There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion
Comments
-
Actually, I asked you whose opinion of their ethos does it depend on, if not yours? You're still welcome to answer.
I don't recall dismissing the minority, let alone casually, but you haven't convinced me you have a better system than democracy yet.
Well as I said already, I'm happy enough to live in a country where everyone can hope to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside, and the majority can see it.
The lord of distortion strikes again , I have no interest in convincing you of anything , happily your day is done and we are moving into the world of choice free from religious domination .0 -
The lord of distortion strikes again , I have no interest in convincing you of anything , happily your day is done and we are moving into the world of choice free from religious domination .
I am so stealing that!
Absolam, if you ever start a heavy metal band, that would be an excellent name for it.0 -
I am so stealing that!
Absolam, if you ever start a heavy metal band, that would be an excellent name for it.
Not to be confused with this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Misrule0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Sure. And on that basis you can counter the arguments of Iona, etc. You just can't counter them by saying that, because they have a religious motivation for advancing the arguments, therefore the arguments must be based on a theological claim and can be dismissed for that reason. That would be classic ad hominem reasoning. And we'd never do that, would we?
Yes, actually. Public hospitals. Universities. An end to the practice of exposing unwanted children. And these examples can be multiplied without difficulty.
And one of the hazards of unbelief is that it leads people to assume that anything motivated by beliefs which they do not share must be meaningless, pointless and produce nothing, when in fact there is no reason to think this, and still less any evidence to show it. And they go on to make the even mor extravagant assumption that positions motivated by beliefs which they do not share cannot be "relevant to the real world" and ought to be discounted in public policy.
Curiously enough, they themselves are happy to advance positions based on their own beliefs ("if there is no evidence for harm there is no reason for the law to intervene") and it doesn't seem to occur to them that anyone might have any grounds for objectiong to their beliefs shaping public policy.
You still don't get it do you. Show me evidence that hospitals and universities were created for religious reasons, or would not have been created without the influence of religion. Keep in mind that hospitals date back to at least the 4th century BC so forget christianity. Also could we have evidence that religion ended the practice of exposing unwanted children.
If there is no evidence of harm then do tell me, without reference to voices in your head, what else could be justifiably used to shape law. What else, in other words, would justify me forcing someone to behave in a certain way. Non-religious do not rely on beliefs, we rely on evidence. I am not going to try and explain any further, if you can't grasp the concept of evidence then I cannot help you.0 -
The lord of distortion strikes again ,I have no interest in convincing you of anything ,happily your day is done and we are moving into the world of choice free from religious domination .0
-
In fairness, I asked you (twice) whose opinion it depends on if not yours, so I guess I'll have to cede the lead vocalist spot in the Lords of Distortion to you....
I suspect if you thought you had an answer you probably would though?
Well, it seems to me we're moving into a world of more and more widespread democracy, so I rather think my day is waxing....
Whose opinion do you think it depends on ? The people of course and not your friend in Rome .
But all democracies have inbuilt safeguards to protect against just outcomes as you advocate .
A factor you well know which is why a waning majority fought tooth and nail to have positions enshrined in the constitution to prolong their influence .
And quite a long run you had , but now its waning and a new day dawns , ssm , trans right ,abortion , euthanasia - long may we reign0 -
Whose opinion do you think it depends on ? The people of course and not your friend in Rome .
If (as it seems you may now be) you're suggesting that a majority (Is that what you mean by the people? Or did you have specific people in mind?) should decide which people should be excluded from participating in democracy due to their ethos, is that not at odds with your earlier objection to the tyranny of the majority? It would also seem to add a rather redundant layer to the process?
If it eases your mind though, my friend in Rome has no interest in Irish politics, and I rather doubt would have any substantial influence even if she did.But all democracies have inbuilt safeguards to protect against just outcomes as you advocate .A factor you well know which is why a waning majority fought tooth and nail to have positions enshrined in the constitution to prolong their influence .And quite a long run you had , but now its waning and a new day dawns , ssm , trans right ,abortion , euthanasia - long may we reign0 -
I think you offered the proposition "And as for having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws - that depends entirely on that ethos", so it's hardly up to me; it was your idea to make the incorporation of peoples' moral and ethical perspective into our ethos and laws entirely dependent on their ethos, so perhaps you see why I asked you to elaborate on who you intended should decide which ethoi are permitted? Even though I had to ask twice
If (as it seems you may now be) you're suggesting that a majority (Is that what you mean by the people? Or did you have specific people in mind?) should decide which people should be excluded from participating in democracy due to their ethos, is that not at odds with your earlier objection to the tyranny of the majority? It would also seem to add a rather redundant layer to the process?
