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 all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Gender distinction in Canada's schools

13»

Comments

  • #62
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Illiteracy is a problem. I'm glad that you are helping others, that's what it's all about, especially Irish people Patricia, your own. It's a global problem - but some countries seem to do better than others - we should look at them and learn from them, but not morph into them - different cultures sometimes.

    I was taught in a convent school, sometimes by a Nuns, but mostly by lay teachers. Loreto. They did 'ok' - but I am by no means the best speller in the whole world...lol..


  • #63
    PatricaMcKay2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 463 ✭✭PatricaMcKay2


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Illiteracy is a problem. I'm glad that you are helping others, that's what it's all about, especially Irish people Patricia, your own. It's a global problem - but some countries seem to do better than others - we should look at them and learn from them, but not morph into them - different cultures sometimes.

    I was taught in a convent school, sometimes by a Nuns, but mostly by lay teachers. Loreto. They did 'ok' - but I am by no means the best speller in the whole world...lol..

    The thing is though that Ireland is not a country where its normal for kids for kids to be sent to work really young, or that they are needed to bring in the harvest and their education comes second. My grandfather left school at 12 yet he ended up reading so many long Russian novels, translated into English of course. My dad left school at 15 and yet he more cultured than most of the University graduates I have met since I have come back here. Something is going very wrong here that we have these levels of illiteracy. Obviously to pretend we are English or German or whatever....but is outright education is just about making money really Irish? Were not the Irish a people who kept literacy and classical learning alive among themselves through terribles odds?

    My spelling goes really weird at times. I havent seen yours do so yet.


  • #64
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Yes, the oldies have still got something to 'teach' that's for sure, whether it's by memory of them, or indeed by what they left behind for posterity. Most of us treasure the 'wise' - and I would hope they are recognised for their contribution to our culture, our education, our history, indeed paving our future..

    I don't know exactly whether Irish particularly want to identify as English...perhaps this is a down South thing?? or want to identify as German, Swedish, European etc. - but I certainly do have hope that we are open to learning everything and digesting it from all of the above, and taking the good out of it. Irish people are among the best, the worst, the least, and the poorest......Such diversity! We're Globe trotters.. What a learning curve we've been granted..and such insight we bring back to our shores.

    Anyway, I'm dragging the thread off topic - my other half is away ( which is 'new' to both of us) and I'm sitting here waiting for a skype any minute..

    I love this forum though!


  • #65
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Yes, that's really it in a nutshell for me. Parents generally sign a form from the schools in Ireland to give permission before a student is considered old enough to learn sex ed. ( Although very many already know a lot, and sometimes they 'think' they do...lol.. I think 12 is the age - 6th Class in Primary.)

    ....don't mind, extra sex ed from the early years, or playschool on... Seems a bit on the bizarre side to be honest. I hate the term 'PC gone mad' - but this is a perfect example of it.

    They have plenty of time to learn about sex when they are more sexualy aware imo - they are only children. Surely teaching inclusion and having a really good anti bullying policy etc. is enough at this stage? ...alluding to sexual orientation is outside the States remit imo at such a young age - this is for the parents to approach with their little ones, because they know their own children best.


    TBH, this curriculum is A LOT more than sex ed. Its also clever enough not to be explicitly sexual in the younger ages, but rather be subtle by suggestion. The idea's seeded from those young ages will grow with the water of maturity. Its text book brainwashing. Thats the key aspect to brainwashing, making the subject believe that the view has come from within themselves. I witnessed it in the Jehovahs Witnesses. Its such a powerful tool. From my time studying with the JW's (never became one thank God), I've seen how the explicit goes through ones mind and can be filtered and questioned etc, but the implicit, the subtle suggestions sneak in the back door and grow from within the person. The person feels that the idea rose reasonably from within themselves, not realising the subtle seeds that were being planted in their heads. THAT is the danger with this curriculum. Its not opening the floor to diversity, toleration etc, its planting seeds with the purpose of lessening or eradicating the childs ability to conclude something other than what the LGBT curriculum want it to. Rather than bombarding the child with firepower, it looks to infiltrate the child and switch off the shields.


  • #66
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    JimiTime wrote: »
    TBH, this curriculum is A LOT more than sex ed. Its also clever enough not to be explicitly sexual in the younger ages, but rather be subtle by suggestion. The idea's seeded from those young ages will grow with the water of maturity. Its text book brainwashing. Thats the key aspect to brainwashing, making the subject believe that the view has come from within themselves. I witnessed it in the Jehovahs Witnesses. Its such a powerful tool. From my time studying with the JW's (never became one thank God), I've seen how the explicit goes through ones mind and can be filtered and questioned etc, but the implicit, the subtle suggestions sneak in the back door and grow from within the person. The person feels that the idea rose reasonably from within themselves, not realising the subtle seeds that were being planted in their heads. THAT is the danger with this curriculum. Its not opening the floor to diversity, toleration etc, its planting seeds with the purpose of lessening or eradicating the childs ability to conclude something other than what the LGBT curriculum want it to. Rather than bombarding the child with firepower, it looks to infiltrate the child and switch off the shields.
    What, you mean as you propose to do with your own children in raising them to believe anything LGBT is morally wrong?

    Give us a break.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    What, you mean as you propose to do with your own children in raising them to believe anything LGBT is morally wrong?

    Give us a break.

    I can't make any sense of that:confused: Could you proof read it, and write it again. Then I'll see if I need to give you a break:)


  • #68
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I can't make any sense of that:confused: Could you proof read it, and write it again. Then I'll see if I need to give you a break:)

    It's not the actual wording of my point you don't understand, there's nothing wrong with that, it's the concept that indoctrinating a child into a prejudiced religious viewpoint is the only brainwashing evident here.


  • #69
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    It's not the actual wording of my point you don't understand, there's nothing wrong with that, it's the concept that indoctrinating a child into a prejudiced religious viewpoint is the only brainwashing evident here.

    No actually, it was just your post I didn't understand, but your post there just clarified what you were trying to say first time around so thanks for that.

    So dealing with your point, do you think that this curriculum is there to counter brainwash this alleged 'prejudiced religious viewpoint'? Also, who is it thats doing the indoctrinating of this alleged 'prejudiced religious viewpoint'?, and what is it that is allegedly prejudiced in it?


  • #70
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Should it high-light any religion in its pictures of family? Janet & John get baptised? Mrs. Smith knees to pray in Mass? I don't think so. But even if it did, it should not be making claims that all religions are good/valid - only that they should be tolerated.
    It should high light that many different religions exist and reflect that in the pictures. It shouldn't be making any claim that one religion is better than any other religion. It can't say Christianity is good and all these other religions are immoral
    Agreed - but neither should it say that one religion is NOT better than another. It should say it is up to the individual to make such assessments. So too for the sexuality issue - it should not be saying that one sexuality is NOT better than the rest, but that it is up to the individual to make such assessments.

    What it is doing is promoting the idea that all sexualities are morally good - just pick the one you like.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    This is what you said:

    'Not it is moral to let you live as you wish, but it is moral to live as you wish.'

    Big difference.
    Yes, but the first is again not what secular western governments are about.

    The State does not simply let you live as you wish to live. It does not say well how you live is immoral but we tolerate it.
    I'm not asking them to say homosexuality is immoral. I'm asking them not to say it is moral or immoral. Explain that different sexualities exist; that people disagree on the morality of each; but we must respect each person's civil right to be as they wish.
    For example Jewish people are not tolerated by a Christian state. That is not the principle of religious freedom.

    It is not that you have the right to pick the wrong religion, the wrong religion being defined by the State.

    It is that you have the right to decide for yourself what is the right or wrong religion. Big difference.
    That's what I'm saying.
    It is not that you have the right to be an immoral homosexual. It is that you have the right to decide for yourself is homosexuality is immoral or not. You have that right, a gay person has that right etc etc.
    That's also what I'm saying. But it is not what this program is saying. It is asserting the virtue of LGBTQ, cultivating positive spaces and messages about LGBTQ communities and about sexual diversity.

    If it were just asserting the LGBTQ community's right to live free from harassment, without asserting their sexuality to be either moral or immoral, there would be no problem.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    No group should be held up for such commendation, even if it suffers discrimination. The discriminators should be held up for ridicule for denying any group their civil & religious liberty.
    That is missing the point. The purpose of these signs is not to allow enlightened people to laugh at the ignorant. It is educate the ignorant that in fact their pre-conceived notions of a particular group different to them are wrong.
    What pre-conceived notions are wrong? That homosexuality is immoral? This is the crucial question for our debate.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I never said it did - only that it said it is morally good to be gay, as much as it is morally good to be straight. It should not be making moral judgements on sexual orientation, just affirming one's right to be so without harassment.
    It is not making moral judgements of sexual orientation, it is making moral judgements on who gets to make moral judgements on sexual orientation. It is saying you decide if it is good or bad, either is valid.
    Really? It is saying it is OK for me to hold that homosexuality is immoral? Seems to me this is one of the pre-conceived notions it seeks to eliminate.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    No. It is not the State's duty to enforce true religion.
    Which means they cannot say they simply tolerate non-Christian religions, which is saying Christianity is the correct religion and we will allow you to choose the incorrect religion, such as Judaism.
    I'm not talking about that sort of toleration, but the equal freedom for all, be they right or wrong in anyone's opinion.
    Same with sexual orientation. The State says you decide if it is good or bad, and what ever you decide is valid as far as the State is concerned.
    No problem with that. The key phrase there is as the State is concerned. Not that any position is moral or immoral, just that the State supports freedom for each.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I don't see how it is consistent to equate God's business with the State's. His is all-encompassing, their's very limited.
    Both allowing for religious freedom (which again I stress is different to tolerating non-Christian religions) and allowing for sexual orientation freedom (which is different to tolerating gay people) are both remits of the state.
    The State is to support civil and religious liberty for all, but God will punish all false religion and sinful conduct.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The latter. But that is not what cultivating positive spaces and messages about means. Doing that is saying Judaism or Islam is good, not that people are free to hold either.
    Yes but again State freedom is not about toleration of the wrong thing. It is about freedom to determine yourself if it is right or wrong.
    We are agreed on that. But the State in this program is moving beyond the individual's right to hold any view/practice of sexuality. It is portraying LGBTQ not just as equal under the law, but moral - something to be celebrated and for all the kids to hold as not immoral.

