Church and School

end of the road · 08-12-2017 9:34pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

If you don't want to send your child to a Christian school, don't.

If you don't have the choice of school you want, move.

If you cant get employment in a different area, change.

no . those are not viable, and it's not people's job to do those to support, at their expence, religious discrimination, and your wish to use and disrespect a religion for your own convenience.

Pithythefool wrote: »

In other words, stop expecting a "majority" to bend to your "minority" beliefs.

no . people have a right to expect religious discrimination to be removed from schools, and not to have to fund people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience. removing religious discrimination from schools means the beliefs of the majority aren't being bended to suit a minority, as the majority are not catholic, not believeing in the religion.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Be the change you want, don't force/expect others to change if they don't want to.

agreed. so lets remove religious discrimination from publically funded schools. if i'm to fund schools, i have a right to expect that those schools are fully inclusive to all children, and provide an education of a high standard that insure those children can go as far as possible. religion and religious discrimination does not fit that standard of education.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Simple solution that can be applied to so many things in life. The opposite stance is merely childish.

it's not a simple solution, but a selfish solution wanted so people can keep up an appearance for their own convenience. when it involves discrimination, especially against children, then people have a right to insure such nonsense is stamped out.
if you want the status quo to remain, you support religious discrimination against children. whether you wish to face that fact or not is up to you, but it's reality and it's not going to change.
the good news is religious discrimination will be removed from schools at some stage, and the fo/alacart catholics will have to suck it up. no more will this country pander to people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience.

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 9:38pm

end of the road wrote: »

no . those are not viable, and it's not people's job to do those to support, at their expence, religious discrimination, and your wish to use and disrespect a religion for your own convenience.

no . people have a right to expect religious discrimination to be removed from schools, and not to have to fund people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience. removing religious discrimination from schools means the beliefs of the majority aren't being bended to suit a minority, as the majority are not catholic, not believeing in the religion.

agreed. so lets remove religious discrimination from publically funded schools. if i'm to fund schools, i have a right to expect that those schools are fully inclusive to all children, and provide an education of a high standard that insure those children can go as far as possible. religion and religious discrimination does not fit that standard of education.

it's not a simple solution, but a selfish solution wanted so people can keep up an appearance for their own convenience. when it involves discrimination, especially against children, then people have a right to insure such nonsense is stamped out.
if you want the status quo to remain, you support religious discrimination against children. whether you wish to face that fact or not is up to you, but it's reality and it's not going to change.
the good news is religious discrimination will be removed from schools at some stage, and the fo/alacart catholics will have to suck it up. no more will this country pander to people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience.

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

And again, the simple solution is to go where you can be with others who think like you. Life would be easier for everyone that way. Like, you know, the way you pal around with people you actually like, as opposed to people you don't like.

bodice ripper · 08-12-2017 9:45pm

Tell your kids to attend, but to sit there coughing "bollox" occasionally.

Candamir · 08-12-2017 9:47pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

If you don't want to send your child to a Christian school, don't.

If you don't have the choice of school you want, move.

If you cant get employment in a different area, change.

In other words, stop expecting a "majority" to bend to your "minority" beliefs.

Be the change you want, don't force/expect others to change if they don't want to.

Simple solution that can be applied to so many things in life. The opposite stance is merely childish.

So you would force a person (and their child) out of their home, their community, their job, and their career even though their taxes are paying for education in the local schools?. Very Christian. And not a very simple solution at all.

end of the road · 08-12-2017 9:49pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

And again, the simple solution is to go where you can be with others who think like you. Life would be easier for everyone that way. Like, you know, the way you pal around with people you actually like, as opposed to people you don't like.

it's not as i'm not in a minority, and i'm entitled to expect people to tell the truth on the census form. the reality is the majority of people are not catholic. putting it down on the census form doesn't make someone catholic. the simple solution is to force the removal of religion from publically funded services, a religion a minority actually believe in.
your nonsense comparison to people i like and don't like is beyond laughable.
i will get what i want, it's going to take time i know, but it is going to happen. as much as it doesn't effect me personally, not having children, i know removing religion and religious discrimination from schools is the right thing to do.

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 9:49pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

Tell your kids to attend, but to sit there coughing "bollox" occasionally.

Or go to another school with likeminded parents and pat each other on the back constantly. You know, leaving the contrarian mindset behind you and being around people you actually enjoy being around.

If there aren't enough of you, invade some island and start a commune.

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 9:53pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's not as i'm not in a minority, and i'm entitled to expect people to tell the truth on the census form. the reality is the majority of people are not catholic. putting it down on the census form doesn't make someone catholic. the simple solution is to force the removal of religion from publically funded services, a religion a minority actually believe in.
your nonsense comparison to people i like and don't like is beyond laughable.
i will get what i want, it's going to take time i know, but it is going to happen. as much as it doesn't effect me personally, not having children, i know removing religion and religious discrimination from schools is the right thing to do.

