More nonsense from David Quinn...

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-labours-education-policy-is-to-attack-religious-freedom-2546237.html

IN last week's column I wrote about Labour policy with regard to abortion and managed to "deeply depress" Senator Fiona O'Malley and drive Michael D Higgins into a fit of incandescent rage on Newstalk radio.

But facts are facts, and Labour does want to legislate for abortion.

This week, I want to turn my attention to Labour's education policy and, specifically, its policy concerning denominational schools.

First of all though, a general observation about denominational schools.

Just about everyone is agreed that there are too many such schools in this country and, in particular, there are too many Catholic schools. There are historical reasons for this but today the number of Catholic schools outstrips the true level of demand for them.

This isn't good for either Catholic, or non-Catholic, parents.

Non-Catholics often have to send their children to a school they don't like because it's the only school in the area.

But the schools themselves, knowing this, and knowing also that many of the teachers are non-practising, end up watering down their Catholic ethos, which is no good for Catholic parents either.

So this problem needs to be tackled, although finding the right way to do so won't be easy.

Labour does not want to bring an end to denominational schools, or to public funding of such schools.

Many Labour Party members would like to do this, but it isn't party policy yet.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail also favour continued public funding of denominational schools, but all three parties want to reduce the number of these schools, as does the Catholic Church itself, if a way can be found to do so.

After this, Labour policy becomes much more problematic. There are actually two ways to destroy denominational education.

One is to strip church-run schools of public funding, which would leave only a small, private sector.

The second way is to force them to water down their ethos so much that they would be denominational in little more than name.

If this isn't the intent of Labour policy, then it would be its long-term effect.

One of the chief ways in which a school preserves its ethos is through hiring only those teachers who will respect the ethos. They don't have to believe in the ethos, but they must respect it in both word and deed. This is entirely right and proper.

For example, even if I was suitably qualified in every other way, Labour would never employ me as its press officer because I don't believe in the Labour Party. I am a known opponent and that is enough to disqualify me from consideration for such a job.

Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act protects the right of religious organisations, including schools, to employ only those people who will respect their ethos.

The Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) wants this section repealed because they say it permits 'discrimination', but it isn't discrimination in the sense they mean if a teacher's beliefs or lifestyle are relevant to the job.

Labour isn't too far behind the INTO in this regard. It wants to amend Section 37 so that religious schools will be forced to employ openly homosexual teachers.

This would make it almost impossible for schools to properly teach traditional sexual morality and so it would be a direct attack on religious freedom.

Furthermore, it would probably be unconstitutional.

Article 44 of the Constitution protects religious freedom. In 1997 the constitutionality of Section 37 was tested and upheld, and the then Attorney General argued that the Employment Equality Act had to contain this section of the Act for it to be constitutional.

Here's the irony; Labour was in power then. Labour's Mervyn Taylor was responsible for Section 37.

But, since then, Labour has become more hostile to religious freedom and we can be pretty sure it will become even more hostile as time goes on, especially if the Ivana Bacik wing of the Labour Party gets its way.

Labour's manifesto also promises to "negotiate the transfer of school infrastructure currently owned by the 18 religious orders cited in the Ryan report".

Labour does say that the patronage of the school would remain as it is now. But the schools in question aren't owned by the orders anymore. They are now in the hands of various trusts.

How free are those trusts to hand over their property? Probably not very free at all.

Like Fine Gael, Labour promises to set up a forum to discuss the future of Irish education.

Would Labour try to undermine the admissions policies of denominational schools on the grounds that they, too, are 'discriminatory'?

If so, that would be another attack on the freedom of those schools.

Labour's policy on denominational schools is by no means as bad as its policy on abortion. But it's bad enough.

It begins the process of undermining the ethos of such schools, irrespective of what Catholics, and other religious parents, might actually want.

Listen David if you want the people of Ireland to continue paying for schools that indoctrinate children then you can go and **** yourself.

tdv123

A relation to Tony Quinn by any chance?

mikhail

I found it amusing that he is so quick to refer to the constitution when it suits him here, and yet when it comes to abortion, the current constitutional position (even if FF refuse to legislate for it) is abhorrent to him. You can't have it both ways, David.

gcgirl

#Iona****wit dot com
He would even wanna make a buddhest wanna punch him!

MrPudding

With respect to the discrimination allowed by school on the basis of religion, I can’t believe this would survive a legal challenge. Does anyone know if anyone has actually tried to challenge it?