    ***
    This from your reply to Jimi helpfully clarifies the issue:
    The State cannot simply teach that toleration of homosexuals is what people should do because there is an implicate statement that homosexuality is wrong in that view, and ultimately that is not the position of the State to make.
    Agreed. We have been using 'toleration' is different senses.
    Or to put it another way, if you say homosexuality is immoral the State isn't going to say you are wrong, they are going to say (or should say) that this is your right to hold that view. But equally if someone things that homosexuality is moral the State isn't going to say they are wrong, they are going to say you have the right to hold that view. This is what this curriculum seems to be about, teaching kids that it is up to them to decide what is right for them and that both choices are equally valid.
    But is that the curriculum position? Where does it show any respect for the kids who think LGBTQ is immoral? How can it ask them to celebrate with kissing booths and participation in Gay Pride events?

    So as far as I can see, he curriculum is making a moral judgement about LGBTQ, not just promoting its right to exist without harassment.


    *********************************************************************
    Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.


  • #71
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Do you mean should parents have the right to contend with anything in the curriculum? If thats what you are asking, then I'll answer as follows.

    Firstly, I think Parents should be the authority figure of their children, and thus have the final say on what their children do/don't do etc. Now, such a stand operates in the realm of reasonableness. Not schooling ones children could be considered neglect for example etc, so I hope you understand that my comment above is not an absolute rule, but rather a reasonable guide.

    In terms of school, I believe if the school invades the role of a parent, the parent at the very least has the right to be able to have their child sit out from such a lesson. Again, there is a level of reasonableness. A parent not liking a pro-irish tone in the history book is something that may be a mild irritation, a school demanding that your child be bombarded with a range of lessons and activities to make them view something as moral or immoral is something that would be a serious matter worthy of complaint.

    The problem with that though is of course who defines what is reasonable. To many parents the idea of teaching children about homosexuals is as mild and harmless as a pro-irish tone in a history book.

    It isn't to you because of particular religious beliefs of yours but these are specific to you. Another parent may have very strong beliefs on Irish history.

    I'm not pretending I have the answer to this problem, all I'm saying is it is a mistake to think that your particular objection is a more worthy reason to pull a child out of class than the objection of another parent just because it is your objection.

    I see two options really, one we let parents exclude their children from anything because how do we assess what is or isn't a valid objection.

    Two, we do decide what is a valid objection and this is done democratically and over rules the parents wishes.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Or that there are many homosexuals who have changed to being heterosexual due to them having moral objection with their sexual preference? No it doesn't, and this is where your religious toleration analogy breaks.

    Not really, when was the last time a civics lesson on religious freedom actively taught and encouraged children to act like Fred Phelps just because they can?

    The role of the school is not to teach the Christian view point of homosexuality, it is to teach the State's view point of homosexuality.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Rather than this being about inclusivity etc, its objective is to instill in a child, from kindergarten onwards, that there is only one valid view, and that is that it is ok to be homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender, transvestite etc.
    Correct. As far as the Canadian State is concerned it is ok to be homosexual bi-sexual etc.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Implying that any deviating view is wrong.

    As far as the Canadian State is concerned a deviating view is wrong. Just like as far as the Canadian State is concerned the view that you should only be Christian and any other religion is wrong is also wrong.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    There is no denying that this is what it is.

    I'm not denying that is what it is. The problem is you are confusing the difference between saying it is ok to be X and saying you should be X.

    In any country with a concept of religious freedom it is ok to be a Jew. That is not the same as a State saying you should be a Jew, that Jews are the moral people. Because in any country with religious freedom it is also ok to be a Christian, or a Hindu.

    The Canadian State is saying it is ok to be gay.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Not making moral pronouncements about it. Also, it should be age appropriate, and be nowhere near children. And again, I didn't say 'toleration of homosexuality' should be taught. I said that anti-bullying and toleration should cover everything. Be tolerant to people you don't agree with, and don't bully.

    That implies the Canadian State does not agree with homosexuality. That is not true.

    The only reason not to mention homosexuals is because you think that will influence kids to think that being gay is ok. Well sorry but that is the position of the State of Canada, if you are gay that is ok as far as Canada is concerned.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    That message deals with everything from people with ginger hair, to communists, to Fianna Failers to nerds, to people that are camp. People with different sexual preferences will be in there too.

    A campaign that deals with all possible bigotry really deals with none, because humans don't work like that, they need to be specifically targets. That is why you get ads about depression not ads about over all anything bad with health. It is why you get ads dealing with speeding in cars, not over all just don't ever do anything dangerous.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    That is not the objective though. The objective is not about inclusivity, tolerance etc. The objective is specifically to make sure our future generations have no objections, and actually celebrate 'sexual diversity', and vilify those who do not hold this view.

    Again the position of the Canadian State is not that homosexuality is something wrong that should be tolerated.

    The State will celebrate sexual diversity in the same way it celebrates religious diversity, cultural diversity, racial diversity.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    That is clearly not the case at all. It is clearly the instilling, from kindergarten up, that homosexuality, bi-sexuality, transgenderism, transvestitism etc are perfectly acceptable moral things.

    Yes, in so far as it is ok to be gay as far as the State is concerned.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Nowhere is it implied that there is a valid opposing view.

    It is implied through freedom of religion and freedom of speech. You can think homosexuality is a bad thing in the same way you can think that people should only be Christian, that black people shouldn't marry white people etc. But that is not the position of the state, the States position is that people can be Jewish if they want, that black people can marry white people if they want and that people can be gay if they want.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    It should NOT be dealing with the topic until students are teenagers first of all, and second of all it doesn't need to make moral pronouncements either way.
    It doesn't need to do anything, it wants to. The Canadian government wants to combat bigotry shaming of homosexuals in Canadian schools. It wants to combat the notion that it is not acceptable for a person to be gay.

    Saying that you want your kids to think homosexuality is wrong and shameful just brings you into the discussion above about the role of a parent to object to what is being taught in class.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Thats not what I said. I'm not saying it should be forbidden to mention homosexuality, but rather that we do not need to have a 14 year indoctrination campaign specifically dedicated to celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, transvestitism etc in order to promote anti-bullying and toleration.

    I don't mind a teacher in a secondary school saying that being bisexual is a ok etc. i prefer teachers having a bit of personality, and feeling that they can express themselves age appropriately. Its also good to have ones views challenged etc. Having a curriculum, which is nothing short of a brainwashing campaign, for the 14 years of my childs life though, no way!

    So a teacher should be able to say being gay is ok just so long as no student actually gets the idea that being gay is ok. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Zombrex said:

    Agreed - but neither should it say that one religion is NOT better than another. It should say it is up to the individual to make such assessments. So too for the sexuality issue - it should not be saying that one sexuality is NOT better than the rest, but that it is up to the individual to make such assessments.

    Where is the Canadian government saying that one sexuality is not better than another?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    What it is doing is promoting the idea that all sexualities are morally good - just pick the one you like.

    It is not promoting morally good full stop. Western governments do not promote morals in the way you are describing, like religions do.

    It is promoting the idea that it is ok to be what ever sexuality you like in the same way it promotes that it is ok to be what ever religion you like. That is not saying all religions are morally good, such a concept is nonsensical.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm not asking them to say homosexuality is immoral. I'm asking them not to say it is moral or immoral. Explain that different sexualities exist; that people disagree on the morality of each; but we must respect each person's civil right to be as they wish.

    They are saying that. You seem to be saying that they shouldn't over stress the idea that it is ok to be gay lest some of the children actually get the notion that it is actually ok to be gay.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    That's also what I'm saying. But it is not what this program is saying. It is asserting the virtue of LGBTQ, cultivating positive spaces and messages about LGBTQ communities and about sexual diversity.

    If it were just asserting the LGBTQ community's right to live free from harassment, without asserting their sexuality to be either moral or immoral, there would be no problem.

    I know their wouldn't because you want the Canadian State's position to be that homosexuality can be immoral but we tolerate it anyway.

    Well that isn't States position. The States position is that it is ok to be gay if you want to be and that this sexuality is as respected by the State as any other.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    What pre-conceived notions are wrong? That homosexuality is immoral? This is the crucial question for our debate.

    No, notions such as homosexuals are all camp fairies, that homosexuals aren't interested in children, that homosexuals are all sexual perverts, that homosexuals aren't interested in serious relationships, that homosexuals are all weak, that all homosexuals are child abusers, that homosexual carry diseases etc.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Really? It is saying it is OK for me to hold that homosexuality is immoral? Seems to me this is one of the pre-conceived notions it seeks to eliminate.

    That homosexuality is morally wrong according to God is not demonstratively false. That all homosexuals carry HIV is.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm not talking about that sort of toleration, but the equal freedom for all, be they right or wrong in anyone's opinion.

    You are not talking about that toleration either, you don't want children getting the notion from the State that it is ok to be gay and that the State supports this freedom.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No problem with that. The key phrase there is as the State is concerned. Not that any position is moral or immoral, just that the State supports freedom for each.

    That is exactly what this campaign does. The issue is you don't want the State to be saying to children it is ok to be gay. You want the State to not say anything so that parents can then say it is not ok to be gay and the child does not have any conflict of priorities.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The State is to support civil and religious liberty for all, but God will punish all false religion and sinful conduct.

    And that is a personal matter for the person and their religion, not a concern for the State. The State's job is not to make good Christians.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    We are agreed on that. But the State in this program is moving beyond the individual's right to hold any view/practice of sexuality. It is portraying LGBTQ not just as equal under the law, but moral - something to be celebrated and for all the kids to hold as not immoral.

    Which is what you claim to support but not really. You say you agree the State should promote individual freedom but then say that the State shouldn't tell people that it is ok to have this freedom.

    That someone should be free to be gay but the State shouldn't tell them they have this freedom lest they actually use it. It shouldn't promote this freedom lest someone actually use it.

    The notion that the State should be ok with people being gay but shouldn't tell anyone this lest people get the idea that it is ok to be gay is oxymoronic.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But is that the curriculum position? Where does it show any respect for the kids who think LGBTQ is immoral? How can it ask them to celebrate with kissing booths and participation in Gay Pride events?

    It doesn't in the same way that racial diversity training doesn't have a guest speaker from the KKK.