Don't confuse not being in a minority with being extremely loud, don't confuse statistics with what you "imagine" the REAL truth to be.

As for the bolded....a real insight into the childish, contrarian attitude.

end of the road · 08-12-2017 10:04pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

Or go to another school with likeminded parents and pat each other on the back constantly. You know, leaving the contrarian mindset behind you and being around people you actually enjoy being around.

or remove religion from schools, as those who are genuinely religious are in a minority anyway.

Pithythefool wrote: »

If there aren't enough of you, invade some island and start a commune.

no need. religion will be removed from schools eventually.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Don't confuse not being in a minority with being extremely loud, don't confuse statistics with what you "imagine" the REAL truth to be.

As for the bolded....a real insight into the childish, contrarian attitude.

i'm not confusing anything. i know the real truth and people will eventually face it themselves.

waterfaerie · 08-12-2017 10:08pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

And your attitude is more along the lines of "I'm in the majority, the way things are suits me, so let the minority continue to suffer", despite the fact that the alternative solution would involve nobody suffering.

By catering to the needs of what you have decided is a "minority", it would actually be better for everyone. I don't see what would be so bad for you. What is it you're afraid of losing? Do you seriously think having secular education would impact on you to the same extent that the current situation impacts on non catholics?

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 10:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

or remove religion from schools, as those who are genuinely religious are in a minority anyway.

no need. religion will be removed from schools eventually.

i'm not confusing anything. i know the real truth and people will eventually face it themselves.

Nah, youre definitely confused.

Heres the likely scenario: you'll bitch and moan and rant, and some people will cave into appeasing you just to not listen to you and your like anymore. Most wont.

You'll die, having lived a life of "activism" that just brought you in contact with a lot of people who you don't like, and don't like you......seems like a waste of time, no? Enjoy your life with people like you, not unlike you.

08-12-2017 10:15pm

end of the road wrote: »

...the simple solution is to force the removal of religion from publically funded services, a religion a minority actually believe in.
your nonsense comparison to people i like and don't like is beyond laughable.
i will get what i want, it's going to take time i know, but it is going to happen. as much as it doesn't effect me personally, not having children, i know removing religion and religious discrimination from schools is the right thing to do.

How much more will you pay in taxes to fund the wholesale building of new schools on property that was not provided by the Church?

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 10:18pm

waterfaerie wrote: »

And your attitude is more along the lines of "I'm in the majority, the way things are suits me, so let the minority continue to suffer", despite the fact that the alternative solution would involve nobody suffering.

By catering to the needs of what you have decided is a "minority", it would actually be better for everyone. I don't see what would be so bad for you. What is it you're afraid of losing? Do you seriously think having secular education would impact on you to the same extent that the current situation impacts on non catholics?

So your logic is......a minority (who don't like the majority "way of life"), should be appeased so as they have a "way of life" that they like instead.

Are you blind to the contradiction there? That most people should be "unhappy" so as a smaller amount of people can be "happy"?

Do you let your dog take you for a walk too? Arse-backwards logic.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 10:21pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

Hardly. Because firstly it is not just atheists feeling this way. Atheist Ireland for example, on the subject of effecting change in Irish schools, have made an alliance with OTHER minorities too including Evangelical Alliance Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland.

So not this is not about one minority trying to change the minority. It is about a range of minorities wanting to effect a change that will benefit people across the board while, such as the solutions I described in previous pages, minimizing the impact on the supposed majority.

And there is people WITHIN your alleged majority calling for that change too because they realize that this is not an "us against them" issue of the majority against the minority, but a basic human rights issue.

The goal here is not to have the minority force change on the majority. But to recognize the ever increasing level of diversity in an ever more pluralist country...... and to respond to that change in a way that benefits the most people. And that is much bigger that the egregiously selfish thought processes we have seen on this thread of "The current system advantages ME so I do not want it to change".

Pithythefool wrote: »

And again, the simple solution is to go where you can be with others who think like you.

Check your privilege I guess. Many people can not just arbitrarily up sticks to new homes, new counties, new countries, new jobs as easily as you apparently can. For all kinds of reasons ranging from health to financial.

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 10:26pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hardly. Because firstly it is not just atheists feeling this way. Atheist Ireland for example, on the subject of effecting change in Irish schools, have made an alliance with OTHER minorities too including Evangelical Alliance Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland.

So not this is not about one minority trying to change the minority. It is about a range of minorities wanting to effect a change that will benefit people across the board while, such as the solutions I described in previous pages, minimizing the impact on the supposed majority.

And there is people WITHIN your alleged majority calling for that change too because they realize that this is not an "us against them" issue of the majority against the minority, but a basic human rights issue.

Check your privilege I guess. Many people can not just arbitrarily up sticks to new homes, new counties, new countries, new jobs as easily as you apparently can. For all kinds of reasons ranging from health to financial.