If it eases your mind though, my friend in Rome has no interest in Irish politics, and I rather doubt would have any substantial influence even if she did.
Which outcomes have I advocated exactly? As far as I recall I've only advocated a democratic solution, without expressing a preference for an outcome.
But enshrining anything in the Constitutional leaves it open to change by a majority still? So the choice of a waning majority can be overturned by the choice of a waxing majority, just as it should be.
Whilst democracy has had quite a long run, I'm confident it's far from waning..... as evidenced by the fact that more people than ever before express their opinions more freely and forcefully on those subjects, and use the democratic process to legislate in favour of their opinions (when they're a majority view!).
Not so , it was you said
''the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside''
Special place for the church , no contraception, no divorce , no abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice , the list goes on and on . Never again .
Thankfully we are coming to the end of all that , still a long way to go but with each passing generation it gathers speed . And soon we will cherish all of our kids equally .
Can't wait to vote in May !:)0 -
Not so ,And as for having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws - that depends entirely on that ethos .it was you said
''the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside''Secondly, religion (in general) doesn't demand that its tenets are incorporated into the laws of the land; the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside. And so they should, just like atheists should. A democracy is by the people and for the people.Special place for the church , no contraception, no divorce , no abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice , the list goes on and on . Never again .Thankfully we are coming to the end of all that , still a long way to go but with each passing generation it gathers speed . And soon we will cherish all of our kids equally . Can't wait to vote in May !:)0 -
Actually, I'm afraid it was exactly so... here's the quote: I did repeat it word for word, just as you said it.
With all credit to selective quoting, I think my intact statement
reasonably demonstrates my preference for everyone having a say, as opposed to your own preference for excluding people based on their ethos.
I imagine it does, though for the sake of clarity I ought to point out that I haven't mentioned any of these things, it's all you.... just in case anyone might misconstrue my position due to the way you structured your post
You mean you're looking forward to participating in the tyranny of the majority? Shocking :eek:
the Lord of distortion strikes again - so it was you first introduced it then !
All very fine when you were in the majority , less so now that your time is fading.
So just for the sake of clarity ,how many of contraception, divorce , abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice would you class as your ethos then ?
And to round it off you give the perfect example , giving the same rights you take for granted to less than 10% of the population to avail of , a change that will have absolutely zero affect on you , you class as the tyranny of the majority !
Is the world upside down or what ! Civil rights are now the gift of the majority are they ?0 -
Advertisement
-
the Lord of distortion strikes again - so it was you first introduced it then !All very fine when you were in the majority , less so now that your time is fading.So just for the sake of clarity ,how many of contraception, divorce , abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice would you class as your ethos then ?And to round it off you give the perfect example , giving the same rights you take for granted to less than 10% of the population to avail of , a change that will have absolutely zero affect on you , you class as the tyranny of the majority !Is the world upside down or what ! Civil rights are now the gift of the majority are they ?
Now who, in a democracy, decides what the State should do? If they're not prevented from participating by someone who doesn't like their ethos, that is0 -
Introduced disenfranchising people based on their ethos? Nope... still quite certain that was you
I've no idea what you think was fine when I was in the majority (or what majority you think it was), but I feel quite hearty still thank you; I doubt my time will fade for a while yet!
You know, I don't think I'd class any of them as my ethos. However, I do think my ethos informs my opinions about them. What about you? Do you class any of them as your ethos?
Actually, I didn't... you did when you said that doing what the majority of the citizenry want isn't democratic (as I said it was), it's the tyranny of the majority. I've linked it in case you forgot that you said it. Or is democracy only tyranny of the majority when it doesn't do what you want?