MrP

keppler

MrPudding wrote: »

With respect to the discrimination allowed by school on the basis of religion, I can’t believe this would survive a legal challenge. Does anyone know if anyone has actually tried to challenge it?

MrP

There was a thread on here which discussed a case concerning a protestant teacher being dismissed on similar grounds from her job in a catholic school............I think she won the case and was given compensation:)

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Does anyone know if anyone has actually tried to challenge it?

While an Irish court would probably reject the challenge, I don't believe the ECHR would -- I'd have thought it was a straightforward case of discrimination on religious grounds.

MrPudding

keppler wrote: »

There was a thread on here which discussed a case concerning a protestant teacher being dismissed on similar grounds from her job in a catholic school............I think she won the case and was given compensation:)

Yeah, that does ring a bell. It can't be compatible with European law, so I am not surprised she won. I would expect it will have to be changed. I don’t think Mr Quinn will be too happy about that, which makes me happy.

MrP

Zombrex

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-labours-education-policy-is-to-attack-religious-freedom-2546237.html



Listen David if you want the people of Ireland to continue paying for schools that indoctrinate children then you can go and **** yourself.

It is almost as if he is arguing that all public funding should be stopped. Though you get the impression he doesn't have an idea himself he just wants to rail against Labour.

Dades

You'd swear you could only indoctrinate children between 9am and 3pm during the week.

Get those "catholic parents" off their holy asses to bring their kids to extra-curricular brainwashing and mass on Sunday more than twice a year. Perhaps they could even find a few minutes in the evening to impart themselves the catholic ethos they find so important.

fisgon

I wonder does DQ realise how many votes he is winning for the Labour Party.

mikhail

fisgon wrote: »

I wonder does DQ realise how many votes he is winning for the Labour Party.

I kind of wonder if he's maybe a brilliant Labour sleeper agent. Seeing the impending collapse of the Catholic church's reputation here, they plant a Labour Youth in the papers with an extremely pro-Catholic line to attack them at the most opportune moment. Then I remembered the Labour Youth members I've known, and dismissed it as impossible.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

While an Irish court would probably reject the challenge, I don't believe the ECHR would -- I'd have thought it was a straightforward case of discrimination on religious grounds.

Yeah, that is what I thought, though the Irish courts do have an obligation to consider EU law when reading Irish law. Clearly the Irish law is incompatible with the EU law, but I would expect them to say as much.

MrP

Sam Vimes

This:

The article wrote:

Labour isn't too far behind the INTO in this regard. It wants to amend Section 37 so that religious schools will be forced to employ openly homosexual teachers.

This would make it almost impossible for schools to properly teach traditional sexual morality and so it would be a direct attack on religious freedom.

Reminds me of this:

MagicMarker

I stopped reading at the mentioning of sexual morality shoite!

mohawk

From reading between the lines I read as follows:
Would somebody think of the children!!! What happens if they are taught by a gay person. How are future catholics going to be prejudiced against gay people if they have gay teachers. In fact humanity is doomed if we let openly gay people teach as they will turn everyone gay.*

*I think I summed up the article quite nicely :pac:

Angrybastard

A truly horrible man.

I think us men should really shut the fcuk up about the abortion issue.

legspin

Angrybastard wrote: »

A truly horrible man.

I think us men should really shut the fcuk up about the abortion issue.

I have long felt the only man who should have any say in the matter is the father of the child and then only if the mother acknowledges him. Otherwise if you have a penis shut the **** up about abortion.

Just my opinion.

Mark Hamill

Seeing as if a woman came looking for child support from a man, he wouldn't be able to just ignore her because of a legal responsibility to the child, I dont see why the man involved in getting the woman pregnant shouldn't get a say in what happens.

Then again I'm not sexist, so maybe thats just me.

Zombrex

Angrybastard wrote: »

I think us men should really shut the fcuk up about the abortion issue.

Why? Abortion is a human rights issue (no matter what side you take).

Bottle_of_Smoke

Angrybastard wrote: »

A truly horrible man.

I think us men should really shut the fcuk up about the abortion issue.

Yup. Same for infertile women.

The Mad Hatter

Angrybastard wrote: »

I think us men should really shut the fcuk up about the abortion issue.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Certainly, though, men especially should think very carefully about the subject and discuss it with women they know before announcing any conclusions.