The reason I have that privilege (loathe to use those infantile sentiments), is because I am in the majority, you are not.

And youre right, not everyone can change easily. That's the part where you deal with it, and not complain because you don't have what you want.

Check your reality, I guess.

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 10:30pm

waterfaerie wrote: »

And your attitude is more along the lines of "I'm in the majority, the way things are suits me, so let the minority continue to suffer", despite the fact that the alternative solution would involve nobody suffering.

By catering to the needs of what you have decided is a "minority", it would actually be better for everyone. I don't see what would be so bad for you. What is it you're afraid of losing? Do you seriously think having secular education would impact on you to the same extent that the current situation impacts on non catholics?

Another completely blind comment.

"It would be better for everyone if it suited a smaller amount of people."

Makes sense, alright!

end of the road · 08-12-2017 11:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How much more will you pay in taxes to fund the wholesale building of new schools on property that was not provided by the Church?

i wouldn't be able to put a number on it. i would be fine with paying some extra tax to build more schools though. ideally these buildings would be simply compulsory purchased at a small rate. it can be the compensation to the people of ireland.

Pithythefool wrote: »

The reason I have that privilege (loathe to use those infantile sentiments), is because I am in the majority, you are not.

And youre right, not everyone can change easily. That's the part where you deal with it, and not complain because you don't have what you want.

Check your reality, I guess.

are you a practicing catholic? or just an alacart one?

Pithythefool wrote: »

Another completely blind comment.

"It would be better for everyone if it suited a smaller amount of people."

Makes sense, alright!

it does make sense as this is about the majority rather then the minority. the minority want to force religion on the people in the school system.

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 11:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't be able to put a number on it. i would be fine with paying some extra tax to build more schools though. ideally these buildings would be simply compulsory purchased at a small rate. it can be the compensation to the people of ireland.

are you a practicing catholic? or just an alacart one?

it does make sense as this is about the majority rather then the minority. the minority want to force religion on the people in the school system.

Only you know the truth, you will get your way 100%, and up is down to you.

Delusion can be bliss, but you really have to be fully on board because if you let just the slightest bit of reality fester at the back of your mind you'll be a pretty miserable person when its all said and done.

Keep up the good fight.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-12-2017 11:16pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

The reason I have that privilege (loathe to use those infantile sentiments), is because I am in the majority, you are not.

And youre right, not everyone can change easily. That's the part where you deal with it, and not complain because you don't have what you want.

Check your reality, I guess.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Another completely blind comment.

"It would be better for everyone if it suited a smaller amount of people."

Makes sense, alright!

Everyone - regardless of whether they are in the majority or not - pays taxes and therefore has a right to be catered for, no?

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 11:23pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Everyone - regardless of whether they are in the majority or not - pays taxes and therefore has a right to be catered for, no?

Yep, and the majority still decides what happens. How else can it be?

When a majority are told what to do is it not getting close to a dictatorship (one person versus many)?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-12-2017 11:26pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

Yep, and the majority still decides what happens. How else can it be?

When a majority are told what to do is it not getting close to a dictatorship (one person versus many)?

Contradicting yourself here.

Yes, the minortiy should be catered for, but no the majority should decided if they're catered for or not..?

I'm of the opinion your stance is take the taxes and **** them because ONLY the majority matters. Yes or no?

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 11:32pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Contradicting yourself here.

Yes, the minortiy should be catered for, but no the majority should decided id the catered for or not..?

I'm of the opinion your stance is take the taxes and **** them because ONLY the majority matters. Yes or no?

I'm not contradicting myself, the reality put forth by you is the contradiction in itself.

100 people on a bus, 70 want to go to the zoo, 30 want to go the cinema.

Either the people go to the zoo (majority, representing democracy), or they go to the cinema (minority, representing quasi-dictatorship).

If theres only enough time in the day to do one activity, then rightly it should be the zoo that gets preference.

The contradiction is that you cant please all the people all the time........therefore it is best to please most of the people most of the time.

But as I said before, the best solution if you're all on for the cinema is to get your own bus, or not complain and go to the zoo with the majority.

08-12-2017 11:45pm

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't be able to put a number on it. i would be fine with paying some extra tax to build more schools though. ideally these buildings would be simply compulsory purchased at a small rate. it can be the compensation to the people of ireland...

We live in a country where the right to private property is a Constitutional right. It's not the USSR. You can't just seize assets under the guise of CPA. If we work it out as compensation, presumably we give them a credit for the decades of providing Irish people with education, health services and charity when we abdicated responsibility for those sectors to the Church.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-12-2017 11:45pm

Pithythefool wrote: »

I'm not contradicting myself, the reality put forth by you is the contradiction in itself.

100 people on a bus, 70 want to go to the zoo, 30 want to go the cinema.

Either the people go to the zoo (majority, representing democracy), or they go to the cinema (minority, representing quasi-dictatorship).