They're certainly in the gift of the State, as is manifest by the fact that we are having a referendum to determine if homosexuals should have the right to marry.
Now who, in a democracy, decides what the State should do? If they're not prevented from participating by someone who doesn't like their ethos, that is
More distortion , is there no end ! remind me again who introduced the notion of their ethos being introduced into the laws of the land ?
The difference is I am happy to let people make up their own minds on these issues . You it would appear are less so - fine to let your ethos inform your own behaviour , a bit less so when you want it to inform everyone else's and by force of law no less !
Sharia law , Christian style - no thanks !:eek:0 -
‘Duck Dynasty’ star fantasizes about atheist family’s brutal rape and murder to make point about God’s law.
Ewww.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/duck-dynasty-star-fantasizes-about-atheist-familys-brutal-rape-and-murder-to-make-point-about-gods-law/0 -
More distortion , is there no end ! remind me again who introduced the notion of their ethos being introduced into the laws of the land ?The difference is I am happy to let people make up their own minds on these issues . You it would appear are less so - fine to let your ethos inform your own behaviour , a bit less so when you want it to inform everyone else's and by force of law no less !
It appears you've inadvertently gotten our positions turned around in your head....Sharia law , Christian style - no thanks !:eek:0 -
Tyranny of the majority is a catchphrase it seems most often thrown out when a minority doesn't get what they want because a majority wants something different, but undemocratic? Wikipedia places it as a variant of democracy, and it was famously called 'the one pervading evil of democracy'. I'm not sure you can even have a tyranny of the majority without democracy. Regardless, given choice between the tyranny of the majority or the minority, I think I'm inclined to the populist course...
So for example you have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia ? the country has a Muslim majority so its cool by your view?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »So for example you have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia ? the country has a Muslim majority so its cool by your view?
Perhaps you give us your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia so that we can make a proper 'judgement'?0 -
Are you asking me am I 'cool' with illegal discrimination against minorities, or asking me am I 'cool' with a legitimate government enforcing the laws of the country it is sworn to serve?
Perhaps you give us your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia so that we can make a proper 'judgement'?
...perhaps I'm being unfair here, but does mean that you'd be okay with 'legal' discrimination against minorities, which a legitimate government will do if that's what the majority of its citizens want, such as in Saudi Arabia? (I dunno about Malaysia, but I do know in Saudi just giving a person a bible can get you the death penalty).0 -
Are you asking me am I 'cool' with illegal discrimination against minorities, or asking me am I 'cool' with a legitimate government enforcing the laws of the country it is sworn to serve?
Perhaps you give us your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia so that we can make a proper 'judgement'?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »...perhaps I'm being unfair here, but does mean that you'd be okay with 'legal' discrimination against minorities, which a legitimate government will do if that's what the majority of its citizens want, such as in Saudi Arabia? (I dunno about Malaysia, but I do know in Saudi just giving a person a bible can get you the death penalty).
If you're asking would I offer blanket support for any legal discrimination by a government against a minority, then I would say no, and I suspect you would say the same.
So whilst I am wholly in support of the concept of democracy, which does entail majority rule, that doesn't mean I feel any obligation to 'have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia '. Or, to feel that I have an obligation to not 'have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia '.0 -
Advertisement
-
silverharp wrote: »A small example but Catholic newspapers are forbidden to use the word Allah which is the local word for god. Another one is that it is legally difficult to convert from Islam , the state defers to sharia law0
-
-
No its not, at all. Lord of distortion indeed...
Are high earners a minority?
Does taxing high earners more than low earners create a distinction between high earners and low earners?
Is it legal to do so?
I think it satisfies all those conditions, so yes, a higher tax rate on high earners is a legal discrimination against a minority.