    If you go to the kissing booths and the gay pride events and you still think homosexuality is immoral that is up to you. You aren't going to be thrown in jail.
    wolfsbane wrote: »

    So as far as I can see, he curriculum is making a moral judgement about LGBTQ, not just promoting its right to exist without harassment.

    It is not simply promoting its right to exist without harassment. Again the States position is not that homosexuality is something wrong that should be tolerated.


  • #73
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The problem with that though is of course who defines what is reasonable.

    Most laws etc have a reasonableness clause. Learning academia can be excluded from objection for example. I mean, you really don't need to have the above objection if you are interested in seeing where the compromise arises. In reality, rather than hypothetical's, most such objections are not really concerning.
    To many parents the idea of teaching children about homosexuals is as mild and harmless as a pro-irish tone in a history book.

    There you go again. This is not about teaching ABOUT homosexuals. Its about brainwashing kids for 14 years of their schooling life. Making hero's of gays, transsexuals etc. Celebrating all things LGBT. Its NOT academic.
    It isn't to you because of particular religious beliefs of yours but these are specific to you. Another parent may have very strong beliefs on Irish history.

    Again, I don't see ANY requirement that kindergartens etc learn about LGBT, that is true. However, its not the learning ABOUT thats the biggest issue. Its the propaganda bombardment. The 14 year drilling in celebrating LGBT, breaking down gender etc.
    I'm not pretending I have the answer to this problem, all I'm saying is it is a mistake to think that your particular objection is a more worthy reason to pull a child out of class than the objection of another parent just because it is your objection.

    But it is. All opinion is not valid opinion. It is wholly reasonable for a parent to object to their child being subjected to a 14 year campaign of brainwashing, It is NOT reasonable for a parent to object to their child learning Algebra (Though I'm against that whole number letter bending myself. Your a number damnit!!).
    I see two options really, one we let parents exclude their children from anything because how do we assess what is or isn't a valid objection.

    That would work best if one MUST insist on believing that all objection is reasonable or none is. I certainly don't see your position as valid though, and tbh, I don't think you really do either. Surely you can see the difference.
    Not really, when was the last time a civics lesson on religious freedom actively taught and encouraged children to act like Fred Phelps just because they can?

    :confused: I'm detecting a flip flop here. Has your point not been that the state in this 14 year LGBT campaign is not making a moral pronouncement? If you are saying that it IS but that you agree with it, then fair enough. But hasn't your point been that this 14 year campaign is not to instill in children that LGBT is morally ok?
    The role of the school is not to teach the Christian view point of homosexuality, it is to teach the State's view point of homosexuality.

    It should be doing neither. Also, its not simply 'teaching'.
    Correct. As far as the Canadian State is concerned it is ok to be homosexual bi-sexual etc.

    So i assume that it is equally ok to brainwash children into a religious view, as long as the state believes it? Our constitution recognises God, so there should be no issue in the state setting up a brainwashing campaign in relation to that neither?
    As far as the Canadian State is concerned a deviating view is wrong. Just like as far as the Canadian State is concerned the view that you should only be Christian and any other religion is wrong is also wrong.

    Where it oversteps the mark, is in its demanding that we brainwash children into it. The state school should teach our children, not brainwash them based on a minorities agenda.
    I'm not denying that is what it is. The problem is you are confusing the difference between saying it is ok to be X and saying you should be X.

    You are the one who is being confused. I'm not saying it is saying you should BE X. It is clearly saying that you must THINK X. It is not just saying it is ok be be something.
    The Canadian State is saying it is ok to be gay.

    And it can sing that song all it wants. But it goes too far when it looks to brainwash and confuse peoples children in terms of gender, crossdressing and 'sexual diversity' with a campaign beginning from kindergarten.
    That implies the Canadian State does not agree with homosexuality. That is not true.

    The only reason not to mention homosexuals is because you think that will influence kids to think that being gay is ok. Well sorry but that is the position of the State of Canada, if you are gay that is ok as far as Canada is concerned.

    Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. It need not mention sexuality full stop! It need not brainwash either way. I never knew what a hetero, homo, trans or bi was. Nor did I need such knowledge. This is simply an LGBT agenda based on stunting children from being able to think for themselves. Get in there early and make sure we can make them think a certain way. There is absolutely no reason why all these matters need to be raised with children until an age appropriate time.
    A campaign that deals with all possible bigotry really deals with none, because humans don't work like that, they need to be specifically targets. That is why you get ads about depression not ads about over all anything bad with health. It is why you get ads dealing with speeding in cars, not over all just don't ever do anything dangerous.

    More nonsense. We are told that such campaigns are to do with stopping homophobic bullying etc. Well, I would bet you all the tea in china, that there are a million more ginger kid related bullying that supposed homophobic. i bet theres more Fat related, specs related etc. We had feminine kids in our school, they weren't bullied though. Gingers though, they were called every name under the sun.

    Anti-bullying and toleration is what is needed in schools. Not a brainwashing campaign based on the rare cases of kids picking on people due to having 'two dads', or being effeminate.
    Again the position of the Canadian State is not that homosexuality is something wrong that should be tolerated.

    Just because the state believes something, doesn't mean it should have the right to force all of its citizens into believing it. Abortion is legal in the UK, yet it doesn't mean that its right to have a brainwashing campaign to instill in future generations that there is nothing wrong with it. This idea you are espousing that if the state think something is ok, it should be entitled to brainwash kids into believing it, is simply ridiculous.

    Again, i wonder how you'd feel if there was such a campaign in relation to a particular god that the State recognised.

    I assume you also agree with certain African states being able to brainwash kids into believing homosexuals should be killed, as thats what the state believe? Or is it only states that you agree with that you think have a valid reason to launch such campaigns?
    The State will celebrate sexual diversity in the same way it celebrates religious diversity, cultural diversity, racial diversity.

    But it sets aside its 14 year brainwashing campaign to one particular view.
    It is implied through freedom of religion and freedom of speech. You can think homosexuality is a bad thing in the same way you can think that people should only be Christian, that black people shouldn't marry white people etc. But that is not the position of the state, the States position is that people can be Jewish if they want, that black people can marry white people if they want and that people can be gay if they want.

    Firstly, lets not mix up the black/white scenario with the behavioural objections of LGBT. Secondly, once again, this curriculum is not just about 'its ok to be gay'. Its a brainwashing campaign, cutting out a childs natural instincts and bombarding children with the LGBT agenda under the guise of anti-bullying etc.
    It doesn't need to do anything, it wants to. The Canadian government wants to combat bigotry shaming of homosexuals in Canadian schools. It wants to combat the notion that it is not acceptable for a person to be gay.

    On the false premise that its an issue specific to gays. Also, brainwashing children into believing something is hardly the moral way to go about it anyway. The ginger issue is bigger. The fat issue is bigger. Lets not kid ourselves, this isn't about a prevalent issue. This is about the LGBT agenda. They should not be allowed to push their political and societal agenda's onto peoples children in this manner. Let their case be made at an age appropriate time, and let children decide for themselves. In the meantime, let an anti-bullying campaign take the reigns in preventing ANY kind of bullying. Be it ginger, fat, specy or sissy etc.
    Saying that you want your kids to think homosexuality is wrong and shameful just brings you into the discussion above about the role of a parent to object to what is being taught in class.

    Thats just it though. I was never thought it was wrong. Nor were most that I know. It simply wasn't brought up. I also remember people like myself hating to see people being bullied. I remember the guy who got it worst was a plump guy in my class. There was an effeminate guy in the class that never got picked on (He came out as Gay later in life). There was also another effeminate guy I knew that was on my road, who got called sissy now and again, but I hated that bullying the same. I never thought, 'Thats ok, he's a sissy'. Its a complete falsehood, this idea that Christian parents are just waiting to tell their kids about how repugnant LGBT's are. Similarly, I never heard it mentioned from the pulpit or in religion classes etc. I was about 12 before I ever found out that some men had sex with other men, and in all honesty, it did disgust me. However, I never thought of God etc in this disgust, the idea was simply repugnant to me. So religion or brainwashing was never required to invoke that reaction.

    Strangely enough, I have two nephews who are being raised by two atheists. And again, they never seen any reason to start delving into the world of LGBT with them, even though they would have your view on it being perfectly fine etc. Their mum was watching Eastenders, and their was a scene where two gay men kissed each other in a passionate manner. They both went 'yuch, blehhhhhhhh. Mummy, why are those men kissing like that, yuch'. Their mum then explained that some men like men. Its called being gay etc and that its perfectly fine etc. So these kids did not need religious bombardment to feel the way they did neither.
    So a teacher should be able to say being gay is ok just so long as no student actually gets the idea that being gay is ok. :)

    Not at all. A teacher should be allowed in an age appropriate manner, give their opinion, and a student can digest such things and think about them, and conclude what they wish. A student should not have to be subjected to years of brainwashing to make sure that they only think one way.


  • #74
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    To cut down on the long posts I'll try to reply to the points I think are the most relevant but as ever if you think I missed an important point please point it out to me.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    But it is. All opinion is not valid opinion. It is wholly reasonable for a parent to object to their child being subjected to a 14 year campaign of brainwashing, It is NOT reasonable for a parent to object to their child learning Algebra (Though I'm against that whole number letter bending myself. Your a number damnit!!).

    Yes but again who decides that an opinion is or isn't a valid opinion? To many your objection this this curriculum as LGBT brainwashing would be wholly invalid.

    The response to that from yourself and Wolfsbane seems to be no one should tell me what I should consider moral or immoral for my children to learn. But then couldn't a parent equally apply that to the immorality of algebra?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    :confused: I'm detecting a flip flop here. Has your point not been that the state in this 14 year LGBT campaign is not making a moral pronouncement? If you are saying that it IS but that you agree with it, then fair enough. But hasn't your point been that this 14 year campaign is not to instill in children that LGBT is morally ok?

    Yes, but I'm having trouble explaining this because frankly I think yourself and Wolfsbane are viewing this in a very religious orientated fashion in that some group, be it a State or a religion, will tell you how the correct way to live your life.

    The Canadian State doesn't care if are or aren't gay. Thus it is not telling you that you should be gay, that being gay is the moral thing to do, that it is correct to be gay.

    What it is saying is that if you are gay then this is perfectly fine and ok and fully supported by the State.