If theres only enough time in the day to do one activity, then rightly it should be the zoo that gets preference.

The contradiction is that you cant please all the people all the time........therefore it is best to please most of the people most of the time.

But as I said before, the best solution if you're all on for the cinema is to get your own bus, or not complain and go to the zoo with the majority.

Analogy continued to fail: Why can't the 30 people be dropped off on the way to the zoo? Why does it have to be one OR the other? Makes no sense.

Anyway, not relevant: the State is not (and has not for a long time been) ruled by a majority.

Nor is the church.

Pithythefool · 08-12-2017 11:51pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Analogy continued to fail: Why can't the 30 people be dropped off on the way to the zoo? Why does it have to be one OR the other? Makes no sense.

Anyway, not relevant: the State is not (and has not been for a long time) been ruled by a majority.

As I said in the analogy (the one you failed to read) "if there is only enough time in the day...."

As in, there is a choice, as in, one or the other, as in making a decision, as in democracy.

Have you ever tried to be in two places at once?

As for your statement about the State itself....if you dont like being ruled by a "minority" (in your opinion), then why the hell are you advocating for minorities to make decisions???

You know what, this is just plain ridiculous. Youre trying to argue the inarguable, just like the other thread where you thought that one person giving all the time, while another person takes all the time is "fair".

Theres no talking with someone coming from such a strange, illogical place. We'll just leave the conversation here.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-12-2017 12:15am

Pithythefool wrote: »

As I said in the analogy (the one you failed to read) "if there is only enough time in the day...."

As in, there is a choice, as in, one or the other, as in making a decision, as in democracy.

Have you ever tried to be in two places at once?

30 people can choose not to go at all - but one way or the other it;s a daft analogy because it implies two choices and EVERYONE must go something.

As for your statement about the State itself....if you dont like being ruled by a "minority" (in your opinion), then why the hell are you advocating for minorities to make decisions???

I'm not. That was someone else. My point was that a state can provide (and usually does provide) for all interests.

You know what, this is just plain ridiculous. Youre trying to argue the inarguable, just like the other thread where you thought that one person giving all the time, while another person takes all the time is "fair".

Theres no talking with someone coming from such a strange, illogical place. We'll just leave the conversation here.

So, ad homeinem as you have no counter-argument to provide or have provided. Once again, there's nothing left for me to prove. And as such, we're done here. Good night.

MadDog76 · 09-12-2017 12:27am

I'm always bemused, and astounded, by the stone-wall twisted logic of hardcore athiests ...... not being able (or maybe just refusing?) to even comprehend how Democracy works, it's actually quite shocking.

5starpool · 09-12-2017 12:28am

MadDog76 wrote: »

I was Baptised into the Roman Catholic Church, I followed the Catholic ethos through school right up to Marriage and I've passed the tradition onto my children and I identify as Catholic so guess what? That's right, I'm Catholic whether you like/agree/approve/accept it or not ..........

I'm pretty sure being a Catholic really mean adhering to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, which you clearly do not do. Just because you call yourself a Catholic doesn't make you one in reality.

If you called yourself a millionaire, it doesn't make that true either unless you actually have a million quid in money/assets.

I'm just glad that I had the option of enrolling my new born in an Educate Together, as I know that isn't something that everyone has access to. The 78% in the census who put down Catholic will be below 70% in 10 years time I'm pretty sure. If this was used as the basis for providing schools of particular faiths (or none) that would be ok by me, as opposed to the overwhelming number of Catholic ones now.

Ideally no schools would provide religious education during normal hours, and this could be done after school or at weekends by parents who wish for it, with costs covered by those parents and/or the religious institution in question. I bet if this was the case, the amount of people like maddog with a passion for getting their children edutated in the things they vehemently don't believe would shrink pretty damn fast.

5starpool · 09-12-2017 12:28am

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm always bemused, and astounded, by the stone-wall twisted logic of hardcore athiests ...... not being able (or maybe just refusing?) to even comprehend how Democracy works, it's actually quite shocking.

But you are an athiest?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-12-2017 12:29am

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm always bemused, and astounded, by the stone-wall twisted logic of hardcore athiests ...... not being able (or maybe just refusing?) to even comprehend how Democracy works, it's actually quite shocking.

I don't think Pity's a hardcore athiest...? Could be wrong though.

thevinylword · 09-12-2017 12:30am

Interesting views on here, I'm currently training to be a teacher (yup, voluntarily left a job and all in my mid 30s) and in the middle of an essay on segregation in schools in Ireland. We've a bloody long history of it. G'wan so, I'll procrastinate some more so...

Funnily enough when the education system was setup by the Brits it was non-denominational, this lasted for a good few decades until the Church got wary of secularism spreading across Europe and began lobbying for denominational schools before eventually wresting control of the whole system when we got our country back. We all know what went on up until recently... but now we're basically slowly getting back to where we started nearly 200 years ago.

