3 1° the state shall not oblige parents in violation
of their conscience and lawful preference to send
their children to schools established by the state,
or to any particular type of school designated by
the state.
2° the state shall, however, as guardian of the
common good, require in view of actual conditions
that the children receive a certain minimum
education, moral, intellectual and social.
4 the state shall provide for free primary education
and shall endeavour to supplement and give
reasonable aid to private and corporate
educational initiative, and, when the public good
requires it, provide other educational facilities or
institutions with due regard, however, for the
rights of parents, especially in the matter of
religious and moral formation.
article 42a
1 the state recognises and affirms the natural and
imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as
far as practicable, by its laws protect and
vindicate those rights.
Article 9 of ECHR
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief
and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public
or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to
such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection
of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.
No one stopping the non Catholics from getting their education elsewhere.
The Educate together schools are growing
If sending little Tommy to a bordering school in another county eg Clongowes, was good enough for John and Mary ...................... surely sending the child to an Educate Together school that is no more than 20 -30 miles away is hardly a huge issue0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You did not answer the question about missing words in your sentence. Not being petty here, but I genuinely can not parse the sentence until you fix it.
This is still not answering the question I've asked many times. That people who signed off on laws were also religious is not what I questioned. But that ALL basic rights were first recognized by religion.
If you essentially dilute the claim to "They were first codified into law by people who also were religious" then that certainly is a less hyperbolic claim, and one that warrants much less substantiation.
A back pedal / dilution of your original assertion is not my loss by any means.
I have answered your questions
There has been no back peddling. No dodging.
When you discover the gift of comprehension, then you will understand what has been said and why. Until then, give this discussion a miss, you are not fit to be involved.
Your lies, b.s., sectarian bigotry has been entertained for far too long. You ought to be grateful that you are being responded to. You don't deserve to be treated with respect or responded to.
You want to deny basic common historical facts go ahead, but you have no right to be taken seriously and you will not be taken seriously
The discussion goes no where, and your argument /challenge fails big time , when you refuse to acknowledge who were the power leaders and instigators of legal and social development in Europe in the past (IE THE RECOGNITION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS -WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR - because, you reject the examples given of when it was first mentioned ). It is convenient, because, to do so, undermines your challenge/argument
Apparently Magna Carta and the drafters means nothing to you (mentioned more than 3 occasions) , which is odd considering what legislative developments came next
How convenient that you have nothing to say about your armchair analysis of thou shall not kill/murder and the pointing out that the RC doctrine of sanctity of life (aka Right to Life) undisputedly comes for that Commandment . Very silent there.
You are trolling.0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »Reminds me somewhat of the self hating jew phenomenon. Confirmed catholics bashing their own people.
I am a confirmed Catholic who has since left however that 'confirmation' was not a choice - it was enforced upon me along with baptism & communion & education. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to sign an infant up to a club - especially one with such a questionable history & the many glaring hyprocrasies within it. My own children were not signed up - they can make that decision for themselves when they have access to all the information. The RCC is not 'my own'. Infact I'm angry that I was ever a part of it.0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.I have answered your questions
I am not sure you have answered the question at all, as to what the basic human rights are (in your mind) and how you come to claim that they were recognized first in religion. But you have diluted that claim into a back pedal, which was my initial aim as it happens, to one about it being codifed into law by people who were religious.
The new claim, different from the old, is not one I have an issue with. Historically MOST people were religious and often were compelled to pretend to be if they were not. So MOST things in history were done by the religious. Plucking Chickens. Building Schools. Codifying laws.
I have also asked you however to show a statement I made that was bigoted. You have not done that either. So how you can claim to have answered my questions, when so many of them hang there unanswered, while accusing others of lies, is a mystery to me.
I am also not "being silent" on the issue at all. My long post is still there with all the content on it. If you wish to ask me a question about that post which you have not replied to, then by all means do and I will elaborate further on whatever it is you think I have not yet said.0 -
I am not aware of any ET boarding schools, or are you actually suggesting that parents drive up to 120 miles a day in order for their child not to receive religious education in school?If sending little Tommy to a bordering school in another county eg Clongowes, was good enough for John and Mary ...................... surely sending the child to an Educate Together school that is no more than 20 -30 miles away is hardly a huge issue
And, sure if driving 120 miles a day is 'hardly a huge issue' then cracking open a bible with your child in the evening and driving them 5 minutes to your local church for instruction a couple of times a week should be no issue whatsoever.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am not sure you have answered the question at all, as to what the basic human rights are (in your mind) and how you come to claim that they were recognized first in religion. But you have diluted that claim into a back pedal, which was my initial aim as it happens, to one about it being codifed into law by people who were religious.
The new claim, different from the old, is not one I have an issue with. Historically MOST people were religious and often were compelled to pretend to be if they were not. So MOST things in history were done by the religious. Plucking Chickens. Building Schools. Codifying laws.
I have also asked you however to show a statement I made that was bigoted. You have not done that either. So how you can claim to have answered my questions, when so many of them hang there unanswered, while accusing others of lies, is a mystery to me.
I am also not "being silent" on the issue at all. My long post is still there with all the content on it. If you wish to ask me a question about that post which you have not replied to, then by all means do and I will elaborate further on whatever it is you think I have not yet said.
You are sure or you are not sure. Which?
I have stated on at least three occasions: The right to life, the right to family, the right not to be tortured or receive ill human and degrading treatment, the right to liberty , they right to due process and speedy Trial (that last two found in Magna Carta) the right to free speech (this was recognized in the 1620's Bill of Rights , but in the context of Parliament) and conscience , Right to property, right to religion (linked with conscience , again religion , a starting point is Magna Carta )
Other ones, were later acknowledge like right to good name (but, thou shall not bear false witnesses can be an influence, church boys can't take credit )
So you are wrong, again.
"and how you come to claim that they were recognized first in religion."
They were the people making the rules in society back then, they were the ones lobbying Kings and acting as advisors.........You deny the power of a Pope like Pope Innocent III?
I can't talk about the Middle East or Egypt as my knowledge on history and the legal system is pretty non existent (they were the first groups to come up with the ideas most of the time) , I clearly stuck with Europe, which, was the center of the world anyway lol
Sure, the theory is that these laws are already there, already obvious, not really discovered, but, bull, they are not plucked out of thin air. The rights are irrelevant if they are not recognized and respected . The greatest way to recognise something in law is to make it part of the laws, whether by judgment or by codifying it through statute
You have NOT addressed the rebuttal regarding Thou Shall not Murder-Kill vs Right to Life. You just came out with some smug waffle in response to it being pointed out to you that murder is killing. You got very jumped up about the rhetorical questions put to you as to what it meant and to who, in practice, it protects. You did not address the point that Thou Shall Not Kill is central to the RC doctrine on the right to sanctity aka Right to Life.
The tone of your statements is clear for all to see. Do not pretend for one millisecond that you believe that the religious beliefs are inferior to your views and you do not possess any hatred .You can dislike or disagree with the teachings all you want, you won't be the only person (me including) but don't embarrass yourself into thinking that religious groups did not play a major role in the laws , customs and social matters in Europe, which includes the development of human rights. Whether they practiced what they preached (they did not) is another matter.0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.