    Again the religious freedom analogy is the most apt. It would nonsensical for the Canadian State to say that being Christian is moral and being Hindu is also moral since these two belief systems are mutually exclusive. It would be like saying it is moral to go to college while also saying it is moral not to go to college. If one thing is moral then the opposite must be immoral. In reality what the State is saying is that it is ok to be Christian, it is ok to be Hindu, it is ok to go to college it is ok not to go to college.

    Morality really has nothing to do with it since for a lot of people homosexuality is not a moral issue, any more than going to college is a moral issue or having dental surgery is a moral issue or what TV to buy is a moral issue.

    Christianity makes homosexuality a moral issue because it defines it as a sin in the Bible. But that doesn't mean everyone else thinks of it in these terms.

    The Canadian State is saying it is ok to be gay. Viewing that in moral terms is some what missing the point, the Canadian State might say it is ok to have a house with 3 stories, that isn't the same as saying it is moral to have a house with 3 stories.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    So i assume that it is equally ok to brainwash children into a religious view, as long as the state believes it? Our constitution recognises God, so there should be no issue in the state setting up a brainwashing campaign in relation to that neither?

    It is "ok" in the sense that if it is the democratic will of the people I would attempt to change their minds through education and campaigning. As I said to Wolfsbane this is how democracies work.

    If you find yourself on the minority side of a democratic position you have two choices, either attempt to sway the democratic position to your side, or take up armed struggle against the government.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Where it oversteps the mark, is in its demanding that we brainwash children into it. The state school should teach our children, not brainwash them based on a minorities agenda.

    You are going to have to define what elements of this curriculum are brainwashing as opposed to any other civics teaching.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. It need not mention sexuality full stop! It need not brainwash either way. I never knew what a hetero, homo, trans or bi was. Nor did I need such knowledge. This is simply an LGBT agenda based on stunting children from being able to think for themselves. Get in there early and make sure we can make them think a certain way. There is absolutely no reason why all these matters need to be raised with children until an age appropriate time.

    The reason these issues are raised with kids from an early age is that gender bullying starts at an early age. I have personal experience with this as a friend of mine is primary school was bullied consistently for preferring to play with horses and dolls than action figures when he was at school. The kids who bullied him weren't thinking this is not age appropriate, they had little understanding of the adult notions of homosexual sex but they knew the word "gay" and "******" and they knew that these words had strong negative connotations.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    More nonsense. We are told that such campaigns are to do with stopping homophobic bullying etc. Well, I would bet you all the tea in china, that there are a million more ginger kid related bullying that supposed homophobic. i bet theres more Fat related, specs related etc. We had feminine kids in our school, they weren't bullied though. Gingers though, they were called every name under the sun.

    And there are already anti-bullying campaigns in Canada that attempt to deal with that.

    This is an ad from the Canadian television.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJut7KQhI4


    Funny enough how these aren't considered brainwashing kids into think it is moral to be a red head. :)
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Just because the state believes something, doesn't mean it should have the right to force all of its citizens into believing it. Abortion is legal in the UK, yet it doesn't mean that its right to have a brainwashing campaign to instill in future generations that there is nothing wrong with it. This idea you are espousing that if the state think something is ok, it should be entitled to brainwash kids into believing it, is simply ridiculous.

    Again you are going to have to define what you consider brain washing over any other anti-bullying campaigns?

    Is it brain washing children to tell them there is nothing wrong with being a red head? If the school made the children all wear red wigs for a day to see what it was like to be a red head would you consider this brainwashing?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Firstly, lets not mix up the black/white scenario with the behavioural objections of LGBT. Secondly, once again, this curriculum is not just about 'its ok to be gay'. Its a brainwashing campaign, cutting out a childs natural instincts and bombarding children with the LGBT agenda under the guise of anti-bullying etc.

    Just to clarify, are you concerned this campaign by exposing children to homosexuality as a normal thing, will turn children gay?

    If that is the case at least your objections to it will make more sense.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    This is about the LGBT agenda.

    It is about the LGBT agenda, that agenda being to decrease the startling levels of depression and even suicide among gay teenagers.

    Gay teenagers are far more likely to suffer from depression than straight teenagers and are far more likely to commit suicide. But it is known from studies in the US that this drops off significantly if gay teenagers are in a supportive environment, such as a school that is more open and tolerant of homosexuals.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Strangely enough, I have two nephews who are being raised by two atheists. And again, they never seen any reason to start delving into the world of LGBT with them, even though they would have your view on it being perfectly fine etc. Their mum was watching Eastenders, and their was a scene where two gay men kissed each other in a passionate manner. They both went 'yuch, blehhhhhhhh. Mummy, why are those men kissing like that, yuch'. Their mum then explained that some men like men. Its called being gay etc and that its perfectly fine etc. So these kids did not need religious bombardment to feel the way they did neither.

    Ok, so those two kids go into school the next day and their teacher does some roll playing with them where with the other boys in the class, pretend to be in a same sex relationship (see they pretend to be a married gay couple doing the dishes or something).

    They realize through this roll playing that while they may think it is disgusting that gay people are just like them, do the same things they do etc, and that it is fine to be gay.

    What is the harm in that exactly?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Not at all. A teacher should be allowed in an age appropriate manner, give their opinion, and a student can digest such things and think about them, and conclude what they wish.

    If a teacher simply saying "Don't bully people" stopped bullying bullying rates would have dropped off to insignificance 60 years ago.

    You stop bullying by teaching empathy and understanding with those who are bullied, that includes gay people.

    The fear seems to be that teaching empathy and understanding with gay people will lead to children concluding that there is nothing wrong with being gay.


  • #75
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:
    To cut down on the long posts I'll try to reply to the points I think are the most relevant but as ever if you think I missed an important point please point it out to me.
    Good idea. Same here.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I'm not asking them to say homosexuality is immoral. I'm asking them not to say it is moral or immoral. Explain that different sexualities exist; that people disagree on the morality of each; but we must respect each person's civil right to be as they wish.
    They are saying that. You seem to be saying that they shouldn't over stress the idea that it is ok to be gay lest some of the children actually get the notion that it is actually ok to be gay.
    It comes down to your use of 'ok to be gay'. If it were only saying 'the State is is ok with you being gay or non-gay, it up to you', then it would be ok with me too. But the message I read in the curriculum is that being gay is a good thing, to be celebrated. But the State's business is to ensure freedom in such matters, not make judgements about their goodness or otherwise.

    Let me ask you, would you support a Creationist Pride event, a Noah's Ark kissing booth, creationist speakers being hosted and their publications being read in class by the authors? Creationists are widely vilified, so maybe its time for the State to say it is ok to be a creationist and celebrate folk being so.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    That's also what I'm saying. But it is not what this program is saying. It is asserting the virtue of LGBTQ, cultivating positive spaces and messages about LGBTQ communities and about sexual diversity.

    If it were just asserting the LGBTQ community's right to live free from harassment, without asserting their sexuality to be either moral or immoral, there would be no problem.
    I know their wouldn't because you want the Canadian State's position to be that homosexuality can be immoral but we tolerate it anyway.
    More than that - that homosexuality can be moral or immoral, it's none of the State's business.
    Well that isn't States position. The States position is that it is ok to be gay if you want to be and that this sexuality is as respected by the State as any other.
    Here again: what does 'ok to be gay' mean? That it is a lawful pursuit, without saying it is moral or immoral - or that it is moral?

    You seem to be saying morality is not being commented on by the State, so I take it you do mean 'ok to be gay' means lawful to be gay. But then you seem to back-off that. Please clarify.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    We are agreed on that. But the State in this program is moving beyond the individual's right to hold any view/practice of sexuality. It is portraying LGBTQ not just as equal under the law, but moral - something to be celebrated and for all the kids to hold as not immoral.
    Which is what you claim to support but not really. You say you agree the State should promote individual freedom but then say that the State shouldn't tell people that it is ok to have this freedom.
    No. It is ok to have this freedom and for the State to say so. But it is not the State's duty to tell people that homosexuality is good, something to be celebrated. All they should be saying is that it is lawful to be homosexual, without saying homosexuality is either moral or immoral.
    That someone should be free to be gay but the State shouldn't tell them they have this freedom lest they actually use it. It shouldn't promote this freedom lest someone actually use it.

    The notion that the State should be ok with people being gay but shouldn't tell anyone this lest people get the idea that it is ok to be gay is oxymoronic.
    It would be oxymoronic - but I have not said that. People should be told about all the liberties they possess. I'm glad that I'm free to be a Baptist - but it's not the State's job to tell everyone that being a Baptist is something to be celebrated. The freedom to be gay or be a Baptist is something to be celebrated, not the thing itself.

    ********************************************************************
    2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!


  • #76
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It comes down to your use of 'ok to be gay'. If it were only saying 'the State is is ok with you being gay or non-gay, it up to you', then it would be ok with me too. But the message I read in the curriculum is that being gay is a good thing, to be celebrated. But the State's business is to ensure freedom in such matters, not make judgements about their goodness or otherwise.
    Yes but "ok" and "celebrate" go hand in had. It is the State's business to celebrate the people and the culture of the State. They do that all the time.

    For example I just got back from an international food fare put on in part by a local county council. Such an event is both saying it is ok to be foreign and have your own culture and we will celebrate such an ok-ness by helping you host a food fare celebrating the different culinary aspects of your culture.

    Now imagine if someone said Well I'm ok with people being foreign but I really don't think we should celebrate the fact.

    What that basically means is actually I'm not ok with people being foreign, I'll tolerate it but I'm not celebrating it.

    That of course is not what the county councils position was. They were genuinely ok with people being foreign and having their own culture, and thus naturally wanted to celebrate it.

    This is why I keep coming back to the difference between the States position being that being gay is wrong but should be tolerated and being gay is ok.

    The Canadian State's position is that it is genuinely ok to be gay. As part of that is that there is nothing wrong with celebrating it either, and in fact as part of the role of the State that is exactly what the State should be doing, celebrating and highlighting the different people in the society that make up the society.

    So again when you say the state should simply say we are ok with you being gay but not celebrate this fact what you are actually saying is that the State should be saying it is not ok to be gay but we will tolerate that you are.

    That is not the State's position.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Let me ask you, would you support a Creationist Pride event, a Noah's Ark kissing booth, creationist speakers being hosted and their publications being read in class by the authors?

    Not at all, but I wouldn't say that isn't what the State should be doing if it is the position of the State.