I'm atheist myself (I think, it's a bit of a deep question) but in the last few years things have improved choice-wise for parents (I'm not one).

I'm just after a two week placement which had a Muslim girl in the class - her parents stipulated they don't mind her participating in the class and let it up to the teacher's judgement what's appropriate (they're sort of non practicing so not sure how common this is). If it's colouring or song-based classes she participates, if it's not she's given other work. That's in a Catholic school.

Educate Together schools opt for an 'inform rather than instruct' approach to religion. They're a registered private charity btw, not state owned.

Community National Schools are the model that interest me - new state run schools that promote inclusivity of all and non-religions. Came about by accident and had a rocky start with the whole segregating kids thing but that's been changed since September. I gather the plan is to grow this model to 400 schools nationwide by 2030.

Any school is only as good as the teachers in it to be honest. Personally if I'd kids I'd let them experience something like ET or CNS and let them decide on their religion (or not have one) at their own discretion.

You've Steiner schools then that sort of follow the Scandinavian model where they don't use books etc. til they're 7. Very rounded kids from those schools I've heard, very different approach to anything else.

I do wonder about parents who feel so vehemently pro- or anti- one thing or another, the reality in Catholic schools religion-wise is teachers don't have enough time to teach the 2.5 hrs p/week and a lot of that 2.5 hrs isn't indoctrinating, it's exploring feelings/emotions etc, that's how the new religion programme is structured. It's far less dogmatic and puritannical.

Anyway, if kids want to opt out they can, I'd a child opting out of art crying because they didn't like the colourwheel (I've no idea what the last teacher who taught it to them did that made it so traumatic) - classrooms are very different these days to when parents went, so much research and theory has informed how it's being taught even compared to when I went to school in the 80s/90s, it's a totally different ballgame now.

Pithythefool · 09-12-2017 12:39am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

30 people can choose not to go at all - but one way or the other it;s a daft analogy because it implies two choices and EVERYONE must go something.

I'm not. That was someone else. My point was that a state can provide (and usually does provide) for all interests.

So, ad homeinem as you have no counter-argument to provide or have provided. Once again, there's nothing left for me to prove. And as such, we're done here. Good night.

Fine, so 30 people choose not to go. Same thing as me having already said "they can get their own bus"......they can do their own thing without interfering with the choice of the majority.

And its hardly a daft analogy because people have to make choices, ffs. Have you ever had to make a decision in your idealistic life? Of course you haven't, because I dont think you're from this dimension.

You are the kind of smug "why not everything for everyone all the time?!" type of personality. And that's why nobody like you will ever be put in charge of a plastic bag, let alone anything else.

You got to insult me in the other thread, so heres one back at you. I dont think you have it all upstairs to carry a conversation or argument whatsoever. You continually blank over anything I say, conveniently ignore anything I say that destroys your stupid position from the get-go, and continue gong for the sake of going, for the sake of "being right".

I wont be replying to you again. Consider that an "ad hominem" all you like, in reality when you argue with a stupid person you just come out feeling stupid. I'm sure you feel the same way. Good luck in never-never land.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-12-2017 12:52am

MadDog76 wrote: »

I identify as a Catholic ..... I don't think that athiests actively participate in Catholic activities as myself and my family do?
Or maybe they do?? You tell me ......

Well, you're the one telling us you're athiest who does exactly that, so YOU tell US!

BabyCheeses · 09-12-2017 1:21am

Steviesol wrote: »

I was asking of anyone has experience with this and school. I don't need a lecture. Thanks

Best to avoid the busier places when it comes down to something involving not being religious.

The religious crowd really hate anyone who isn't like them.

One eyed Jack · 09-12-2017 2:46am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are back pedaling now quite a bit. First you claimed that *I* do not understand that, when in fact I do.

Then you back peddled that to my proposed system fails to acknowledge it, when in fact it does.

And now you are just claiming it does not acknowledge it adequately enough.

If we keep making progress at this rate you will get it by midnight.

The mistake I think you are making is in thinking that because I / my proposals do not acknowledge "the importance of religion to people who are religious" in the way YOU do, that it must not be enough.

But no having a difference in how our concerns for the importance of religion to people manifest in what we say and do, does not mean that you or I have a greater concern for it than the other. You just want to pretend it does, so you can allocate an attribute to me that simply does not fit.

I am more than aware of how important religion is to many people. And my system and proposals acknowledge it entirely.

I'm not backpedalling at all. I never said you don't understand the importance of religion to people who are religious. I said you don't acknowledge it, and given the system you're proposing which you imagine should adequately address the importance of religion to people who are religious, you're hell bent on ignoring people who are religious telling you that it doesn't.