Those buildings should be seized by the state to cover the taxpayers burden due to the church's woefully inadaquate compensation of the victims of their abuseLorenzo Clever Chinchilla wrote: »Or they can pull the building from use and the state will have to build schools or else agree to continue allowing the church owned schools to be catholic ethos schools.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.I am not aware of any ET boarding schools, or are you actually suggesting that parents drive up to 120 miles a day in order for their child not to receive religious education in school?
And, sure if driving 120 miles a day is 'hardly a huge issue' then cracking open a bible with your child in the evening and driving them 5 minutes to your local church for instruction a couple of times a week should be no issue whatsoever.
Nice try
The reason for the comparison was because the usual whinging from parents about where the ET schools are, they can be miles away. Fair complaint but not justifiable
I do not think that there is any boarding schools.
But, the comparison was to do with the distance of the nearest ET school.
The Boarding school comparison, to any one with cop on , was , if those parents are prepared to not let distance be an issue, then the other parents who have a secular school, should let it be an issue (plenty of bus companies around)
120 miles a day, 60 each way?
This is a rough map of the primary and secondary schools in Ireland
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1EJwizQ-nIqe-Aokcnacgm-O70T0&ll=53.39859886655539%2C-8.296775386718764&z=6
3 in the midlands (Mullingar, Tullamore, Portlaoise) were it would be no more than 40 miles each way to serve the areas in between ., out to Athlone, up to Roscommon Town over to Longford
Tuam,like St Jarlaths, would cover much of North East Galway, where they populations are low ,and no more than 1 hour to get to . Galway city is well catered
You have zero excuse in Dublin, Dublin County and Kildare and parts of Meath . Navan, Ardee and Drogheda cover that region
There will not be travelling 120 miles a day!
Schools in Athlone, receive students from North of Roscommon Town (despite schools being there) most of Roscommon South, some in Ballymahon, even the odd close to Tullamore/Ferbane (despite good schools being there) and a good chunk from the Ballinasloe area (despite good schools there) . Fair bit of mileage to go to secondary school? Na, 1 hour
Kerry, Donegal and West Cork is the only real problem (hardly the most liberal counties are they?), with only Tralee .Parts of Tipp as well, but they are not far from Limerick time wise. Mayo has problems (odd, considering so many refugees stay there) Sligo can cater for North Roscommon and Leitrim (more sheep there)
Sure, you will rightly point out , what if they are full up? Well, that ensures high demand , doesn't it? Give the State the direction to address it (I know, it takes decades for those feckers to do anything)
Ruairi Quinn offered a solution, it was not taken up
Right now, the distance is not really the only issue, is it?0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Those buildings should be seized by the state to cover the taxpayers burden due to the church's woefully inadaquate compensation of the victims of their abuse
Thankfully, there are property laws on that.
Could you imagine a government surviving that stunt?
Even if it was popular, on principle, no substantial property owner could possible allow or agree to it as it sets precedent
Talk about Henry VIII style (That would be the propaganda)
The Government of the Day is solely responsible for the woefully inadequate compo scheme. They entered contracts. Look up Dr Michael Woods , around 2002ish. Blame the Government .0 -
Advertisement
-
Good grief, think for a minute! Do you really think that a parent will drop their child to school 30 miles away and then spend the day sitting outside? Of course not! They will have to go home, or go on to work, which is probably close to their house. This means a 60 mile round trip twice a day, and a 2 hour commute each day.Nice try
The reason for the comparison was because the usual whinging from parents about where the ET schools are, they can be miles away. Fair complaint but not justifiable
I do not think that there is any boarding schools.
But, the comparison was to do with the distance of the nearest ET school.
The Boarding school comparison, to any one with cop on , was , if those parents are prepared to not let distance be an issue, then the other parents who have a secular school, should let it be an issue (plenty of bus companies around)
120 miles a day, 60 each way?
This is a rough map of the primary and secondary schools in Ireland
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1EJwizQ-nIqe-Aokcnacgm-O70T0&ll=53.39859886655539%2C-8.296775386718764&z=6
3 in the midlands (Mullingar, Tullamore, Portlaoise) were it would be no more than 40 miles each way to serve the areas in between ., out to Athlone, up to Roscommon Town over to Longford
Tuam,like St Jarlaths, would cover much of North East Galway, where they populations are low ,and no more than 1 hour to get to . Galway city is well catered
You have zero excuse in Dublin, Dublin County and Kildare and parts of Meath . Navan, Ardee and Drogheda cover that region
There will not be travelling 120 miles a day!
Schools in Athlone, receive students from North of Roscommon Town (despite schools being there) most of Roscommon South, some in Ballymahon, even the odd close to Tullamore/Ferbane (despite good schools being there) and a good chunk from the Ballinasloe area (despite good schools there) . Fair bit of mileage to go to secondary school? Na, 1 hour
Kerry, Donegal and West Cork is the only real problem (hardly the most liberal counties are they?), with only Tralee .Parts of Tipp as well, but they are not far from Limerick time wise. Mayo has problems (odd, considering so many refugees stay there) Sligo can cater for North Roscommon and Leitrim (more sheep there)
Sure, you will rightly point out , what if they are full up? Well, that ensures high demand , doesn't it? Give the State the direction to address it (I know, it takes decades for those feckers to do anything)
Ruairi Quinn offered a solution, it was not taken up
Right now, the distance is not really the only issue, is it?
You still haven't given a decent answer, though: If you think that a 2 hour daily commute is ok for non-Catholics then why is a 5 minute drive to a church and taking 10 minutes a day to talk to their children about their faith sooooo much of a hassle for people who want their kids to have a religious upbringing that they insist it must be done in schools?0 -
500 years since the reformation. Think this is important to mention.0
-
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.You are sure or you are not sure. Which?
Again you have listed some, but not shown they were recognized first in religion. You just diluted the claim to it being codified in law by people who were religious.
There is a HUGE difference between "The religious first put it into law" and "It was first recognized by/in religion". The former statement I (mostly) agree with. The latter is unsubstantiated nonsense.
The difference still exists between thou shalt not murder and kill. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. Admonishing people not to murder is about their right to take a life, not the other persons right to have one.
As for any "hatred" you want to imagine on my behalf, that is all it is. Imagination. You have not shown one statement of mine that is bigoted. Nor, I suspect, will/can you.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Good grief, think for a minute! Do you really think that a parent will drop their child to school 30 miles away and then spend the day sitting outside? Of course not! They will have to go home, or go on to work, which is probably close to their house. This means a 60 mile round trip twice a day, and a 2 hour commute each day. /QUOTE]
I want you to answer these questions.
2 hours? 120km? Where?
The map has been produced to show where the ET schools are. You ignore that, conveniently .
Offer 10 towns/villages/townlands, AND their population, for examples that would require to travel 60 km each way. to get to a ET school or to another non Catholic School.