    If the States position was that it is ok to be a Creationist I wouldn't reinterpret that as being it is not ok to be a Creationist but we will tolerate it. I would expect the State to celebrate Creationism.

    I certainly wouldn't be pleased with that but I would attempt to change the State's position, not change the role the State has in celebrating and promoting the different accepted elements in society.

    For example, using the analogy above about the food fare, I might hate foreign people and not want foreign people in this country and think that is really wrong.

    I wouldn't say "I'm ok with foreign people, but we shouldn't celebrate their culture". That just means I'm not ok with foreign people, I tolerate them but am not happy they are here.

    I would want that to be the States position, that we are not ok with foreign people. From that you would get a toleration of them being here but never get a celebration of foreign food.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    More than that - that homosexuality can be moral or immoral, it's none of the State's business.

    The morality of it is irrelevant, it is not the State's concern.

    Is it moral to cook Spanish pork? A Jew might say no. When a county council puts on an international food fare celebrating Spanish cooking it is not making a moral proclamation on the morality of eating pork. It is not saying the Jews are wrong, it is in fact moral to eat pork. You can eat pork if you want to and we are celebrating the fact that a lot of you like Spanish pork. The question of how moral it is doesn't cross the county council's mind. Neither does the question of how moral being Spanish is.

    Thinking of such things in moralistic terms simply because a religion has framed it that way is spectacularly missing the point. It is celebrating Spanish culture as part of a wide message of multiculturalism saying It is ok to be Spanish in Ireland, it is ok to express your culture in Ireland.

    Saying the state is promoting the morality of being Spanish would be nonsensical. Saying the State is proclaiming Jewish people are wrong would be nonsensical.

    Even if a religion popped up saying Well we believe being Spanish is against God that wouldn't mean the county council is now making moral proclamations about how moral it is to be Spanish.

    You need to stop thinking of homosexuality in terms of morality just because your particular religion views it in those terms. It just clouds up the issue, it makes it impossible for you to see anything other than the State either saying it is moral or saying it is immoral.

    Saying it is ok to be gay is like saying it is ok to be Spanish.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Here again: what does 'ok to be gay' mean? That it is a lawful pursuit, without saying it is moral or immoral - or that it is moral?

    The first one but far more than that. Again saying it is just a lawful pursuit is saying it is not ok but we tolerate it.

    Imagine you said it is lawful to be Spanish in Ireland. Anyone who said that to you would be implying strongly that while it is legal they certainly aren't happy about Spanish people being in Ireland. They wouldn't be putting on a Spanish food fare in the local community hall.

    Now imagine someone said Its ok to be Spanish in Ireland, in fact lets have a food fare to celebrate your Spanish culture.

    Are they saying it is moral to Spanish? No, morality really has little to do with it. They aren't saying it is immoral either. They aren't thinking of it in moralistic terms. To most people the question is it moral to be Spanish is meaningless. To say cooking Spanish food is immoral is meaningless.

    Even if a religious group came along and said It is immoral to be Spanish it is immoral to cook Spanish food, if everyone ignored this religious group and did it anyway that doesn't mean they are now viewing it in moralistic terms.

    What they are saying we accept that you are Spanish, we want you to be happy in Ireland while still identifying as Spanish, we want to celebrate who you are.

    You focus too much on the moral aspect because that is what your religion focuses on, but it is be mistaken to consider that that is how it is viewed (in moralistic terms) by groups like western governments.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You seem to be saying morality is not being commented on by the State, so I take it you do mean 'ok to be gay' means lawful to be gay. But then you seem to back-off that. Please clarify.

    This is explained above but just again to clarity there is more to being ok with something than simply saying it is tolerated by the law. In reality if anyone told me that in those terms I would conclude they are not in fact ok with it they simply tolerate it.

    Genuinely being ok with some thing leads to other things that happily celebrate and promote the thing you are ok with. Genuinely being ok with Spanish people in Ireland leads to things like Spanish food fairs.

    Genuinely being ok with homosexuality leads to things like the Canadian curriculum. It is not simply a case of toleration. That implies you are not ok with it but you will allow it.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No. It is ok to have this freedom and for the State to say so. But it is not the State's duty to tell people that homosexuality is good, something to be celebrated.

    It is if the State is genuinely ok with it, and the Canadian State is genuinely ok with homosexuality.

    The Irish State is ok with Spanish people, which is why they happily sponsored a Spanish food fair.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    All they should be saying is that it is lawful to be homosexual, without saying homosexuality is either moral or immoral.

    Again viewing it in moralistic terms based on how your religion views homosexuality is unhelpful for trying to understand my point.

    The Irish State does not believe being Spanish is moral. It doesn't believe that being Spanish is immoral. Such terms of reference do not apply.

    It does believe that being Spanish is ok, that celebrating being Spanish is ok, that having a Spanish food fare is ok. It ok with someone being Spanish.

    If a religion appeared and said that it is in fact immoral to do all these things the fact that the Irish government does them anyway is not saying that the religion is wrong and it is moral to be Spanish, it is moral to cook Spanish food etc. Such terms of reference still do not apply to the Irish State's position.

    You view homosexuality in moral terms because that is how your religion tells you to. But the Canadian State, and most western States for the last 300 years, are not Christian States. They do not view it in these terms.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It would be oxymoronic - but I have not said that. People should be told about all the liberties they possess. I'm glad that I'm free to be a Baptist - but it's not the State's job to tell everyone that being a Baptist is something to be celebrated. The freedom to be gay or be a Baptist is something to be celebrated, not the thing itself.

    Then the State would never put on anything. The food fare I went to would never have happened. You would never get Bolivian culture night in the IFI. You would never have the Joyce Centre, which receives public funds, putting on a collection of Argentinian poetry. You would not get 4th of July celebrations. You would never get a history of black people in Ireland.

    Part of the role of the State is to celebrate and promote the people and culture of the State that they are ok with.

    If the State is ok with homosexuals then that, unsurprisingly, includes homosexuals.

    If you think that fundamentally that should not be the role of the State in general, not just with relation to homosexuals but with all peoples of the State, then you are entitled to that position but we fundamentally disagree over a primary role of the State and that requires a much bigger discussion than simply homosexual curriculum in schools.


  • #77
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    More than that - that homosexuality can be moral or immoral, it's none of the State's business.
    The morality of it is irrelevant, it is not the State's concern.

    Is it moral to cook Spanish pork? A Jew might say no. When a county council puts on an international food fare celebrating Spanish cooking it is not making a moral proclamation on the morality of eating pork. It is not saying the Jews are wrong, it is in fact moral to eat pork. You can eat pork if you want to and we are celebrating the fact that a lot of you like Spanish pork. The question of how moral it is doesn't cross the county council's mind. Neither does the question of how moral being Spanish is.
    Good example.

    Most people would not have a problem with the Spanish pork-cooking. But what about the Jewish children at school? Must they be forced to celebrate the cooking of pork? Must they be instructed that cooking pork is not only acceptable to the laws of the State and something one is free to do or not to do, but it is something we celebrate. Something we bring pork-cooks into school to demonstrate their winning ways and amazing abilities?

    I think not. Respect must be shown to religious beliefs. Kids/their parents should be free to opt out of instruction that contradicts their morality. All they must be forced to hear is that pork-eaters have the freedom to eat pork and must not be persecuted for doing so.

    But the Canadian curriculum allows no dissent, no opting-out from its teaching. It is liberal fascism wielding its power.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    You seem to be saying morality is not being commented on by the State, so I take it you do mean 'ok to be gay' means lawful to be gay. But then you seem to back-off that. Please clarify.
    This is explained above but just again to clarity there is more to being ok with something than simply saying it is tolerated by the law. In reality if anyone told me that in those terms I would conclude they are not in fact ok with it they simply tolerate it.
    You would be reading too much into it.
    Genuinely being ok with some thing leads to other things that happily celebrate and promote the thing you are ok with. Genuinely being ok with Spanish people in Ireland leads to things like Spanish food fairs.

    Genuinely being ok with homosexuality leads to things like the Canadian curriculum. It is not simply a case of toleration. That implies you are not ok with it but you will allow it.
    Christians cannot be ok with homosexuality in those terms. We can be ok with people being free to be so without persecution, but not with the idea we must celebrate homosexuality. That's where the State has over-stepped the mark. It has insisted its anti-Christian ideology be taught to and celebrated by every child, without them having a right to opt-out.
    Part of the role of the State is to celebrate and promote the people and culture of the State that they are ok with.

    If the State is ok with homosexuals then that, unsurprisingly, includes homosexuals.

    If you think that fundamentally that should not be the role of the State in general, not just with relation to homosexuals but with all peoples of the State, then you are entitled to that position but we fundamentally disagree over a primary role of the State and that requires a much bigger discussion than simply homosexual curriculum in schools.
    Yes, that may be needed. Some other time. Suffice it to say that I stand for respect being shown to all sorts of people - respect for their right to beliefs and practices that do not impose harm on others. That of course means not enforcing my morality or ideology on them; not forcing them to celebrate things they hold to be immoral.

    But then I'm just an old-fashioned liberal, not the new liberal fascist type that runs society today.

    **********************************************************************
    2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!


  • #78
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Zombrex said:

    Good example.

    Most people would not have a problem with the Spanish pork-cooking. But what about the Jewish children at school? Must they be forced to celebrate the cooking of pork? Must they be instructed that cooking pork is not only acceptable to the laws of the State and something one is free to do or not to do, but it is something we celebrate.

    That is two different questions.

    The first is should the State do anything that might be seen to celebrate pork. My answer to that would be yes, the more the merrier. The State is perfectly fine with pork, perfectly fine with people eating pork, perfectly fine with supporting celebrations of pork.

    The second question is should a Jewish parent have the right to pull their kid out of a class that is doing so.

    I'm still torn over exactly where the parents role is with relation to the second question, but I've no doubt about the first question, the more the merrier.

    You seem to think that the State shouldn't even be doing the first bit, it should that eating pork is legal and just leave it at that. No celebrations of pork, no pork in cooking classes, no Spanish cooking festivals etc, all because Jewish people think it is immoral and the State shouldn't do anything that they might confuse as saying it is moral, even those the State (and most non-Jews) do not even consider the eating of pork a moral question.

    The same principles apply with homosexuality, a moral issue only for the Abrahamic-religions.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Something we bring pork-cooks into school to demonstrate their winning ways and amazing abilities?