But if you think it's not at all, I'm sure you can present a cogent case.0 -
Many posts moved here from the "Hazards of Belief"0
-
-
That is probably fascinating to some people in fairness. It doesn't really help me distinguish between the two things I was asking you, so I'm guessing you're giving your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia; in which case to help you along I think the word Allah is more a specific name for the deity in Islam than a 'local word for god'. Given that, you can see why Muslims wouldn't want Christians to be using it to describe the Christian deity, and being a majority in the country, you can probably see how they can enforce their will on a minority. Should they? Most of us here believe in freedom of speech so our majority view would probably be no. But then, we're not in the majority there so who are we to say? Pretty much nobody as far as they're concerned.
here is a bit more information , so by your standards malaysia doesnt raise any red flags for you? democracy <check> islamic ethos <check> minority subject to the religious whims of the majority <check>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_MalaysiaConversion from Islam[edit]
Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is a controversial question. The legal process of conversion is also unclear; in practice it is very difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally.[22]
In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts.Revathi Massosai[edit]
Revathi Massosai is a Malaysian woman who was raised as a Hindu but her identity card designates her as a Muslim. She has declared her religion to be Hindu and has petitioned unsuccessfully to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card. Massosai married a Hindu man, but her marriage is not recognised by the Malaysian government because of the religion issue. Massosai was incarcerated for six months in an Islamic re-education camp because of her attempts to renounce Islam in favour of the Hindu religion.[30] Revathi was denied the guardianship of her new born baby and was not allowed to meet her Hindu husband.Proselytizing[edit]
Proselytizing of Muslims by members of other religions is not technically prohibited by federal law, even though Muslims may proselytise. It is however prohibited in 10 of the 13 states (i.e. excepting Penang, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) and can lead to lengthy jail sentences and many strokes of the rotan (whipping). Most Christian and a few other religious groups in Malaysia put a standard disclaimer on literature and advertisements stating "For non-Muslims only".[35]A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Advertisement
-
silverharp wrote: »here is a bit more information , so by your standards malaysia doesnt raise any red flags for you? democracy <check> islamic ethos <check> minority subject to the religious whims of the majority <check>
Or are you returning to your original point and claiming once again that if something is not condemned it is therefore condoned? I don't think you've offered anything in the meantime that would incline me to agree I'm afraid....0 -
What red flags are you thinking it's supposed to raise for me, exactly? Ought I to be throwing my arms in the air, renouncing democracy and advocating a return to monarchy?
Or are you returning to your original point and claiming once again that if something is not condemned it is therefore condoned? I don't think you've offered anything in the meantime that would incline me to agree I'm afraid....
eh no , the alternative is to have a constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority. Democracy is fine once individual rights are strong enough to protect individuals going about the normal business of life.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »eh no , the alternative is to have a constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority. Democracy is fine once individual rights are strong enough to protect individuals going about the normal business of life.
Regardless, who decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?0 -
Is that the red flag it's supposed to raise for me, or is it another in the series of non sequiturs?
Regardless, who decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?
Eh that majority rule without a strong constitution is unethical as we can see in countries like malasyia or Uganda another democracy this time Christian trying to bring in the "kill the gays bill" with the help of some evangelical christians.
Who decides is not relevant , but a sign of maturity would be seeing how well individuals are protected . if the constitution is a stitch up by the local popular religion then it is going to be a more flawed document.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »Eh that majority rule without a strong constitution is unethicalsilverharp wrote: »Who decides is not relevant .
Or do you think, really, that in order to be a democracy who decides what's in the constitution is entirely relevant, because who makes decisions is pretty much the definition of a democracy?silverharp wrote: »but a sign of maturity would be seeing how well individuals are protected.
Maybe you could give us your, say, top three and bottom three constitutions from around the world by maturity to exemplify what you mean?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't thank anyone has been advocating majority rule without a strong constitution though, have they? Whether or not it's unethical is probably up for debate but it hardly matters; democracy is still a system of majority rule regardless of whether there is a strong, or well executed, or carefully constructed constitution, or even if there is a constitution at all.
well you seemed to be , which do you prefer a Religious country like the USA that has a secular constitution or a religious country that has a religious biased one?Is that an honest answer? Are you prepared to say that a democracy whose entire constitution, determining the extent of all the rights of all of its citizens, is determined solely by a Pope or King appointed by God, is still a democracy?
I just meant I have no one particular answer , I'd expect there there are well documented processes in preparing a constitution , the final document of course should be voted on by the people. What I'd expect of a more advanced doument is one that set out to do "no harm" The Malaysia example would conclude that badly written constitutions do harm
Maybe you could give us your, say, top three and bottom three constitutions from around the world by maturity to exemplify what you mean?