It won't be the Midlands, it won't be Dublin County or Kildare or Meath, or parts of Louth , It won't be East Galway, It won't be Galway City, Limerick City
You suggesting that all parents personally drive their children to school? Don't thinks so. Depending where you are , there is public transport (that won't work in many rural areas)
Until you have a majority of parents , in a an area, signing from the same hymn sheet regarding the kind of school that they want, which you do not have at this time, you can not have your bread buttered both ways.
You keep ignoring that Ruiairi Quinn's project failed, for now.
The excuses are not acceptable. If the parent care that much , the distance won't be a problem (and for many, it won't even be 60 km round trip) , after all, it is the parent's choice and their decision to enforce their views that Catholicism and the schools are wrong (perfectly entitled to hold that view) on the children
They can always send them to Church of Ireland schools or other religion basis schools that don't have the same emphasis on religion or "indoctrination" alleged about RC schools.You still haven't given a decent answer, though: If you think that a 2 hour daily commute is ok for non-Catholics
You point out the towns /village/townlands where one would have to travel that far .
If they are the minority , it is NOT IDEAL, but, tough. State is only Constitutionally required to do what is practicable regarding people's religious beliefs. Ruiairi Quinn offered a solution, why was it not taken up in droves? (has anyone got a genuine explanation for that? Was it flawed?)
It is really that easy, campaign in your area and talk to parents about the divestment of the schools and seek to get the Church out of the schools,; join the parent committees and strive for change in the school of their ethos.
DO NOT BE SITTING HERE, EVERY FEW MONTHS MOANING ABOUT IT. Credit if you are actually doing something about itthen why is a 5 minute drive to a church and taking 10 minutes a day to talk to their children about their faith sooooo much of a hassle for people who want their kids to have a religious upbringing that they insist it must be done in schools?
You said it was a hassle?
Why should the majority pander to the minority?
You and your people have , so far, failed to muster up enough people to see your way and seek changes in the schools. Why aren't ye getting enough numbers to seriously show a demand for a certain type of school and seeking the State to assist?
Loads of newly built and newly refurbished schools around lately, why are many still RC schools?
Perhaps getting out there on knocking on doors would be more proactive than the bi monthly whinge on a social media forum?0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again you have listed some, but not shown they were recognized first in religion. You just diluted the claim to it being codified in law by people who were religious.
There is a HUGE difference between "The religious first put it into law" and "It was first recognized by/in religion". The former statement I (mostly) agree with. The latter is unsubstantiated nonsense.
The difference still exists between thou shalt not murder and kill. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. Admonishing people not to murder is about their right to take a life, not the other persons right to have one.
As for any "hatred" you want to imagine on my behalf, that is all it is. Imagination. You have not shown one statement of mine that is bigoted. Nor, I suspect, will/can you.
It is crystal clear that you are clueless as to how many Human Rights would be considered the BASIC Foundation of Human Rights.
Have a count as to how many are contained in the ECHR
Take your failures elsewhere.
Right to Life (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
Right to Fair Trail aka DUE PROCESS (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
Right to Liberty (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
Probation of Torture /ill humane degrading treatment MENTIONED AND SOURCES COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
No Punishment without law is closely related to due process and Liberty
Right to Family (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES - Christ they talk nothing but family )
Right to Marry is closely related to Family
Freedom of Expression (Related to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Speech was mentioned and sourced )
Freedom of Religion, Conscience and thought (RELIGION WAS MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
There is the right of Assembly but I don't claim that, nor did I ever. Same with Effective Remedies that is a more recent one (ie last century), like wise prohibition of discrimination (hardly, Spanish Inquisition and all , again loads of those canons about them Jews )
You just don't get it, it pains you, it utterly rips you apart that religious principles and figures played a key influence in Europeans first attempts of codification of laws and rules
You attacked me when I offered the 10 Commandments, by saying that you did not ask for the first time that it was mentioned. Then I offered you three sources of biblical works and made reference to the Council of Trent as examples of recognition by religion, and you ignored that. And we haven't even touched on the amount of Canons written over the last 700 years
Now, bitching about these principles being codified into European laws by LEADERS OF RELIGION? FFS.
Diluted NOTHING , absolutely NOTHING. Your problem is you refuse to make any effort to comprehend and you hate it!0 -
Good evening!Do you teach them the bible is fact, or do you give them all the information for and against the existence of deities and encourage them to come to their own conclusions? If a kid maintained that they did not see enough evidence of a deity to accept that they were real what would you do/say?
We teach them about what Christians believe on a number of different issues. We trust that they are learning about other worldviews in their classes at school.
We share a Christian perspective with these children with the express consent of their parents in a safe environment. Their parents bring them because they want their children to learn about Jesus. The church gives me permission to do this precisely because this is what I'm doing and the Church of England at a diocesan level and at a national level give their undivided support to this.
I personally don't feel I deserve to be prosecuted for doing the right thing both on Wednesdays and on Sundays.Good grief, think for a minute! Do you really think that a parent will drop their child to school 30 miles away and then spend the day sitting outside? Of course not! They will have to go home, or go on to work, which is probably close to their house. This means a 60 mile round trip twice a day, and a 2 hour commute each day.
You still haven't given a decent answer, though: If you think that a 2 hour daily commute is ok for non-Catholics then why is a 5 minute drive to a church and taking 10 minutes a day to talk to their children about their faith sooooo much of a hassle for people who want their kids to have a religious upbringing that they insist it must be done in schools?
I am sympathetic to secular schooling but I feel that you're being inconsistent. Should churches be free to teach children about Jesus? To put the time into perspective. The time we spend on Wednesday is 1 hour 45 in total and we spend 30 mins discussing something from the Bible in a relatively interactive way.
I'd really appreciate it if someone could answer the questions in my original post since you're speaking about something that would have an impact on my life if I chose to return to Ireland. This isn't an abstract question for me.
What would the proposed penalty be for teaching about Jesus?solodeogloria wrote: »As someone who could potentially be prosecuted under what you're proposing I've naturally got a few questions.
Firstly, what constitutes indoctrination? - This is an important question. I have some sympathy for the idea that schools should be secular in nature and that parents should be free to teach their own children at home, or as a part of church activities. The latter is where I come in. I'll explain more in a moment.
Secondly, what is inherently wrong about sharing with children about Jesus and enabling them to think for themselves? - That's what I do at an evangelical church in London suburbia. Every Wednesday evening I help run a Christian group at our church for 11-14 year olds and on a lot of Sunday mornings. I do this for two reasons which are linked - both because I love our kids and I want to be a part of our church family in that way but also because I want to share with them about Jesus and how He can change our lives forever by making us right with God. I want to share with them about that because I believe that's the most important thing they should know. This is run on the clear consent of parents and pretty much every kid there wants to be there, both to have fun and to hear about God's word. They know that's what's involved. Not everyone fully trusts in Jesus for themselves, many are working it through, but the team of 6 that I serve with are there if anyone has any questions or if they want to know how to take it further. All members on our youth and families teams have been vetted by the police and child safety is held to the highest regard. Is it just wrong because you think that Christianity is wrong? Or is it wrong for some other reason?
Should I be in jail according to the original post on the thread?
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
It is crystal clear that you are clueless as to how many Human Rights would be considered the BASIC Foundation of Human Rights.