Angrybastard

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seeing as if a woman came looking for child support from a man, he wouldn't be able to just ignore her because of a legal responsibility to the child, I dont see why the man involved in getting the woman pregnant shouldn't get a say in what happens.

Then again I'm not sexist, so maybe thats just me.

I was making the point about men being vocal and sanctimonious about the abortion issue in general.

Angrybastard

Wicknight wrote: »

Why? Abortion is a human rights issue (no matter what side you take).

I'd say it's more an issue for 50% of humans, wouldn't you?

CerebralCortex

Angrybastard wrote: »

I'd say it's more an issue for 50% of humans, wouldn't you?

It takes two to tango!

Turtwig

Angrybastard wrote: »

I'd say it's more an issue for 50% of humans, wouldn't you?

Way OT, but why is the gender breakdown always assumed to be 50:50?:confused:

mikhail

Angrybastard wrote: »

I'd say it's more an issue for 50% of humans, wouldn't you?

Your position is understandable if you are of the opinion that a foetus is part of the mother's body and has no right to life, though it does pose interesting questions if you want to make the case that men have any rights or responsibilities regarding their offspring.

If you are of the opinion that the foetus is an independent human life, it's rather more complicated.

I'm of the opinion that the mutilated corpses of people who refuse to consider the opinion of people they disagree with on the abortion issue should be used to feed starving children in Africa.

For the record, I'm undecided on abortion. And I have a penis.

Dades

Maybe because the margin of error between that and the actual figure is so small as not to warrant mentioning? :pac:

Some interesting stats here:

Ireland's gender ratio is essentially 50/50...
What's going on in the UAE/Quater/Kuwait?? Migrant workers?

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

Maybe because the margin of error between that and the actual figure is so small as not to warrant mentioning? :pac:

Some interesting stats here:

Ireland's gender ratio is essentially 50/50...
What's going on in the UAE/Quater/Kuwait?? Migrant workers?

A lot of self love I'd say.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Maybe because the margin of error between that and the actual figure is so small as not to warrant mentioning? :pac:

Some interesting stats here:

Ireland's gender ratio is essentially 50/50...
What's going on in the UAE/Quater/Kuwait?? Migrant workers?

Another example of primary education fail and me not questioning it.:(

Woah that's awesome. I always imagined that the bullsh1t idea that males are the dominant sex had something to do with the idea there were more males than females in the world.Seeing the ratio makes we realise even more the bizarreness of male domination and the women in this world who are ok with it because their holy book dictates so.

Zombrex

Angrybastard wrote: »

I'd say it's more an issue for 50% of humans, wouldn't you?

No.

Not unless abortions only terminate female embryos, which last time checked wasn't the case.

Sam Vimes

Angrybastard wrote: »

A truly horrible man.

I think us men should really shut the fcuk up about the abortion issue.

Angrybastard wrote: »

I was making the point about men being vocal and sanctimonious about the abortion issue in general.

The problem with those points and pretty much every point in the abortion debate (and debates in general) is that it only makes sense if you're approaching the debate from the pro-choice perspective and ignoring the pro-life perspective. What I like to do is replace the word abortion with murder in any argument and see if it still makes sense. for example:

I think us non-murderers should really shut the fcuk up about the murder issue.
I was making the point about non-murderers being vocal and sanctimonious about the murder issue in general.


As I'm sure you'll agree, when we replace the word abortion with murder in your points they don't make a lick of sense. Of course we shouldn't just shut up about murder and let people get on with it! Now I know what you're going to say: abortion is not murder. But pro-lifers don't agree with you and that is the fundamental difference between your positions. If you want to change someone's mind on abortion you need to address the issue of whether or not abortion is murder. Any argument that only makes sense if you assume either that abortion is murder or it isn't just wastes everyone's time because it only convinces the already convinced

bnt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Any argument that only makes sense if you assume either that abortion is murder or it isn't just wastes everyone's time because it only convinces the already convinced

I'd go even further than that: whether you call abortion murder depends on whether you think that abortion is the taking of a "life", and that in turn hinges on "vitalism". If your faith tells you that an impregnated ovum is a "life", in black-and-white terms, then an anti-abortion position follows from that. If, however, you regard "life" not as a yes/no proposition, but as something that develops over time, then abortion can't be murder since a foetus is not a full human life.