You're ignoring the fact that I am reluctant to support what I see as your compromised effort which, while it addresses my concerns, it doesn't sufficiently acknowledge the importance of religion, and that's my greatest concern, and that's why I do not support your proposals, because in the current system, my religion is regarded and acknowledged and addressed adequately. Therefore I do not want your compromised system which would put me at a disadvantage.

You can claim all you want that you've met people who are religious who are happy with your proposals, but that makes no difference to people who simply aren't. By using that metric, I've met many more people who have no interest in religion and aren't religious or are of a different religion, who are happy with the current system in Ireland, and I still wouldn't use that to argue that someone who feels their concerns about not wanting to have their children exposed to religion in schools are adequately addressed.

I acknowledge that for those people, their concerns aren't adequately addressed in the current system, and we work together towards a solution that accommodates them while minimising the impact on everyone else. That's quite the opposite of the throwing the baby out with the bathwater proposals you're suggesting which has been implemented already in the ET model, and now ET are complaining because there are too many Catholics in their schools because the rules implemented in 2011 meant they weren't allowed to discriminate in enrolment against parents on the basis of their religion.

Ah the old "Because you are not like me, you can not understand me" move. I have had that move pulled at least once on just about every topic I speak on at some point. You even tried it, and it failed then too, on the topic of homelessness. But a "move" is all it is. And an empty one at that. There is no indication AT ALL that I need to be religious in order to understand a shred of your espousal here.

Well I've already pointed out that I never said that you don't understand it. I said that you don't acknowledge the importance of it, and it's evident from your continued insistence that your proposals adequately acknowledge the importance of religion to people who are religious in spite of being told by people who are religious that it doesn't, is why I have no interest in your proposals and I prefer the system we have now where the minority are accommodated in a system which suits me just fine, which is why I said you need to come up with a more compelling argument than appealing to any sense of fairness which I would see as leaving me at an unfair disadvantage.

As I've reminded you time and time again, people aren't as stupid as you need them to be. In this case they're not stupid enough to support your proposals which would mean they would be significantly disadvantaged, in spite of your insistence that the disadvantage would be minimal. Why should anyone want to be disadvantaged when they currently enjoy all the advantages of the current system?

MadDog76 · 09-12-2017 3:27am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, you're the one telling us you're athiest who does exactly that, so YOU tell US!

I think you're confused (actually you're definitely confused, amongst other things, based on your posts on this thread!

), I'm Catholic.

Mrs OBumble · 09-12-2017 3:30am

thevinylword wrote: »

Funnily enough when the education system was setup by the Brits it was non-denominational, this lasted for a good few decades

Ahh, you do realise that non-denominational doesn't mean secular?

It just means not tied to any one denomination.

Back when the British ran schooling, their pattern of non-denominational would have looked a bit different from what a non-denominational church (google it if you don't believe me) looks like today. But I'd expect that these schools would have included religious education, and taught values based on Judeao-Christian moral codes, at very least.

MadDog76 · 09-12-2017 3:35am

5starpool wrote: »

I'm pretty sure being a Catholic really mean adhering to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, which you clearly do not do. Just because you call yourself a Catholic doesn't make you one in reality.

Being Catholic means different things to different people (for me it's cultural and traditional) so I choose to identify as Catholic which is why I filled out the Census form accordingly ........... and obviously I'm officially Catholic since I was Baptised, made my Communion/Confirmation, married in a Catholic Church, had my children Christened in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest, enrolled my children in a Catholic School with a Catholic Ethos and celebrate Easter/Christmas etc. so it goes deeper than just "calling" myself Catholic.

JenovaProject · 09-12-2017 3:44am

BabyCheeses wrote: »

The religious crowd really hate anyone who isn't like them.

Thats bullsh1t.

MadDog76 · 09-12-2017 3:50am

BabyCheeses wrote: »

The religious crowd really hate anyone who isn't like them.

The fanatics on both sides have a strong dislike for eachother as fanatics tend to do (although, from what I've seen/heard, the fanatical atheists are particularly prone to ranting and raving!) whereas the rest of us in the middle don't really give a sh*t about eachother's beliefs.

end of the road · 09-12-2017 3:53am

MadDog76 wrote: »

Being Catholic means different things to different people (for me it's cultural and traditional) so I choose to identify as Catholic which is why I filled out the Census form accordingly ........... and obviously I'm officially Catholic since I was Baptised, made my Communion/Confirmation, married in a Catholic Church, had my children Christened in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest, enrolled my children in a Catholic School with a Catholic Ethos and celebrate Easter/Christmas etc. so it goes deeper than just "calling" myself Catholic.

i'm afraid it can't be different things to different people, as it already has a determined meaning, as set out in the holy books and by the pope. being a catholic means you believe in the teachings of the religion to the full, and you practice said teachings in full. being a catholic cannot be cultural and traditional, it can only be religious and belief.