Have a count as to how many are contained in the ECHR
Take your failures elsewhere.
Right to Life (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
Right to Fair Trail aka DUE PROCESS (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
Right to Liberty (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
Probation of Torture /ill humane degrading treatment MENTIONED AND SOURCES COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
No Punishment without law is closely related to due process and Liberty
Right to Family (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES - Christ they talk nothing but family )
Right to Marry is closely related to Family
Freedom of Expression (Related to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Speech was mentioned and sourced )
Freedom of Religion, Conscience and thought (RELIGION WAS MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)
There is the right of Assembly but I don't claim that, nor did I ever. Same with Effective Remedies that is a more recent one (ie last century), like wise prohibition of discrimination (hardly, Spanish Inquisition and all , again loads of those canons about them Jews )
You just don't get it, it pains you, it utterly rips you apart that religious principles and figures played a key influence in Europeans first attempts of codification of laws and rules
You attacked me when I offered the 10 Commandments, by saying that you did not ask for the first time that it was mentioned. Then I offered you three sources of biblical works and made reference to the Council of Trent as examples of recognition by religion, and you ignored that. And we haven't even touched on the amount of Canons written over the last 700 years
Now, bitching about these principles being codified into European laws by LEADERS OF RELIGION? FFS.
Diluted NOTHING , absolutely NOTHING. Your problem is you refuse to make any effort to comprehend and you hate it!
European law, and even our laws are based on utilitarian principles, not religious ones. There are some exceptions and they're very noticeable. We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights. The UN have said that our abortion laws are in violation of human rights.
The fact is that we're ditching "religious" laws where they don't align with utilitarian principles.0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.Take your failures elsewhere.
The only failure here is to substantiate the original assertion. You have listed some rights and places where they are mentioned. You have NOT listed any evidence they were "discovered first" in religion.
You have however back pedaled the claim back into a more dilute one which I think is less hyperbolic nonsense, that of religious people codifying said rights into law. Which is a much different claim. One I even agree with mostly.
As for the 10 commandments, that is the same fail. You are listing places this right or that right have been mentioned. But AGAIN nothing to show it was the FIRST place. You are not answering what is actually being asked.
And I stlll await you quoting a SINGLE statement from me that was bigoted. You have failed to do that too. Instead you keep making up emotions for me on my behalf that I have neither felt or expressed. Deflection I guess.0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.You have zero excuse in Dublin, Dublin County
I live in a large suburb in Dublin, no ETs here (although there are two gaelscoils :rolleyes:) and all the ones in the adjoining suburbs are full, becase of the overwhelming demand from those areas
Dept of Education chose to expand the existing religious schools a few years ago rather than open an ET. Parents were not consulted at all
But why let facts intrude into your narrative if the facts don't suit you, eh?In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.I am a confirmed Catholic who has since left however that 'confirmation' was not a choice - it was enforced upon me along with baptism & communion & education. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to sign an infant up to a club - especially one with such a questionable history & the many glaring hyprocrasies within it. My own children were not signed up - they can make that decision for themselves when they have access to all the information. The RCC is not 'my own'. Infact I'm angry that I was ever a part of it.
Take it up with your parents, either way, the State can not and will not interfere0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.European law, and even our laws are based on utilitarian principles, not religious ones. There are some exceptions and they're very noticeable. We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights. The UN have said that our abortion laws are in violation of human rights.
The fact is that we're ditching "religious" laws where they don't align with utilitarian principles.
You will find that the religious leaders were around before them lads , when it came to matters like right to life,liberty etc . Of course,without the likes of Bentham, the world would have been a scarier place today. They improve and bettered the principles that were already there. All I say is that , the core rights, that I cited were recongised when the religious leaders dominated European affairs
We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights.
BS! Big time, baby.
At NO STAGE has any European Court, whether EU or ECJ ruled that the ban on gay marriage was ILLEGAL, and certainly NOT against Ireland .
That is the biggest load of rubbish and you have no basis for that . Gay Marriage is not even an universal right and many countries, including the US (as a whole) have not recognised it, yet.
Because Gay Marriage IS NOT universally recognized, the EU and the ECtHR have no competence to rule against a country and force them to recognise it . Nor did they try to.There have been the odd case around 10 years ago on that and they pointed out that it was a matter for each country
The UN, EU, and ECtHR Played NO role whatsoever in Ireland changing it's laws on Gay Marriage. They simply do not have the competence to do so
The ECtHR HAVE however, ruled that the criminalisation of homosexual acts is illegal. That is a massive difference. That eventually lead to the decriminalisation of gays in Ireland (they were slow in doing it too)
"The UN have said that our abortion laws are in violation of human rights. "
1. No one gives a flying feck what the UN think. The UN have very little powers to force countries to bow to their ultimate demands. Fines and compensation won't do much for the claimant if the Country still refuses to recongise abortion in all cases. Problem is, Ireland has refused to legislate on abortion based on rules of our own court
Our laws must be expanded, short of abortion in all cases (the only realistic chance of progress, because a proposal of abortion in all cases, will fail, at this time) as the status quo is not satisfactory. Neither the UN , EU , or ECtHR will dictate that however.
2. The ECtHR themselves, a group that can force us to do things (I don't mean that in a bad by either, ECtHR has been very good for Ireland) , acknowledged in 2010, that they had no right to rule on the abortion ban as they had no competence and were bound to respect our cultural and legal differences and stay within the remit of the text of what is actually set out in the Convention.
Nevertheless, boy they tried as it was a tiny majority 4:3 ruled that Ireland was not in violation for their ban on abortion, and was only on a technicality rather than their own personal view on abortion . However, they did find Ireland in breach of the Convention for their failure to enforce the laws on abortion that was already there ie X Case, (which the government, even via referendums , have done their level best to over rule) Compensation still would make a country act to change the laws and it certainly will not deter those who oppose an issue that goes to a referendum.
Ditching religious laws. Who is we?
Churches still run the hospitals and schools. A lot of shiny new and refurbished schools have been propping up around the country. Bar the lunatics , the leading RC hierarchy were wisely pretty silent on gay marriage and the Church of Ireland was very much in favour and always had been .
Those who oppose abortion outright or oppose in cases outside the status quo don't have to cite God as their reasons for it, they are not all religious .
Blasphemy laws are still on the Statute. Would be interesting to see how that went down it they were tested. Not sure why Dermott Aherne bothered, even theologians and priests (the sane ones) were miffed by it0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.I fear there has been something of a reading comprehension failure from you there. I will add some bolding to highlight your failure:We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights.At NO STAGE has any European Court, whether EU or ECJ ruled that the ban on gay marriage was ILLEGAL
You are lambasting the user as espousing "BS" on the basis of something he never actually said. He nowhere said they ruled it was ILLEGAL. He said they ruled it a violation of human rights.
For example "Norris V Ireland" in 1988 saw the European Court rule that the criminalizing of homosexuality in Ireland violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Or for example Dudgeon v the United Kingdom in 1981 say the European Court rule that Criminal Law criminalizing homosexual acts in the UK violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is unclear you are aware what the difference is (or even that there is one) between ruling something to be a violation of human rights, and ruling something to be outright illegal.0 -
I actually meant to say gay sex. That was illegal here until the ECHR ruled against the law.