Well lets keep it simple as I have mentioned them , the US constitution versus the Malaysian one. In a heartbeat I would pick the US one as I can see in a heartbeat that it doesnt care about religion or who I might marry and how I might raise my kids. The Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protectionA belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »well you seemed to be ,silverharp wrote: »which do you prefer a Religious country like the USA that has a secular constitution or a religious country that has a religious biased one?silverharp wrote: »I just meant I have no one particular answer , I'd expect there there are well documented processes in preparing a constitution , the final document of course should be voted on by the people. What I'd expect of a more advanced doument is one that set out to do "no harm" The Malaysia example would conclude that badly written constitutions do harmsilverharp wrote: »Who decides is not relevant .silverharp wrote: »Well lets keep it simple as I have mentioned them , the US constitution versus the Malaysian one. In a heartbeat I would pick the US one as I can see in a heartbeat that it doesnt care about religion or who I might marry and how I might raise my kids. The Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protection
Secondly, you're saying 'the Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protection'. Personally I'd say not addressing something demonstrates a lack of care for it; certainly my personal lack of protection for endangered cockroaches in Dublin bedsits is not a default indication of my care for them, quite the contrary. Perhaps are you returning to your original proposition and trying to tell us again that failing to condemn is condoning? You have yet to advance any argument to back that notion up I'm afraid.
But I suppose since you're picking constitutions, the real question has to be; aren't the Malaysian people also allowed to choose?0 -
I' sure if I did (and I'm sure that I didn't) you could quote me doing so?I'm not sure you can even have a tyranny of the majority without democracy. Regardless, given choice between the tyranny of the majority or the minority, I think I'm inclined to the populist course...
You appear to relish the "tyranny of the majority" instead of having a more reasonable view that any particular minority deserve to be protected from the majority if it could be deemed that he minority could be wronged by the attitudes of the majority.
I prefer a country where a majority of the people determine their laws and constitutions democratically, regardless of the phrasing they use to describe it. Is there a system you think is better?
..., who, in a democracy, decides what goes in the constitution that protects individuals from the whims of the majority?
it would be a measure of of the process , it the local religion is given the power to screen and amend the constitution before its presented to the people then its a weak process likely to create a weak constitution. If the government of the day setup an independent commission made up of various experts etc. then the constitution will likely look out to protect minorities.
Well firstly, I wasn't asking which you would pick, I was asking which ones you rate top and bottom according to maturity. What is mature in the American Constitution that is not mature in the Malaysian one? Or is it the other way round?
Secondly, you're saying 'the Malaysian one does care by default due to its lack of protection'. Personally I'd say not addressing something demonstrates a lack of care for it; certainly my personal lack of protection for endangered cockroaches in Dublin bedsits is not a default indication of my care for them, quite the contrary. Perhaps are you returning to your original proposition and trying to tell us again that failing to condemn is condoning? You have yet to advance any argument to back that notion up I'm afraid.
But I suppose since you're picking constitutions, the real question has to be; aren't the Malaysian people also allowed to choose?
Of course the Malaysians are free to choose but I can judge their state as being backward because they dont protect religious minorities. Not treating all citizens equally is setting out not to protect them, in the Malaysian example they specifically allow for religious courts to have a monopoly in the lives of people outside of the general legal system.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »You appear to relish the "tyranny of the majority" instead of having a more reasonable view that any particular minority deserve to be protected from the majority if it could be deemed that he minority could be wronged by the attitudes of the majority.
Nor have I ever said I relish the tyranny of the majority; you may recall it was Marianbads term for democracies, let alone said I don't believe that any particular minority don't deserve to be protected from the majority if it could be deemed that he minority could be wronged by the attitudes of the majority.
Seriously, when I said quote me, I didn't mean make up nonsense and ascribe it to me!silverharp wrote: »it would be a measure of of the process , it the local religion is given the power to screen and amend the constitution before its presented to the people then its a weak process likely to create a weak constitution. If the government of the day setup an independent commission made up of various experts etc. then the constitution will likely look out to protect minorities.silverharp wrote: »Of course the Malaysians are free to choose but I can judge their state as being backward because they dont protect religious minorities.