MadDog76 · 09-12-2017 3:57am

end of the road wrote: »

i'm afraid it can't be different things to different people, as it already has a determined meaning, as set out in the holy books and by the pope. being a catholic means you believe in the teachings of the religion to the full, and you practice said teachings in full. being a catholic cannot be cultural and traditional, it can only be religious and belief.

I'm living proof that you're wrong ......... and I'm not alone ......... sorry if we don't fit into your "definitions" but it is what it is!

end of the road · 09-12-2017 4:27am

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm living proof that you're wrong ......... and I'm not alone ......... sorry if we don't fit into your "definitions" but it is what it is!

you aren't living proof that i'm wrong as i'm not wrong.
the definition of catholicism that i have given isn't my definition, but the definition set out by the holy books.

MadDog76 · 09-12-2017 5:07am

end of the road wrote: »

you aren't living proof that i'm wrong as i'm not wrong.
the definition of catholicism that i have given isn't my definition, but the definition set out by the holy books.

I'm a member of the Roman Catholic Church and that's a fact whether you like it or not .......... Baptised and Confirmed (look up the definition of confirmed

) .......... were you Confirmed yourself?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-12-2017 11:15am

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think you're confused (actually you're definitely confused, amongst other things, based on your posts on this thread! ), I'm Catholic.

Confusing? No. Very simple.

It would appear to be confusing how people are quick to decry my other posts, but at the same time are completly unable to actually challenge them.

It would also appear to be confusing to encounter someone who identifies with Catholic tradition - the most fundamental of which would mean a belief in God, which you have stated you don't identify with. Who, exactly, do you commune with? You've made no effort to explain this contradiction and yet everyone else is wrong.

IN reality, though, it's very simple: you attack personally simple because you are unable to debate the points I make; and you are an athiest. Simple.

Not confusing at all.

So, my point is proven. QED. Nothing else for me to prove here, either. We're done.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-12-2017 11:16am

Pithythefool wrote: »

The reason I have that privilege (loathe to use those infantile sentiments), is because I am in the majority, you are not.

Again: Hardly. I am talking about the financial privilege, or the health privilege, to be able to up and move jobs or home location on a whim. Nothing to do with what majority or minority you are in. Many people simply do not have that capacity. So as I said, check your privilege at the door before offering options to people that they simply do not have.

Pithythefool wrote: »

And youre right, not everyone can change easily. That's the part where you deal with it, and not complain because you don't have what you want. Check your reality, I guess.

Yes, lets. The REALITY is that Ireland has changed and is undergoing on going change. Some of us when we look at the census figures, and other figures and studies, do not just see this years numbers. We see the trends too.

Change has happened, and how we respond to that change in the light of concerns for things like human rights, and the protection of minorities, defines us as a nation and as a species.

And if I see solutions that A) achieve that while

minimizing or even negating impact on the existing majorities, then I see no reason.... least of all your moaning about it........ not to fight for them.

tringle · 09-12-2017 11:20am

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Best to avoid the busier places when it comes down to something involving not being religious.

The religious crowd really hate anyone who isn't like them.

Actually the comment about the lecture was directed at me when I said his children were his responsibility 24/7...not the schools. I'm not religious at all and have never yet hated anyone and certainly wouldn't because of their beliefs or lack of them.

MadDog76 · 09-12-2017 11:23am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Confusing? No. Very simple.

It would appear to be confusing how people are quick to decry my other posts, but at the same time are completly unable to actually challenge them.

It would also appear to be confusing to encounter someone who identifies with Catholic tradition - the most fundamental of which would mean a belief in God, which you have stated you don't identify with. Who, exactly, do you commune with? You've made no effort to explain this contradiction and yet everyone else is wrong.

IN reality, though, it's very simple: you attack personally simple because you are unable to debate the points I make; and you are an athiest. Simple.

Not confusing at all.

So, my point is proven. QED. Nothing else for me to prove here, either. We're done.

Sorry but you're wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-12-2017 11:41am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not backpedalling at all.

Then you simply do not understand the meaning of the phrase back pedaling. But going from a sweeping statement that me or my systems to not recognize it, to claiming it does not recognize it ENOUGH, fits every definition of the term I have ever seen.

But the problem here is that before or after that back pedal, your pretense is a false one. My system wholly and entirely is based on recognizing the differences between people, celebrating them, supporting them, acknowledging them and working with them. And most of all recognizing the importance of those differences not just TO them, but to us as a species. A species I celebrate the diversity of every day.

The problem is that as per the usual MO you are projecting your own failings onto others, and your own failing here is you do not propose solutions that recognize the importance of a LACK of religion to those who are not religious. Or, more comically still, the value of religion to people who are religious but of a different religion to YOU.

Which is why for example Atheist Ireland for example have put down their divisions with religions and actually UNITED with Evangelical groups and Muslim groups on this issue. Because I, and they, unlike you, actually recognize the importance of religion to people who are religious. And we realize that this issue is not one that can be simply and simplistically dismissed by people like yourself armed only with empty vacuous and divisive identity politics concepts like "Since you are not religious you can not understand".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

you're hell bent on ignoring people who are religious telling you that it doesn't.