    Yes, by all means. In fact we already do that, in my school Home Economics had guest chiefs who would come in and cook signature dishes.

    Should the State not do that because they risk cooking a dish that some religion may find immoral?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But the Canadian curriculum allows no dissent, no opting-out from its teaching. It is liberal fascism wielding its power.

    Whether children can opt out or not is a different matter to whether the State should pursue the curiculum in the first case. The question of what a parent should or shouldn't be able to opt their kids out of in school is a far more general question than the State being ok with homosexuality and what that means for how the State deals with homosexuality.

    Lets tackle one at the time.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You would be reading too much into it.

    Not in my experience. Both yourself and Jimi are not ok with homosexuality, you tolerate it.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Christians cannot be ok with homosexuality in those terms.
    Yes, that is my point. The Canadian State is not Christian, it is secular. It can be ok with homosexuality in those terms.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    We can be ok with people being free to be so without persecution, but not with the idea we must celebrate homosexuality.

    Again that is my point. That is because you are not ok with homosexuality, you tolerate it.

    The Canadian State is actually ok with homosexuality.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    It has insisted its anti-Christian ideology be taught to and celebrated by every child, without them having a right to opt-out.

    Again one issue at a time.

    Whether you should have a Spanish cooking class at all is a different question to whether you should let the particular Jewish members of the class opt out.


  • #79
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Good example.

    Most people would not have a problem with the Spanish pork-cooking. But what about the Jewish children at school? Must they be forced to celebrate the cooking of pork? Must they be instructed that cooking pork is not only acceptable to the laws of the State and something one is free to do or not to do, but it is something we celebrate.
    That is two different questions.
    True.
    The first is should the State do anything that might be seen to celebrate pork. My answer to that would be yes, the more the merrier. The State is perfectly fine with pork, perfectly fine with people eating pork, perfectly fine with supporting celebrations of pork.
    OK, and you also then believe the State should do anything that might be seen to celebrate ... white-supremacy, if white-suprematists were the majority voters. I see where you are coming from, that morality is not the issue for the State, just its own views.

    But I disagree. The State has no right to promote evil, even if it has the power to do so. When it does, dissidents have to withdraw their participation in the evil, yet still respect the legitimacy of the (democratic) State.
    The second question is should a Jewish parent have the right to pull their kid out of a class that is doing so.

    I'm still torn over exactly where the parents role is with relation to the second question, but I've no doubt about the first question, the more the merrier.
    For me the issue of enforced participation in evil is THE issue. That's what the Canadian liberal fascists are doing.
    You seem to think that the State shouldn't even be doing the first bit, it should that eating pork is legal and just leave it at that. No celebrations of pork, no pork in cooking classes, no Spanish cooking festivals etc, all because Jewish people think it is immoral and the State shouldn't do anything that they might confuse as saying it is moral, even those the State (and most non-Jews) do not even consider the eating of pork a moral question.
    Where society is united on moral issues - like stealing, rape and murder being evil, then I'm happy the State takes a moral position. But when the issue is not one shared by all, the dissenters should be respected. It is enough for them to be clearly instructed on the civil rights of those holding opposing views. For the rest, if they want to participate in celebration of homosexuality, white-supremacy, or whatever, that's up to them. They will give an account to God.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    You would be reading too much into it.
    Not in my experience. Both yourself and Jimi are not ok with homosexuality, you tolerate it.
    What Jimi and I do is not mandatory for everyone else, and certainly not for the State. So it can tolerate, without the implication that it disapproves.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Christians cannot be ok with homosexuality in those terms.
    Yes, that is my point. The Canadian State is not Christian, it is secular. It can be ok with homosexuality in those terms.
    Which is my point - it is taking a moral position, which in those terms means.

    *********************************************************************
    2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!


  • #80
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    OK, and you also then believe the State should do anything that might be seen to celebrate ... white-supremacy, if white-suprematists were the majority voters.

    Yes, as I keep saying.

    That in itself becomes two issues, the first being how would I feel if the position of the State was that white-supremacy is ok, in the genuinely ok sense. The second is do I think the State should celebrate things it is ok with.

    I obviously would be very disappointed if any State was ok with white supremacy and I would do all in my power to change the majority opinion (if the State was for example going down Nazi like levels of racism I may even take up armed struggle against the State).

    But I wouldn't deal with the situation by saying that the State shouldn't celebrate things just to stop them celebrating white pride. For a start it would probably be far easier to get the State to be not ok with racism than it would be for them to not celebrate things in general.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I see where you are coming from, that morality is not the issue for the State, just its own views.

    The morality is not the issue for the State but it is important that you understand why, because there are certain things where morality is central the position of the State (such a child consent laws).

    Like everything it is possible to view things in moralistic terms and not view them in those terms.

    What toothbrush you buy is not a moral question for you, neither is Pepsi or Coke. Now they might be moral issues for some people, who knows. But because they are moral issues for them doesn't mean you have to view them as moral issues.

    That doesn't mean you have no moral opinions, it just means that what you view as a moral question is not dictated to you but what someone else may demand should be treated as a moral question.

    Christians treat homosexuality as a moral question, and often demand others do the same thing, but that doesn't mean they have to or should.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But I disagree. The State has no right to promote evil, even if it has the power to do so. When it does, dissidents have to withdraw their participation in the evil, yet still respect the legitimacy of the (democratic) State.

    Yes but who decides what is evil or not. I consider religion as a significant contributor to ignorance, bigotry and some times violence. In moralistic terms to me religion is often evil. If I had my way no child would be exposed to any religious dogma until they were 18 years old. But I appreciate that this position is very much in the minority, that society as a whole is ok with teaching children the religious faith of their parents.

    So I attempt to convince other people of my position that you shouldn't teach your religion to your children as factual statements, instead leaving it up to the child when they get much older. Some people agree with that, the vast majority don't.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Where society is united on moral issues - like stealing, rape and murder being evil, then I'm happy the State takes a moral position.

    You don't really mean that. You mean where society agrees with you personally. If society was united on homosexuality being ok (which is becoming more and more the case in liberal countries) you would still object to it being presented as ok to children because it goes against Christian values.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    What Jimi and I do is not mandatory for everyone else, and certainly not for the State. So it can tolerate, without the implication that it disapproves.

    Saying it shouldn't celebrate something implies disapproval. Otherwise why would you not simply celebrate it?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Which is my point - it is taking a moral position, which in those terms means.

    "those terms" are Christian. Christians view homosexuality as a moral question. The Canadian State is secular. Again which is more moral to drink, Pepsi or Coke :)


  • #81
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    OK, and you also then believe the State should do anything that might be seen to celebrate ... white-supremacy, if white-suprematists were the majority voters.
    Yes, as I keep saying.

    That in itself becomes two issues, the first being how would I feel if the position of the State was that white-supremacy is ok, in the genuinely ok sense. The second is do I think the State should celebrate things it is ok with.

    I obviously would be very disappointed if any State was ok with white supremacy and I would do all in my power to change the majority opinion (if the State was for example going down Nazi like levels of racism I may even take up armed struggle against the State).

    But I wouldn't deal with the situation by saying that the State shouldn't celebrate things just to stop them celebrating white pride. For a start it would probably be far easier to get the State to be not ok with racism than it would be for them to not celebrate things in general.
    OK, let me qualify my statement by saying not celebrate morally contentious issues - issues that a significant number of citizens regard as morally contentious. Democracy is not majority rules and minorities take all that is thrown at them. Respect for minorities is part of democracy.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I see where you are coming from, that morality is not the issue for the State, just its own views.
    The morality is not the issue for the State but it is important that you understand why, because there are certain things where morality is central the position of the State (such a child consent laws).

    Like everything it is possible to view things in moralistic terms and not view them in those terms.

    What toothbrush you buy is not a moral question for you, neither is Pepsi or Coke. Now they might be moral issues for some people, who knows. But because they are moral issues for them doesn't mean you have to view them as moral issues.

    That doesn't mean you have no moral opinions, it just means that what you view as a moral question is not dictated to you but what someone else may demand should be treated as a moral question.

    Christians treat homosexuality as a moral question, and often demand others do the same thing, but that doesn't mean they have to or should.
    Not at all. Saying something is not a moral issue is to say that thing is moral, or at the least not immoral. If I say using toothbrushes is not immoral, I've made a moral judgement.

    The Canadian State is saying homosexuality is moral. They should instead be saying it is not our business and you have the freedom to hold it to be moral or immoral and participate accordingly.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    But I disagree. The State has no right to promote evil, even if it has the power to do so. When it does, dissidents have to withdraw their participation in the evil, yet still respect the legitimacy of the (democratic) State.
    Yes but who decides what is evil or not. I consider religion as a significant contributor to ignorance, bigotry and some times violence. In moralistic terms to me religion is often evil. If I had my way no child would be exposed to any religious dogma until they were 18 years old. But I appreciate that this position is very much in the minority, that society as a whole is ok with teaching children the religious faith of their parents.

    So I attempt to convince other people of my position that you shouldn't teach your religion to your children as factual statements, instead leaving it up to the child when they get much older. Some people agree with that, the vast majority don't.
    The electorate decides - rather, should decide - what the State will hold to be moral. They may be wrong or right, but they should as good democrats not impose their moral view on substantial minorities who differ. All they should do in those circumstances is give the freedom to the individual to decide for him/her self.

    You want to get the State to force parents not to teach their children that any religion is true. That seems to me to be essentially anti-democratic.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Where society is united on moral issues - like stealing, rape and murder being evil, then I'm happy the State takes a moral position.
    You don't really mean that. You mean where society agrees with you personally. If society was united on homosexuality being ok (which is becoming more and more the case in liberal countries) you would still object to it being presented as ok to children because it goes against Christian values.
    That's oxymoronic. If society was united on any issue, I would be with them on it, as I'm a member of that society.

    But I think I get your intended meaning. My position is that significant minorities should be respected. Where it gets to very small minorities, one can't cater for everyone and they should bear with the imposition or leave the country to rot.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    What Jimi and I do is not mandatory for everyone else, and certainly not for the State. So it can tolerate, without the implication that it disapproves.
    Saying it shouldn't celebrate something implies disapproval. Otherwise why would you not simply celebrate it?
    No - it implies many of our citizens would be offended by their State celebrating what is a morally contentious issue, so we (the State) are not taking sides, but leaving any celebrations to those who wish to celebrate.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Which is my point - it is taking a moral position, which in those terms means.
    "those terms" are Christian. Christians view homosexuality as a moral question. The Canadian State is secular. Again which is more moral to drink, Pepsi or Coke
    To say drinking either or both drinks is OK (or not OK) is a moral statement.