And that law is the perfect example of a religious law. It's not based on harm, it's based on religious principles.
Our laws are based on utilitarian principles. That's why very few of the 10 commandments are laws. I'm sure we'd all agree that respecting a parent is generally a good thing. However it's not the law. Our laws are designed to stop harm whilst maximising freedom and happiness.
Our laws are not based on christian principles, except for the 8th amendment. Which is why it is weird that the vast majority of our primary schools are religious. It's essentially state sponsored madrassas0 -
Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »Indoctrinating a child is the same as indoctrinating a mentally-disabled adult. It should be illegal. The child spends his or her childhood attending (a usually Catholic) school with little or no alternative choice.
I am 26 years old, and when I was growing up there was little or no other choices in my vicinity having grown up in a small-ish town on the outskirts of Dublin. The Roman Catholic Church has autonomy over most schools in Ireland.religion
An over-subscribed school often uses religion as a filtering process to filter out candidates. A horrific process if you ask me.
In my opinion, any school that receives even a penny of state funds should be forbidden from subscribing to any particular religion and religion should only be taught as a general subject for a minimal amount of time (from a neutral cultural education point of view). No class time should be wasted on Communion or Confirmation or first confession. If the parents really feel so strongly about religion, then they should bring their own kids to make their first confession, Communion and get confirmed.
Bringing up a kid to believe in a God is a horrid form of abuse.
Why not move to an atheist country, like North Korea?0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.realdanbreen wrote: »Why not move to an atheist country, like North Korea?
Yea because a country ruled by an ETERNAL leader who is allegedly partially reincarnated through his own son sounds totally atheistic and nothing at all like the Christian Narrative.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yea because a country ruled by an ETERNAL leader who is allegedly partially reincarnated through his own son sounds totally atheistic and nothing at all like the Christian Narrative.
Then perhaps Mongolia or Albania?0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.realdanbreen wrote: »Then perhaps Mongolia or Albania?
I would be curious after your awful first example what it is exactly you think is atheistic about those countries PRECISELY. Openly admit I have studied them as countries a LOT less than I have NK.
Am I to take it from your offering of these two examples that you at least see the problem with your first example?
Actually Christopher Hitchens used to tell a story about some people who escaped NK and were found, desperate and hungry by christian missionaries. As is their wont the Missionaries combined helping them with preaching to them.
Imagine their horror as they were told about an all loving eternal father who was born partly into his own son to bring us leadership and mercy......... sitting there thinking "is this not what we just escaped from? Its EVERYWHERE!".
Imagine their horror then hearing that THIS eternal father can get you even after you die. At least with North Korea everyone escapes in the end..... when they die. But with the Christian narrative that is only when the "fun" begins.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I would be curious after your awful first example what it is exactly you think is atheistic about those countries PRECISELY. Openly admit I have studied them as countries a LOT less than I have NK.
Am I to take it from your offering of these two examples that you at least see the problem with your first example?
Actually Christopher Hitchens used to tell a story about some people who escaped NK and were found, desperate and hungry by christian missionaries. As is their wont the Missionaries combined helping them with preaching to them.
Imagine their horror as they were told about an all loving eternal father who was born partly into his own son to bring us leadership and mercy......... sitting there thinking "is this not what we just escaped from? Its EVERYWHERE!".
Imagine their horror then hearing that THIS eternal father can get you even after you die. At least with North Korea everyone escapes in the end..... when they die. But with the Christian narrative that is only when the "fun" begins.
I’d say Hitchens made that up. It sounds trite and neat.
Also being similar to religion isn’t religion. If NK seems like they are worshipping dear leader as a god then maybe that is what happens when you ban other religions. If there were other religions then the statist worship of NK would be seen by those religions as blasphemy after all.0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.I do not doubt the possibility at all it was a made up story, but it does highlight the point being made well all the same. The utility of the point is not one reliant on the story being true, otherwise I would not have offered it without some evidence it was.
The point being simple, that it is way beyond even a joke to call such a state atheistic when it is not only the opposite of what atheists tend to espouse, but it also reminiscent of the Christian Narrative. That state is only one short of a trinity.
As for "being similar to religion isn't religion" I have no idea what that even means. A state religion is just that, a state religion. But the point was that it is not even REMOTELY similar to the atheism narrative the user was mapping on to it.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I fear there has been something of a reading comprehension failure from you there. I will add some bolding to highlight your failure:
You are lambasting the user as espousing "BS" on the basis of something he never actually said. He nowhere said they ruled it was ILLEGAL. He said they ruled it a violation of human rights.
For example "Norris V Ireland" in 1988 saw the European Court rule that the criminalizing of homosexuality in Ireland violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Or for example Dudgeon v the United Kingdom in 1981 say the European Court rule that Criminal Law criminalizing homosexual acts in the UK violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is unclear you are aware what the difference is (or even that there is one) between ruling something to be a violation of human rights, and ruling something to be outright illegal.
Nozzferrahhtoo
You really have to stop this . You are absolutely spectacularly clueless as what was said and the law. Predictable as well.! If you are going to try to talk down, to someone at least wait until you actually have grounds to do so
The following has to be put in bold, for your benefit
1. The poster stated the following :
"We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights"
Okay, so well will now break it down
(a) "We" : Ireland
(b) "gay marriage as illegal". Correct. Or, alternatively, we, like many nations , did not recognise it as a right. The gays claimed discrimination (a human right that prohibits discrimination) and demanded the right to marry (a human right)
(c) "The European Court of Human Rights Declared THAT in violation of human rights"
NO THEY DID NOT! They NEVER DECLARED that the ban on gay marriage was either illegal or in violation of human rights, for the precise reasons that I already stated, and that YOU have failed (and will continue to fail) to rebut.
The very least you and the person to whom I responded to could have actually, you know, provided the case law.
Gay Marriage is not a universally recongised right. The ECHR have in fact acknowledged that in 2004!!!!!!
In fact, just last June year they confirmed confirmed that Gay Marriage has yet to be considered a Human Right. (Right to marry)
https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-non-existence-of-a-right-to-gay-marriage
So, No, deary, the ECtHR have NOT ruled , at any time , that Ireland was in violation of Human Rights Law. Not once!
Apologise, for entering a discussion that you are completely devoid of understanding
Facts allow me to stand correct, and prove that you and your friend are wrong.
2. " nowhere said they ruled it was ILLEGAL. He said they ruled it a violation of human right"
If you are going to try and sound padeantic, best have a solid footing, please.
When something/someone is in violation of a recognized Human Right, then the culprit has acted in an illegal manner. It is illegal to violate a person's human Right without justification. A person put up for war crimes is found to have violated Human Rights laws and that individual can go to jail. A State, obviously can not go to jail, but, it can potentially be forced to change it's laws and it can be fined.