I don't think you're in a position to invade them and start dictating what you want in their Constitution, for instance.0 -
The usual reason given for saying that it is not legal to have non denominational schools in Ireland is Rule 68 of the Rules for National Schools (1926) ....
It is actually quite funny that they saw fit to include a special Chapter 10 titled "Secular Instruction" ie reading writing maths geography etc.. after Chapter 9 "Religious Instruction".
Its almost like a rule to remind the old Christian Brother dudes that they should at least try to teach the kids to read and write, after the all important "religious instruction" has been taken care of.
Also slightly amusing is this account of an Irish Department of Justice delegate squirming before a UN hearing, where she says..There is no obstacle to the establishment of secular or non-denominational schools if sought by a sufficiently-large number of parents if the required for patronage are fulfilled0 -
It is actually quite funny that they saw fit to include a special Chapter 10 titled "Secular Instruction" ie reading writing maths geography etc.. after Chapter 9 "Religious Instruction".
Its almost like a rule to remind the old Christian Brother dudes that they should at least try to teach the kids to read and write, after the all important "religious instruction" has been taken care of.Also slightly amusing is this account of an Irish Department of Justice delegate squirming before a UN hearing[/URL], where she says..Not sure how this would play with the Dept. of Education, but it indicates to me anyway that Rule 68 is currently in the same position that the 1861 abortion act was in after the x-case Supreme Court decision. Its still hanging around, but its effectively unenforceable and illegal in itself, due to subsequent changes which have overridden it, and therefore it's just waiting around like a bad smell for a govt. minister with sufficient cajones to officially and finally delete it.0 -
Well I think "miniscule" might refer to one or two entirely private schools, ie not in receipt of any state funding and not required to teach the Irish language or religion.
The legality of Rule 68 would be tested if say, hypothetically speaking ,
the ET schools announced tomorrow that they were henceforth to be known as non-denominational schools, perhaps in order to distinguish them from the ETB (formerly known as VEC) schools. Because ET does not give any denominational religious instruction, whereas ETB segregates kids into a multitude of groups for that purpose.
Would our Dept of Education then withdraw state funding from the ET schools, or would they delete Rule 68? They can't have a school patron openly in breach of departmental rules.
I am certain that ET now hold such a strong position in Irish society that Rule 68 would quickly and quietly disappear.
Its an interesting discussion, but in the wrong thread, so I'll say no more on it.0 -
Well I think "miniscule" might refer to one or two entirely private schools, ie not in receipt of any state funding and not required to teach the Irish language or religion.The legality of Rule 68 would be tested if say, hypothetically speaking , the ET schools announced tomorrow that they were henceforth to be known as non-denominational schools, perhaps in order to distinguish them from the ETB (formerly known as VEC) schools. Because ET does not give any denominational religious instruction, whereas ETB segregates kids into a multitude of groups for that purpose. Would our Dept of Education then withdraw state funding from the ET schools, or would they delete Rule 68? They can't have a school patron openly in breach of departmental rules.I am certain that ET now hold such a strong position in Irish society that Rule 68 would quickly and quietly disappear.
Its an interesting discussion, but in the wrong thread, so I'll say no more on it.0 -
As already pointed out, rule 68 does not either explicitly or by implication require a school to have any denominational link or identity, and I think it’s just flat-out wrong to say that it bans “non-denominational schools”.
What it bans, or appears to ban, is non-religious schools, i.e. schools not informed and vivified by a religious spirit. So if you want a confrontational challenge to rule 68, what you need is a school patron who will say that they are going to run a school without any religious spirit.
What this would do, I think, is to raise the awkward question of what the status of the Rules for National Schools is, anyway. SFAIK the Education Acts passed by the Oireachtas do not give the Minister any power to issue legally-binding Rules for National Schools. But we have a constitutional separation of powers in Ireland; legislation must be enacted either by the Oireachtas or in exercise of a power delegated by the Oireachtas. I think it’s strongly arguable, to put it no higher, that the Rules don’t have the force of law; they represent the Minister’s policy with respect to how managers ought to conduct national schools. If so, the question of how to implement that policy - and in particular the question of how vigorously to implement it - is a matter for the Minister.