    *******************************************************************
    2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Zombrex said:

    OK, let me qualify my statement by saying not celebrate morally contentious issues - issues that a significant number of citizens regard as morally contentious. Democracy is not majority rules and minorities take all that is thrown at them. Respect for minorities is part of democracy.

    True, but that respect has limits. If you were interested in not offending anyone the State would never do anything.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Not at all. Saying something is not a moral issue is to say that thing is moral, or at the least not immoral. If I say using toothbrushes is not immoral, I've made a moral judgement.

    There is a different between something being amoral and immoral. Toothbrushes are, for the vast majority of people, amoral.

    To a lot of people homosexuality is also an amoral issue.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The Canadian State is saying homosexuality is moral. They should instead be saying it is not our business and you have the freedom to hold it to be moral or immoral and participate accordingly.

    See above for difference between amoral and moral/immoral.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The electorate decides - rather, should decide - what the State will hold to be moral. They may be wrong or right, but they should as good democrats not impose their moral view on substantial minorities who differ. All they should do in those circumstances is give the freedom to the individual to decide for him/her self.

    Do you believe that for all things or just homosexuality? For example if Christians managed to get abortion outlawed in say America by a slim majority would you be happy with the idea that the minority could continue having abortions because it is not fair to push the majority opinion on the large minority?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You want to get the State to force parents not to teach their children that any religion is true. That seems to me to be essentially anti-democratic.
    Shouldn't the State already be doing that out of respect for the large minority who are opposed to religious schools?

    See the whole respect for the minority think doesn't work particularly well. All minorities think they are sizable and should have their opinions respected, from Christian groups to the KKK. A line has to be drawn some where, as I'm sure you would agree if Christians groups get into the majority on anything.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    That's oxymoronic. If society was united on any issue, I would be with them on it, as I'm a member of that society.

    I mean the vast majority of society. You would still hold it wrong even if you were the only Christian left on the planet. And I imagine you would still say that the State should respect your views.

    Really if you believe you are right then the size of those who also agree with you doesn't really matter. After all God agrees with you. So long as you continue to believe that you aren't going to be swayed by what others think.


  • #83
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    OK, let me qualify my statement by saying not celebrate morally contentious issues - issues that a significant number of citizens regard as morally contentious. Democracy is not majority rules and minorities take all that is thrown at them. Respect for minorities is part of democracy.
    True, but that respect has limits. If you were interested in not offending anyone the State would never do anything.
    Agreed. All I'm asking for is respect for a significant minority, and the freedom for all to withdraw from practices they hold to be immoral. In this instance the State insists its pupils are forced to engage, contrary to the wishes of a great number of citizens.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Not at all. Saying something is not a moral issue is to say that thing is moral, or at the least not immoral. If I say using toothbrushes is not immoral, I've made a moral judgement.
    There is a different between something being amoral and immoral. Toothbrushes are, for the vast majority of people, amoral.
    To make the judgement that something is amoral is to make a moral judgement.
    To a lot of people homosexuality is also an amoral issue.
    Yes. To some people killing non-family/tribe is an amoral issue. It's just business.

    In any case, to determine something is amoral or moral/immoral is to make a moral judgement.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The electorate decides - rather, should decide - what the State will hold to be moral. They may be wrong or right, but they should as good democrats not impose their moral view on substantial minorities who differ. All they should do in those circumstances is give the freedom to the individual to decide for him/her self.
    Do you believe that for all things or just homosexuality? For example if Christians managed to get abortion outlawed in say America by a slim majority would you be happy with the idea that the minority could continue having abortions because it is not fair to push the majority opinion on the large minority?
    As we agreed that imposition of morality was wrong if it was a matter for the person and any consenting party, abortion falls outside that parameter. The unborn child is not given a say.

    So let me be clear about imposition of morality by giving a few examples:
    1. Fornication (sex outside marriage). We should not intervene.

    2. Adultery. As it involves an injured party, we should give them redress.

    3. Homosexuality. We should not intervene.

    4. Married sex. We should not intervene.

    5. Bestiality. We should intervene on behalf of the animal.

    6. Paedophilia. We should intervene on behalf of the child.

    7. Incest. We should only intervene in the case of under-age/incompetent persons.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    You want to get the State to force parents not to teach their children that any religion is true. That seems to me to be essentially anti-democratic.
    Shouldn't the State already be doing that out of respect for the large minority who are opposed to religious schools?
    Being opposed to the freedom to have religious schools is anti-democratic.
    See the whole respect for the minority think doesn't work particularly well. All minorities think they are sizable and should have their opinions respected, from Christian groups to the KKK. A line has to be drawn some where, as I'm sure you would agree if Christians groups get into the majority on anything.
    No, we should not impose our morality on anyone, if their behaviour involves only themselves and consenting adults. Where kids education is involved, a balance between freedom to impart moral and religious ideas can be moderated with the requirement to inform about the civil and religious freedoms of the rest of society. For example, the duty to respect the right of homosexuals to live without harassment can be taught (in religious schools) alongside the immorality of homosexuality. And in State schools, where religion is not to be taught, similar civil and religious rights can be taught, without comment on morality.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    That's oxymoronic. If society was united on any issue, I would be with them on it, as I'm a member of that society.
    I mean the vast majority of society. You would still hold it wrong even if you were the only Christian left on the planet. And I imagine you would still say that the State should respect your views.
    But I meant all of society. However, I do believe the individuals position should be respected, as long as it does not impose harm on others.
    Really if you believe you are right then the size of those who also agree with you doesn't really matter. After all God agrees with you. So long as you continue to believe that you aren't going to be swayed by what others think.
    True. But our debate is about the State's right to impose its view upon the citizen. I'm saying that it has no democratic right, if the dissenter is not harming anyone by his view.

    Civil and religious liberty is a precious possession.

    ********************************************************************
    2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!


  • #84
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Zombrex said:

    Agreed. All I'm asking for is respect for a significant minority, and the freedom for all to withdraw from practices they hold to be immoral. In this instance the State insists its pupils are forced to engage, contrary to the wishes of a great number of citizens.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    To make the judgement that something is amoral is to make a moral judgement.

    Not really, it is saying that morality doesn't apply (how is what toothbrush you buy moral or immoral?). I guess if you think morality applies to everything you might view it in that terms, but that is not how everyone thinks.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As we agreed that imposition of morality was wrong if it was a matter for the person and any consenting party, abortion falls outside that parameter. The unborn child is not given a say.

    But that in itself is simply a moral position. If a significant minority doesn't agree you wouldn't respect that minority. You would require that this minority hold to your notions of morality when it comes to abortion.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, we should not impose our morality on anyone, if their behaviour involves only themselves and consenting adults.

    Again that in itself is a moral position.

    Lots of people would say that it is immoral to allow parents to instil in their children the idea that homosexuality is wrong or immoral.

    I don't necessarily agree with that, and I know you certainly don't. But I also don't think you would respect that position no matter how many people held to it.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    True. But our debate is about the State's right to impose its view upon the citizen. I'm saying that it has no democratic right, if the dissenter is not harming anyone by his view.

    Many people would argue that teaching children that homosexuality is immoral is harmful.

    Again I'm not convinced either way, but equally it is difficult to ignore the huge disparity between depression and suicide rates in homosexual teenagers verse heterosexual teenagers.

    So while it may still be a parents right, it certainly doesn't seem particularly a good idea.


  • #85
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Just wanted to throw out a clarification that I do have genuine sympathy for your position.

    I live in an advantagous time for someone with my beliefs, where western society is becoming increasingly secular, in line with that beliefs I hold.

    Thus it is relatively easy for me to talk about democracy and the will of the people since my (future) children will in all likelihood be raised in a society far closer to my beliefs that your beliefs.

    If I live 100 years ago when that wouldn't have been the case I could still hold to the same principles of calling for democratic change, but this can often take a lot longer than one may necessarily be happy with.

    I don't really know what I would do if I had to experience my children going to a religious school that day in day out was teaching them what I would view as Christian dogma. It is easy to be principled when you are pretty assured that your worst case scenario isn't going to happen.

    So while I'm mostly arguing against you on this thread, don't let that be taken as me not having sympathy for the situation Christian parents find themselves in in an world increasingly moving away from Christian values, even if I support that move. It must be quite frustrating for you and I don't doubt that most Christian parents have, at least to their own mind, the best interests of their children at heart, though I may disagree with what they wish to teach their children.


  • #86
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I don't really know what I would do if I had to experience my children going to a religious school that day in day out was teaching them what I would view as Christian dogma. It is easy to be principled when you are pretty assured that your worst case scenario isn't going to happen.

    Thing is, that at least the religious schools have enough respect to give parents the option of excluding their children from religious instruction. Seems the religious have a bit more of a value on freedom than the secular in this scenario. Though it doesn't really surprise me.
    So while I'm mostly arguing against you on this thread, don't let that be taken as me not having sympathy for the situation Christian parents find themselves in in an world increasingly moving away from Christian values

    Again though, unlike the Christian counterparts, it seems that you would take side with this dictatorship approach. 'We know best, so we don't care what you think, your child is getting this whether you like it or not'.
    It must be quite frustrating for you and I don't doubt that most Christian parents have, at least to their own mind, the best interests of their children at heart, though I may disagree with what they wish to teach their children.

    Thankfully its not frustrating yet, as we are not living in Canada. this however is what secularism is bringing. It frustrates me to see Christians applaud secularism (PDN I'm looking at you:) ) and hop on the 'get the Catholic Church out of the schools' bandwagon. They surely know that in reality, its more than simply separation of Church and state. Atheism is at the heart of the modern secular movement, and the moral vacuum is on its way. God is to be removed from the state, and that is why I will resist this faux-secularism and even support the position of the RC church in this state, rather than this phoney secularism that threatens to lord it over us with its authoritarianism in freedoms clothing (Better the devil you know).


  • #87
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Here's a mad idea, give parents the option of deciding to remove them from the contentious subjects. THAT is what happens in religious schools. I'm a non-catholic, and that was an option for me. Seems the religious have a bit more of a value on freedom than the secular in this scenario.