They have both the same effect and potential results,
What is sad is, in your desperate need to have something to say, you in fact ignored the serious flaw in the person's comment: The BS is that he wrongly claimed that any European court had ruled on gay marriage in a way that made it recognised . You Could not rebut that , so you tried to be pedantic and even then, it was weak. Sad
3. Norris - This is very very predictable, I addressed this with the other poster, knowing full well that he conflated the matter.
Norris case had NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Period. Their mere existence and ability to enjoy their life was what was at stake The result was, eventually, Ireland was forced to change its stupid laws, but it only came a few years later (even though no one was ever convicted under the offending legislation, so why the delay?)
Please, just stop. I am correct to point out that the person's claim is BS. No European Court did what he believed . There is a huge difference between Norris and the other case that you referred to (as did I - on que reply denying that I did not, so be it, but read what I said in full, first) and the recognition of gay marriage0 -
Advertisement
-
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I do not doubt the possibility at all it was a made up story, but it does highlight the point being made well all the same. The utility of the point is not one reliant on the story being true, otherwise I would not have offered it without some evidence it was.
The point being simple, that it is way beyond even a joke to call such a state atheistic when it is not only the opposite of what atheists tend to espouse, but it also reminiscent of the Christian Narrative. That state is only one short of a trinity.
It’s an Asian atheistic state. How the Christian narrative managed to worm its way in there hasn’t been explained either by you or Hitchens. That said he never came across as a man who read much.As for "being similar to religion isn't religion" I have no idea what that even means. A state religion is just that, a state religion. But the point was that it is not even REMOTELY similar to the atheism narrative the user was mapping on to it.
You have no idea what the phrase being similar to something isn’t something means in general? A wasp (some people think) is similar to a bee. It isn’t.
It’s an atheistic state. The fact that this state starts to worship a leader like a personality cult doesn’t mean it isn’t atheistic or that it is Christian. Your argument is like an anti catholic who blames Catholicism for all Protestant atrocities, as real Protestantism wouldn’t do this.
I suppose it’s a variation of the no true Scotsman argument.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.I actually meant to say gay sex. That was illegal here until the ECHR ruled against the law.
And that law is the perfect example of a religious law. It's not based on harm, it's based on religious principles.
Our laws are based on utilitarian principles. That's why very few of the 10 commandments are laws. I'm sure we'd all agree that respecting a parent is generally a good thing. However it's not the law. Our laws are designed to stop harm whilst maximising freedom and happiness.
Our laws are not based on christian principles, except for the 8th amendment. Which is why it is weird that the vast majority of our primary schools are religious. It's essentially state sponsored madrassas
The Commandments eg thou shall not kill/murder and religions principals and teachings have been sources and influence of the laws over decades, whether that is by fluke that the religious folk have more influence or not at the time , is another matter. The Utilitarians did not pluck things from the sky
Our laws not based on Christian Values?
Our? Ireland? WOW!
Do some research on the legal history of Ireland .........You should later move on to the First Paragraphs of the Preamble of Bunreacht na hEireann and numerous Judge's comments (the best ones were where they were used to recongise rights that the RCC would not have been happy with) to what they believed was the source of Ireland's principals. So , essentially, what you have just said, is greatly undermined much of the whinging that Atheist Ireland have been doing
Very Christian theme in the Constitutional provision about Family, in fact, very very very Catholic, since, despite the ECHR rulings, the Constitutional Family is ONLY the family based on Marriage. All laws come from God.........hmmm....
"Which is why it is weird that the vast majority of our primary schools are religious. It's essentially state sponsored madrassas"
What is even weirder is that a person like you, presumably born and bred in Ireland, could be so blind and lack any self awareness to come out and make that Statement about Ireland and its society, least the past. Pick up a history book, spend time reading the Dail Speech archives, come back to us then .
Best you stay away from the Constitutions of many European countries and their references about God.You might get triggered. Even the "godless" old England sing "God save .................." and has a State Religion0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.The fact de Valera was licking the arse of the catholic church should not dictate the present or future of our nation. The more you cite the nonce-sence in the constitution, the more I'll call for the whole despicable document to be torn asunder.
In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.
0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »The fact de Valera was licking the arse of the catholic church should not dictate the present or future of our nation. The more you cite the nonce-sence in the constitution, the more I'll call for the whole despicable document to be torn asunder.
Our Constitution was drafted in 1937 when the power of the Church over this country was probably at or close to its zenith. It is totally unfit for purpose in 21st century Ireland and needs to be completely rewritten.0 -
Here is what the OP thinks about our teens...Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »What are your missed opportunities?
I am here in Derry with my gorgeous OH. I went to the bar to order a Guinness and a Hop House for me and her respectively.
A girl, approx 18, bought 3 shots. She took one herself, gave one to her friend and handed one to me. At the time I didn’t realise she was offering it to me.
I didn’t realise it.
She was gorgeous.
Young meat. I could have ****ed her up the ass.
Frankly I'd rather teenagers facing the odd crucifix on a wall than old men who want to get them drunk for anal sex. Which is not to equivocate the two, I fully appreciate it's not an either/or. Just pointing to how shallow the OPs concerns about our youth might be given his own...interests.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »The fact de Valera was licking the arse of the catholic church should not dictate the present or future of our nation. The more you cite the nonce-sence in the constitution, the more I'll call for the whole despicable document to be torn asunder.
Ah, but, your statement betrays any understanding that you have of the Constitution in the first place.
There is always one Gerard Hogan Article that I like turning to and inviting people to read regarding those who listened or are influenced by historians and social commentators with limited knowledge or understanding of the Constitution and its history. I am trying in vein to locate it. Have a hard copy someone , but it is an excellent piece, makes a few people look rather silly and exposes some flaws in their research, one in particular TP Coogan (his hacket book on Dev) If I relocate an online version , I will post it up for people who might want to read it.
Essentially, the article deals with how Catholic the Constitution really is and addresses several comments from historians, arm chair historians who , really, haven't a clue .
If De Valera licked the CC so much, then, McQuaid would have been, and was , very disappointed with what came out. No where near the insensitivity of Catholicism as McQuaid would have liked
The Constitutional gave the courts substantial powers to interpret the Constitution, and since the text is only a basic outline of our laws, it is the case law that colours in the huge holes. Bear in mind, many a Protestant sat at the Bench. Not to mention that the true source for our Constitution came from the Weimer Republic !
So , we make a new Constitution, one that will succeed in get passed a plebiscite or referendum in whole, what actually changes from the current document?
Uber Catholic Preamble: Despite actually being used to great success in recognizing rights , some of whom would not have made the RCC too happy, this is a harmless piece now that has little or no use.