Nope. But I am certainly happy to ignore people who merely DECLARE that it doesn't. And I invite anyone still reading this exchange who doubts this to go back over your contributions to the thread. A thread where you have told us it is not adequate. Told us it will disadvantage you. Told us it will inconvenience you. But at no point ever managed to explain how, where or why.

The answers you HAVE offered are circular. Taking the form of..... well I have an advantage now.... I would lose that.... therefore I would be disadvantaged. Again with no arguments within that circle to explain how, where or why.

Whereas I have given numerous arguments as to how I not only think you would not, but would in fact be benefited. For example putting the curriculum for any particular religion out of the hands of the state entirely and into the hands of the people who actually have an ethos based on it. Ensuring that the children in a classroom are the ones who WANT, or their parents want, to be in there learning that stuff, thus minimizing disruptions. Allowing focus on all aspects of the teaching rather than having parts of it disseminated and hidden and smuggled into the core curriculum. And thus giving all the tools to fix the current situation where people learning Catholicism in schools actually do not learn it well and do not learn even the most basic tenets of their faith most of the time.

Because NOTHING I have seen now in all my exposure to people who went to catholic school tells me that they learned their Catholicism all that well. And I invite anyone reading this thread to test this out themselves. Go ask any 12 to 40 year old you meet some basic tenets of catholic doctrine and see what answers they give. Most of the answers I get are "I do not know" and when I was chopping up consecrated crackers for science I met people in three distinct groups on what they thought catholic teaching even was about one of the most core principles of their churches faith. The system you cling with such conservative desperation appears to already be failing (the general) you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-12-2017 11:50am

MadDog76 wrote: »

Being Catholic means different things to different people (for me it's cultural and traditional) so I choose to identify as Catholic which is why I filled out the Census form accordingly ...........

I am not really too much on the side of the people who think you can not identify as Catholic culturally. IF you want to call your self Catholic, or spludny-dunk or whatever it is nothing to me. IF you want to say "I choose to redefine the word Nazi to mean someone who likes cream cake, therefore I identify as Nazi" then that is also your prerogative. Similarly nonsense, but your prerogative.

But then not directed at you specifically here, but a general point to all: when it comes to the Census I would have the impression that how you fill it out should be based not on what YOU think the question means or the word catholic means but what THEY think it means, surely?

Is that not what a census is for? After all if everyone filling a question out does it under THEIR OWN subjective interpretation then what use are such figures at all? They become meaningless and unusable.

After all the census does not ask "What is your cultural identity?" and it does not ask "Which of the following words do you most identify with as a person?" and it does not ask "Which of the following has ceremonies and traditions you are more into than the others?".

It specifically asks "What is your Religion?". Meaning if it is your religion by all means tick the box. If it is not, do not. Someone more into law than me will have to inform me on whether falsifying information on a census is a crime or not. I genuinely have no idea.

quickbeam · 09-12-2017 12:57pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

MadDog76 wrote: »

I identify as a Catholic ..... I don't think that athiests actively participate in Catholic activities as myself and my family do?
Or maybe they do?? You tell me ......

Well, you're the one telling us you're athiest who does exactly that, so YOU tell US!

I think you're confused (actually you're definitely confused, amongst other things, based on your posts on this thread! ), I'm Catholic.

You may think you're Catholic. You may have all the paperwork to say so too by being baptized and confirmed as such. But, calling yourself Catholic is disingenuous. Unlike being atheist, there are pretty strict guidelines to being Catholic and for starters you ought to believe in the Old and New Testament definition of God. You have said yourself that you do not. You also should refrain from contraceptives, attend mass, abstain from sex outside marriage, believe in the transubstantiation of a wafer in to the flesh of Jesus, believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, believe in the resurrection after death of Jesus, believe in the bodily ascension of Mary to heaven (to name just a few). I would assume that most, if not all of those would be outside your belief. Ask your Priest if you're Catholic based on your answers to those questions and see what he says.

It would be like being a card carrying member of the DUP but actually wanting a United Ireland!! It makes no sense. You can say all you like that you're Catholic, but it doesn't make you a Catholic.

Unlike Catholicism, where you have to conform to their ethos to belong, there really is no such criteria for being an atheist. You seem to think that they're all the same: Atheist Ireland members, secularist campaigners, anti-religious loud-mouths. But, that's not the case at all. The only requirement is not having a belief in God or gods. In fact, you're proof of that. Whether you like to admit it it or not, by saying that you don't believe in God, you're saying you're an atheist. So Princess is correct in saying that you are an example of an atheist who "actively participate in Catholic activities".

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with taking from your Catholic upbringing what you enjoyed, and leaving aside the rest. Plenty of people do! But it does mean you're not a Catholic.

Church and School

Comments