We might end up with a situation in which Rule 68 is understood as expressing a policy preference - the Minister’s policy is that schools ought to be informed and vivified etc etc. But his way of implementing that policy is (a) to state it in the Rules, and (b) to leave it to patrons to decide how to give effect to it. (And it’s not difficult to come up with credible arguments of both policy and principle as to why he should leave it to patrons.)
What that would show, in fact, is that it’s simply not correct to say that non-denominational or non-religious schools are illegal in Ireland. The true position would be that Ministerial policy is that schools should be religious, if not denominational, but that it’s up to school patrons to decide how this should be done, and the Minister will not second-guess their decisions.
Of course, there’s a degree of speculation there, but I don’t think it’s wild speculation. The Minister does take a pretty hands-off approach with regard to the religious side of school life, and realistically I can’t see any Minister wanting to dictate how a religious spirit ought to be expressed. (And I can see strong constitutional objections to an Minister doing so. If the separation of church and state means anything at all, it means that state authorities like the Minister have no competence to direct people about how to express or realise religious beliefs or convictions.) My guess is that when it comes to religious spirit, the Minister will simply draw patrons’ attention to Rule 68 and tell them to work out for themselves how best to apply it in the circumstances of the school they patronise.
Rather than trying to get an existing school patron to confront the Minister over this, which might be difficult, a better way to proceed might be for an advocacy group for nonreligious parents to challenge the propriety of Rule 68, arguing that the Minister has no business to adopt a policy that all schools should be informed by a religious spirit; that such a policy is discriminatory; and that it violates constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of religion.0 -
This thread stopped being funny some pages ago, can a mod move the discussion posts to their own thread0
-
Advertisement
-
I don't think you're in a position to invade them and start dictating what you want in their Constitution, for instance.
Where did I say invade???? Im just rating their constitution as weak as it lets the majority dictate to the minority which you seem to value when a democracy can prevent this.
Have to lol that I am defending the rights of Christians in Malaysia to a Christian :pac:A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »Where did I say invade????silverharp wrote: »Im just rating their constitution as weak as it lets the majority dictate to the minority which you seem to value when a democracy can prevent this.
By the way, is weak a substitute for backwards? You never mentioned whether backwards was a substitute for mature (or immature). It's just you keep changing your terms, so it's hard to tell if you're still talking about the same thing?silverharp wrote: »Have to lol that I am defending the rights of Christians in Malaysia to a Christian :pac:0 -
Remember, tyranny of the majority isn't a problem when it's not YOU who has to sit at the back of the bus.0
-
You didn't; I did, when I was saying you're probably not in a position and impose a constitution on them that they haven't chosen for themselves.
So, which Constitution is strong then? The American Constitution is equally amenable to change by the majority (75% if memory serves). So the US could change it's Constitution and declare Islam the State religion, if a majority of the people were determined to do so.
By the way, is weak a substitute for backwards? You never mentioned whether backwards was a substitute for mature (or immature). It's just you keep changing your terms, so it's hard to tell if you're still talking about the same thing?
Really?
And as for my last point maybe I'm wrong are you a scientologist? Muslim? Christian?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »Have you observed many constitutions amended taking away rights from people? When constitutions are amended its normally to expand rights .silverharp wrote: »I'm not sure where your quibble with my terms come , clearly some countries are less civilised than others for instance ones that let shria law take presedence over judicial law.silverharp wrote: »And as for my last point maybe I'm wrong are you a scientologist? Muslim? Christian?0
-
What religion are you?
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
-
How relevant is it?
So I can understand why you are slow to be critical of muslum democracies that persecute Christians. If you are Muslim for instance then it might be relevant.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »So I can understand why you are slow to be critical of muslum democracies that persecute Christians. If you are Muslim for instance then it might be relevant.0
-
Advertisement
-
I should imagine being slow to be critical is an attribute shared by sensible atheists and religious alike. I'm fairly sure the world would be a worse place if people were quick to leap to conclusions without considering facts, aren't you?
So what religion are you? If you are christian then you are not supposed to hide your light under a bushel?
It would be logical to be critical of law that creates harm , you might be slow to be critical if you personally support the harm being not corrected.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0