Reference to God: Me, I don't buy into notions that everything comes from God. Rubbish, me, man , made our law, our success and failures are down to us, not him. You can spot a spoofer when you see all them Americans sports stars thanking God, pure marketing rubbish: Pretend to be humble and God Fearing. Sod that. Remove. No big deal
Family: Prefer the Family under Article 8 of ECHR, especially since unmarried fathers are getting better rights now in the Family Law Courts. The removal of this provision might cause issues with people who take marriage seriously. One interesting note would be , the fact that the family provision would be used to justify the favorable tax credits to married couples (regardless of kids) compared to unmarried couples. Married people's self interest might oppose the removal / absence of a reference in the Constitution. Moreover, we might set into silly season as to what Constitutes a Family. Not entirely an overtly Catholic provision as many countries have a similar provision . This might be the first MAJOR Change /Issue of Concern(the other two are not as big deal)
Position of Mother in the Home: This is not going to be removed / or absent from a new Constitution . Possibility of Gender neutral, but, the State won't want to bind itself to any financial promises to fathers (married or unmarried?) with regard to paternity leave . Second Major Change/Issue of Concern
Abortion: Reference is going to stay. Period. Until there is widespread acceptance of abortion in all cases, and there most certainly is not, any absence of a reference to abortion would see the Constitution failing to pass. Best the abortion lot can hope for is extension to the current grounds :Biggest Issue of concern
Divorce: 2 years separation before a divorce is more than enough time. The current position is excessive. Have a referendum now, and then , come the day of a new Constitution, completely remove references to Divorce from the Constitution . Probably the Biggest Change in a New Constitution
Children: We have just changed that, it is fine. There is no way in Hell that the State will put into writing the list of rights and State Promises that are Contained in the UN Convention on Children. State only has limited resources. Besides, South Africa's Constitution has all these rights stated, and, well, South Africa is a joke
Education: This will not change. The parents will continue to be the primary educator . Religion will continue to be part of Education, as set out by the Courts. It will be for parents to decide what schools they want . No need for any Constitutional provision regarding this. Anything radical would possibly fail
Religion: Remove the Blasphemy clause. Since it has never been invoked, and is greatly laughed at, even by progressive Catholics and even some priests, the change would not really be a big deal. Cosmetic, in light of reality
Property Rights: Anything that remotely adversely affects Individual's property rights would see any proposed Constitution crash and burn. And Commies or socialists would do well to stay away from lamp posts
Expressed reference to what constitutes property and treasures owned by the State: Meh, not really a significant change. Water meters? Meh
Expressed Enumerated Rights: A difference, but still no big deal since they are already recongised by the Courts
Senand Reform: Big Deal,needs reform. Universal vote? Who should be excluded from running? eg failed Dáil Candidate or someone who lost their seat? Surely people with real experience and knowledge of industry etc should be brought sitting there and not career politicians? Not really keen on the lower educated class lay abouts voting , but voting rights could expand to other Third Level Institutes
President: Reduce to 5 years . Give more power? God no. Voters rights to Nordies? Might as well. Voters rights to citizens abroad? Depends on how long they have been abroad. 10 years max
Dail: What do you propose? Offer something realistic, and no bs rubbish that we would hear from students who would not know their arse from their elbow. Voting rights for foreigners? No way. Voting rights for Irish abroad? That would be topical. 5 years max.
There would probably be some more, but, there are actually very few that relate or concern religion.
You want to rip up a document, which, you evidently don't understand and certainly clueless as to how it was drafted, but, the document will more or less be the SAME , but with a few cosmetic changes, bear in mind the expectations you have to hold on Irish voters.
Think you will find that those who waffle about the Constitution being outdated are the people who really haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Bar the excessive bits, with the role of the Court, the Constitution has aged very well0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Good grief, think for a minute! Do you really think that a parent will drop their child to school 30 miles away and then spend the day sitting outside? Of course not! They will have to go home, or go on to work, which is probably close to their house. This means a 60 mile round trip twice a day, and a 2 hour commute each day.
You still haven't given a decent answer, though: If you think that a 2 hour daily commute is ok for non-Catholics then why is a 5 minute drive to a church and taking 10 minutes a day to talk to their children about their faith sooooo much of a hassle for people who want their kids to have a religious upbringing that they insist it must be done in schools?
Yo, did you get a chance to read that map that I offered to you?
When you get a chance, will you list those 10 towns/villages and their populations , where children would have to travel 60+ miles each way every day to get to a ET school0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »I live in a large suburb in Dublin, no ETs here (although there are two gaelscoils :rolleyes:) and all the ones in the adjoining suburbs are full, becase of the overwhelming demand from those areas
Dept of Education chose to expand the existing religious schools a few years ago rather than open an ET. Parents were not consulted at all
But why let facts intrude into your narrative if the facts don't suit you, eh?
And what about Quinn? Funny you don't address that
Name the "large suburb" (Electoral Area will suffice) , a map was produced earlier , look at it. Tell us where he nearest ET school is and the distance from it . They are all full? Well, that means that they will be looking for grants to get another block or two extended so.Good for them. Watch them also turn away kids from outside their area as they will feel that they have to prioritizes for the locals . How far away is the next one?
You have an issue with Gaelscoils. Why? Are they full up ?
Ruairi Quinn was the Minister for Education in recent years. He invited people to come and consult with the Department about divestment. Does anyone actually know why this failed spectacularly ? Surely, like minded people in your area would not be saying that they weren't consulted when you had the chance to take up Quinn's initiative?
"But why let facts intrude into your narrative if the facts don't suit you, eh?"
Clearly, instead of doing something pro active , like responding to ex Minister Ruairi Quinn's invitation for consultations over this very matter , you would rather sit around here moaning
Yes or No, did you respond to the invitation for consultation with the Department of Education when Quinn was Minister . If so, what happened?0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.JupiterKid wrote: »Our Constitution was drafted in 1937 when the power of the Church over this country was probably at or close to its zenith. It is totally unfit for purpose in 21st century Ireland and needs to be completely rewritten.
If you read it and understood how it actually works, you would not make such a ridiculously ill informed comment like that
You remember what was going on in 1937? Democracy was not exactly in a safe place , was it? Yet, Democracy was guaranteed in the Irish Constitution with LOADS of safeguards to prevent any one individual from having too much power and giving our Courts more than adequate rights to protect the public from questionable legislation via Article 26 References of Bills and the Public's right to challenge legislation themselves.
Funny enough, the Jews were specifically mentioned in the old Religious clause, and they were not that happy about the removal in 1970s, where as the rest of the population, including theologians (read up on their statements of the time) , accepted that with Northern Ireland, it needed to change.
The Basic fundamental rights were expressed, and although De Valera probably never imagine the extent of the results as we saw from 1960 onwards, it allowed a lot of freedom of the Courts on how it was interpreted . Not once did he bad mouth any judge.
I never thought that the Weimar Republic was ubber Catholic
Nah, you didn't think about that
The Core elements of the Constitution would essentially be the same if it was redrafted tomorrow, many of the changes would be minor or cosmetic, there would be a few significant ones but that would have nothing to do with religion. Many "new" provisions would only just confirm what has already being agreed by the Courts.
Go read the 1996 Constitutional Reform Report (free on line) the the Progress Reports for the next 12 years .It will give you some idea of what would be possible or not in a New Constitution
With the powers to change the current Constitution being ever so easy, a new one would be no more than a vanity project. In fact, this was confirmed when the PD's published their own version in the very early 2000's . Don't get fantasies that that some clowns from the left will get anything through, there won't be any revolutions0 -
Ah, but, your statement betrays any understanding that you have of the Constitution in the first place.
...