    It is not as black and white though is it. By definition if you want to remove your kid from a class room the subject is contentious, even if just to one parent.

    It becomes a balancing act then between the child's right to an education and the parents right to block that education if the parent feels the child is learning something that is against the child's wishes.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again though, unlike the Christian counterparts, it seems that you would take side with this dictatorship approach. 'We know best, so we don't care what you think, your child is getting this whether you like it or not'.

    We have already established though that both yourself and Wolfsbane think that there is a limit to how far a parent can push her right to remove a child from class rooms. So we all take the "dictatorship approach" down at a particular level on subjects we all think are nonsense. For example if a parent pulled their child out of class because there were black children in the same class room the parent would be criticized by all of us.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Thankfully its not frustrating yet, as we are not living in Canada. this however is what secularism is bringing. It frustrates me to see Christians applaud secularism (PDN I'm looking at you:) ) and hop on the 'get the Catholic Church out of the schools' bandwagon. They surely know that in reality, its more than simply separation of Church and state. Atheism is at the heart of the modern secular movement, and the moral vacuum is on its way.

    Come one, we both know that isn't true. While homosexuals might be sacrificing their eternal souls back here on Earth all manner of anti-homosexual harassment and violence has been steadily decreasing since the 1960s.

    While I'm sure lots of Christians welcome that and in no way support violence or harassment of homosexuals, it would be nonsense to suppose that this change in attitude in society and decrease in harassment would have taken place without the so called "homosexual agenda" that Christians rail against so much and which you think produces a moral vacuum.

    Homosexuals has a miserable time in pervious generations, facing social stigma, violence and imprisonment.

    So lets not forget where we are coming from before we start complaining about where we are going to.


  • #88
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is not as black and white though is it. By definition if you want to remove your kid from a class room the subject is contentious, even if just to one parent.

    It becomes a balancing act then between the child's right to an education and the parents right to block that education if the parent feels the child is learning something that is against the child's wishes.



    We have already established though that both yourself and Wolfsbane think that there is a limit to how far a parent can push her right to remove a child from class rooms. So we all take the "dictatorship approach" down at a particular level on subjects we all think are nonsense. For example if a parent pulled their child out of class because there were black children in the same class room the parent would be criticized by all of us.

    You seem fond of this line of argument, because it doesn't have to deal with reality. It can suggest scenario's that wont happen in the real world, and if they do, they'd be so rare that they'd be inconsequential. The reality is, we have a real world situation with the catholic schools in this country, where a parent can ask for their child to be excluded from religious instruction. This has not led to a rush for people to have their child removed from classes with black people etc. People, in general, have a certain amount of cop on.
    Come one, we both know that isn't true. While homosexuals might be sacrificing their eternal souls back here on Earth all manner of anti-homosexual harassment and violence has been steadily decreasing since the 1960s.

    And? What's that got to do with what I said?
    While I'm sure lots of Christians welcome that and in no way support violence or harassment of homosexuals, it would be nonsense to suppose that this change in attitude in society and decrease in harassment would have taken place without the so called "homosexual agenda" that Christians rail against so much and which you think produces a moral vacuum.

    I said the MODERN SECULAR MOVEMENT, not the transsexual, transvestite, lesbian, bisexual and homosexual agenda. These are the things that step into a moral vacuum, but maybe they are playing their part in creating the vacuum.
    Homosexuals has a miserable time in pervious generations, facing social stigma, violence and imprisonment.

    So lets not forget where we are coming from before we start complaining about where we are going to.

    Honestly, I don't care about what has happened in the past, if its got nothing to do with the future. Just because something may have been one extreme yesterday, does not mean I should feel like I can't oppose it being the other extreme tomorrow. I don't want bullying, I don't want violence against people, be they hetero, homo, transgender etc. But I also don't want children being brainwashed by LGBT groups. The way you say it, you'd think that these were the only options.


  • #89
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You seem fond of this line of argument, because it doesn't have to deal with reality. It can suggest scenario's that wont happen in the real world, and if they do, they'd be so rare that they'd be inconsequential. The reality is, we have a real world situation with the catholic schools in this country, where a parent can ask for their child to be excluded from religious instruction. This has not led to a rush for people to have their child removed from classes with black people etc. People, in general, have a certain amount of cop on.

    That isn't the way it works and you know it. I could just dismiss you and Wolfsbane and say have some cop-on. But you, for reasons that escapes me, actually believe in Christianity and think it is important to follow Christian moral teaching.

    Do I think that is nuts? Absolutely. Does that make your beliefs invalid? Not at all.

    You cannot decide what is or isn't a valid belief to hold, and by golly you don't want someone else deciding that for you.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    And? What's that got to do with what I said?

    You stated a moral vacuum is on the way due to secularism. In reality society is getting much more moral (if we define morality as the absence of bigotry, harassment and violence to groups like homosexuals), and secularism is part of that movement, along with LGBT agenda.

    Contrast that with how society was when it was less secular and more religious. Bigotry violence and harassment of homosexuals was at much higher levels than today. Life for homosexuals was horrible.

    So really complaining about the slope we are on to immorality is a bit rich. The direction society is moving in has so far produced the time when homosexuals were the most free from bigotry and harassment in all of human history.


  • #90
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That isn't the way it works and you know it.

    :confused: The way what works? You point out that IF such a brianwashing campaign was to be introduced, parents should not be able to exclude their kids from it, using some extreme examples like 'What if a parent doesn't want their kid in a class with black people' etc. I am quite rightly pointing out the lack of reality in that argument.
    I could just dismiss you and Wolfsbane and say have some cop-on. But you, for reasons that escapes me, actually believe in Christianity and think it is important to follow Christian moral teaching.

    What exactly does your disdain for Christianity have to do with this?
    You stated a moral vacuum is on the way due to secularism.

    Pseudo secularism. The authoritarian kind, that comes in the name of freedom to rid us of any public expression of faith. To remove, not only the church from the state, but God also.
    In reality society is getting much more moral

    Well, I beg to differ, and i think such an 'observation' is ludicrous, but I suppose time will tell.
    (if we define morality as the absence of bigotry, harassment and violence to groups like homosexuals), and secularism is part of that movement, along with LGBT agenda.

    There is no doubt that homosexuals etc enjoy much more freedom now than anytime in modern history. that does not translate into 'Society is getting more moral', it simply means that society does not treat LGBT's as they once did.
    Contrast that with how society was when it was less secular and more religious. Bigotry violence and harassment of homosexuals was at much higher levels than today. Life for homosexuals was horrible.

    You really don't want to start that line of argument do you? Should we then say a the religious society had less murder and family breakdown etc then?
    So really complaining about the slope we are on to immorality is a bit rich.

    I'm not complaining about what you want to do with yourself, or what LGBT's want to do with themselves or even that immorality is on the up. Your sense of what morality is, is malleable, and pretty meaningless to me, whatever the sophistry surrounding it is. I'm fine with that. You are free to hold your views. However, the issue I'm 'complaining' about, is NOT that immorality is on the up, but rather, the pushing of this 'morality' on children , especially in the form of a campaign of brainwashing from the time they enter school to the time they leave it. I mean, many atheists get their knickers in a twist over the explicit religious instruction thought in our catholic schools, and they even have the option in most cases of requesting their child be excluded from these classes. This LGBT malarkey, is not only explicit lessons, but the more effective implicit ones, and sticks its finger up at parents wishes to boot.
    The direction society is moving in has so far produced the time when homosexuals were the most free from bigotry and harassment in all of human history.

    Homosexuals may be more free etc, but that does not mean anything as far as society as a whole is concerned. I wish it did.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex said:Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane

    Agreed. All I'm asking for is respect for a significant minority, and the freedom for all to withdraw from practices they hold to be immoral. In this instance the State insists its pupils are forced to engage, contrary to the wishes of a great number of citizens.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    To make the judgement that something is amoral is to make a moral judgement.
    Not really, it is saying that morality doesn't apply (how is what toothbrush you buy moral or immoral?). I guess if you think morality applies to everything you might view it in that terms, but that is not how everyone thinks.
    Yes, OK - but classifying something as amoral/immoral/moral does make it so. It is or is not. And if you classify it as amoral when it is immoral/moral, you are mistaken.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    As we agreed that imposition of morality was wrong if it was a matter for the person and any consenting party, abortion falls outside that parameter. The unborn child is not given a say.
    But that in itself is simply a moral position.
    Yes, just like me saying sex-killing is murder.
    If a significant minority doesn't agree you wouldn't respect that minority.
    Indeed. That is the given in our discussion - things that harm others without their consent.
    You would require that this minority hold to your notions of morality when it comes to abortion.
    I'm more nuanced than that, seeing there are competing rights and circumstances where the mother's right has been violated to begin with.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    No, we should not impose our morality on anyone, if their behaviour involves only themselves and consenting adults.
    Again that in itself is a moral position.
    Yes - but I thought we had agreed that was our starting point in civil liberties?
    Lots of people would say that it is immoral to allow parents to instil in their children the idea that homosexuality is wrong or immoral.

    I don't necessarily agree with that, and I know you certainly don't. But I also don't think you would respect that position no matter how many people held to it.
    Given that children have to be given some moral compass by their parents, the State should keep out of it. Maybe it wishes to say it has all the moral guidance sorted out and is determined to enforce its ideology on the child?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    True. But our debate is about the State's right to impose its view upon the citizen. I'm saying that it has no democratic right, if the dissenter is not harming anyone by his view.
    Many people would argue that teaching children that homosexuality is immoral is harmful.
    Then we have to have a showdown in our democracy. When the State imposes penalties on raising children in such morality, it will be time to change the State or leave it.
    Again I'm not convinced either way, but equally it is difficult to ignore the huge disparity between depression and suicide rates in homosexual teenagers verse heterosexual teenagers.
    It is the awareness in their conscience that they are not behaving morally. Why must it be that their conscience is mistaken? If some of it is the pain of rejection, of feeling an outsider, that is shared by many heterosexuals over their faith, abilities, ethnicity. We can't make people like us or agree with us in everything. We have to live with it.
    So while it may still be a parents right, it certainly doesn't seem particularly a good idea.
    But if the parent is correct in his/her belief that homosexuality is immoral, it is a good idea to warn their kids against it.

    ********************************************************************
    2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!


Advertisement