...Essentially, the article deals with how Catholic the Constitution really is and addresses several comments from historians, arm chair historians who , really, haven't a clue .
If De Valera licked the CC so much, then, McQuaid would have been, and was , very disappointed with what came out. No where near the insensitivity of Catholicism as McQuaid would have liked...
...
You want to rip up a document, which, you evidently don't understand and certainly clueless as to how it was drafted, but, the document will more or less be the SAME , but with a few cosmetic changes, bear in mind the expectations you have to hold on Irish voters.
Think you will find that those who waffle about the Constitution being outdated are the people who really haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Bar the excessive bits, with the role of the Court, the Constitution has aged very well
Excellent analysis, and good history too. The whole thing about de Valera and McQuaid is real wrong end of the stick stuff, as if the voters were a blank slate that were moulded by that relationship. Yes the document had a Catholic ethos...because the country was staunchly Catholic, not because of de Valera. In fact the Church felt if anything it was not Catholic enough and much of the opposition to it was because it was considered too liberal. Protestant and Jewish groups welcomed it, the Vatican opposed it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Deleted User wrote: »Excellent analysis, and good history too. The whole thing about de Valera and McQuaid is real wrong end of the stick stuff, as if the voters were a blank slate that were moulded by that relationship. Yes the document had a Catholic ethos...because the country was staunchly Catholic, not because of de Valera. In fact the Church felt if anything it was not Catholic enough and much of the opposition to it was because it was considered too liberal. Protestant and Jewish groups welcomed it, the Vatican opposed it.
The opposition was for a lot of the wrong reasons, genuine Civil War stuff. More a case of, "Vote no, it's Dev's Constitution". If you google it, the party later known as Fine Gael said some ridiculous stuff ( when did they gave a toss for women before 1937 or after) The vote in the counties depended on which party was dominant there. No surprise parts of Cork said no
https://www.adams.ie/catalogue_images/7032/medium/15.jpg
https://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/women1937no.jpg?w=759&h=665
http://irishpoliticalmaps.blogspot.ie/2011/05/plebiscite-on-draft-constitution-1937.html
The only serious issue , at that time, was the references to women. Problem was, since women got SFA when it came to property rights until the Succession Act in the 1960's , the noble, cough, idea of women not being forced out to work or run the farms while man was in England (thousands of women had to do men's work while the men were working in England etc) , not to mention the fact that the French had to bribe Ireland to bring in maternity leave.... were greatly undermined by Government inaction to really offer them protection.
By the 1940's the English had coped on about the importance of women in the labour force.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Here is what the OP thinks about our teens...
Frankly I'd rather teenagers facing the odd crucifix on a wall than old men who want to get them drunk for anal sex. Which is not to equivocate the two, I fully appreciate it's not an either/or. Just pointing to how shallow the OPs concerns about our youth might be given his own...interests.
He just seems obsessed with starting threads for the sake of it for some reason???
He's started 30 plus threads in the last 3 weeks and rarely sticks around to make any significant contribution to his own thread ........ he'd rather move on to start a new thread .......... is there some Boards related prize for starting x amount of threads?0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.You are absolutely spectacularly clueless as what was said and the law.
Do keep up, I was not talking about what was said in law.... so you have no idea what my level of knowledge about the law is at all.
What I was pointing out was the VAST difference between what the user said (that it was ruled to be a violation of human rights) and what you PRETENDED he said (that they ruled it to be illegal).
But rather than answer that you have decided to invent a comment about my comprehension of something I did not even mention. Weird.0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.server down wrote: »It’s an Asian atheistic state. How the Christian narrative managed to worm its way in there hasn’t been explained either by you or Hitchens.
You will have to show me what definition of "atheism" you are using there then because I have yet to find a single atheist in my own experience who thinks about "eternal" leaders and reincarnations and the like.
As for the Christian narrative..... if you find nothing familiar about an eternal father partially incarnating himself in his own son.... then I can only invite you to revisit the narrative again.server down wrote: »That said he never came across as a man who read much.
Which is a comment as ridiculous as saying that Van Morrison never came across as a person who wrote many songs, or David Beckham never came across as someone who ever played much football.
If you are going to make ridiculous comments like that one in other words, you are pretty much disqualifying yourself as being taken even remotely seriously.server down wrote: »You have no idea what the phrase being similar to something isn’t something means in general?
In general, I do. In this particular case, I do not. Again do not purposefully make ridiculous comments for effect.0 -
-
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Do keep up, I was not talking about what was said in law.... so you have no idea what my level of knowledge about the law is at all.
What I was pointing out was the VAST difference between what the user said (that it was ruled to be a violation of human rights) and what you PRETENDED he said (that they ruled it to be illegal).
But rather than answer that you have decided to invent a comment about my comprehension of something I did not even mention. Weird.
You are have zero knowledge on the law, period. This has been proven. You tried to lecture and correct me on the terms of "in violation" and illegal" and now have looked rather silly. Considering that even if your where correct, and you are not, it is not remotely relevant to what the op said and he is spectacularly wrong, and he had the decency to admit it later.
Like I said, when you want to talk down to people, make sure you have your facts first.
Despite it being spelt out to you, there IS NOT A "VAST DIFFERENCE" ! A declaration of either has the SAME EFFECT from a practical point of view ! If you knew what you were talking about, you would not dare make that stupid comment.
Nice try, now give it up! Have some self respect for yourself. You are trying desperately to have the last word, and trying to sound clever. But the pedantry has blown up in your face big time.
Now, please, stop. The thread was never intended to attract idiots0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.You are have zero knowledge on the law, period.
See since I know that is entirely untrue, and there is no way you could know either way, you are just outing yourself as someone who is more interested in personal ad hominem rather than discussion.
AGAIN however the point I made was not about the law. So what you IMAGINE is my level of knowledge is not even relevant to the point you are now dodging. Again there is a difference between ruling something in violation of the TREATY and ruling it to be ILLEGAL. Learn the difference please.0 -
Mod- Lt Dan and Nozzferahhtoo both thread banned.
Also stop dragging yere childish spat around AH and stop using the report post function to try get each other banned. It is getting bloody ridiculous and if ye keep it up ye will both get long bans from AH and be reported to the admins for abusing the report post function which may lead to site ban.
The best thing ye can do right now is put each other on ignore.0 -
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.Conspectus wrote: »Mod- Lt Dan and Nozzferahhtoo both thread banned.
Also stop dragging yere childish spat around AH and stop using the report post function to try get each other banned. It is getting bloody ridiculous and if ye keep it up ye will both get long bans from AH and be reported to the admins for abusing the report post function which may lead to site ban.
The best thing ye can do right now is put each other on ignore.
Since my name got mentioned here, I wish to address an untrue allegation made by you.
"stop[/B] using the report post function to try get each other banned."
Your statement is a lie and unbecoming of a moderator.
At not point did I make any complaint or report against another poster on this thread.
I am not pathetic like that, I have no need to shut people down like that when the weakness of their argument can be addressed with ease.
Prove your allegation or publicly retract and apologies for making that untrue statement .0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOZ3IzRaf4
Advertisement