I fall in to the latter category. I am against murder, of course, but not for any "moral" reasons - not because some authority told me it was wrong - but for entirely practical and pragmatic reasons arising from the "golden rule". I wouldn't want it done to me, so I won't be doing it to anyone. But back in the months before I was born, I wasn't "me". I had no awareness of anything. If "I" had been aborted, there would be no "me" here to talk about it now. What would have been the consequences of that for "me"? None, not even if someone wheels out the Beethoven Fallacy. I doubt any of you would have missed me. I know "I" wouldn't miss "me", since "I" wouldn't be around to do the missing. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

bnt wrote: »

I'd go even further than that: whether you call abortion murder depends on whether you think that abortion is the taking of a "life", and that in turn hinges on "vitalism". If your faith tells you that an impregnated ovum is a "life", in black-and-white terms, then an anti-abortion position follows from that. If, however, you regard "life" not as a yes/no proposition, but as something that develops over time, then abortion can't be murder since a foetus is not a full human life.

I fall in to the latter category. I am against murder, of course, but not for any "moral" reasons - not because some authority told me it was wrong - but for entirely practical and pragmatic reasons arising from the "golden rule". I wouldn't want it done to me, so I won't be doing it to anyone. But back in the months before I was born, I wasn't "me". I had no awareness of anything. If "I" had been aborted, there would be no "me" here to talk about it now. What would have been the consequences of that for "me"? None, not even if someone wheels out the Beethoven Fallacy. I doubt any of you would have missed me. I know "I" wouldn't miss "me", since "I" wouldn't be around to do the missing. :rolleyes:

Um, if I killed you right now then there would be no "you" around to do the missing. And if I killed, say, a homeless person with no family or friends then no one would miss them. Is it ok to kill homeless people?

Also, if I killed you ten years ago then the "you" I would be killing would have been very different to the "you" I would be killing today. And back another ten years it would have been a different "you" again. And in the womb it would have been a different "you". the "you" that "you" are changes with time but the whole way along it's still "you". Or what makes you say that before you exited your mother's vagina there was no "you" at all? This is an argument that only make sense to someone who's already pro-choice.

Mark Hamill

Angrybastard wrote: »

I was making the point about men being vocal and sanctimonious about the abortion issue in general.

Sanctimony is not restricted to men, and the fact that some twit wrote a sanctimonious article doesn't imply that any man who deigns to speak about abortion will do so sanctimoniously and therefore should just shut the fcuk up.

Angrybastard wrote: »

I'd say it's more an issue for 50% of humans, wouldn't you?

Women can get pregnant without men now, can they?
Its funny how pregnancy and abortion are only issues for women until the point the baby is born, after which men are supposed to support them. Its a situation of women (those that think men should get no say) having their cake baby and eating it.

The Mad Hatter

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What I like to do is replace the word abortion with murder in any argument and see if it still makes sense. for example:

I think us non-murderers should really shut the fcuk up about the murder issue.
I was making the point about non-murderers being vocal and sanctimonious about the murder issue in general.

I'm not sure that analogy works properly, though, because he's not saying that only people who have never had abortions should shut up about it. It's a question of capacity: women can carry a child to term; men cannot, therefore I think it's fair to say that men should think long and hard before voicing any opinion on the subject. I don't think it's fair to say that men shouldn't have a say at all, any more than I would suggest that white people shouldn't talk about black rights, or straight people about gay rights, but there is an awful lot of thoughtless opinion out there.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with those points and pretty much every point in the abortion debate (and debates in general) is that it only makes sense if you're approaching the debate from the pro-choice perspective and ignoring the pro-life perspective. What I like to do is replace the word abortion with murder in any argument and see if it still makes sense. for example:

I think us non-murderers should really shut the fcuk up about the murder issue.
I was making the point about non-murderers being vocal and sanctimonious about the murder issue in general.


As I'm sure you'll agree, when we replace the word abortion with murder in your points they don't make a lick of sense. Of course we shouldn't just shut up about murder and let people get on with it! Now I know what you're going to say: abortion is not murder. But pro-lifers don't agree with you and that is the fundamental difference between your positions. If you want to change someone's mind on abortion you need to address the issue of whether or not abortion is murder. Any argument that only makes sense if you assume either that abortion is murder or it isn't just wastes everyone's time because it only convinces the already convinced

Rape is a better analogy, since the majority of rapists are men.

How many women would accept that because of this women should shut up about rape, since it is really a male issue.

Angrybastard see how bad that is when you accept that the victims of rape have rights.

I'm pro-choice, but I still think the idea that abortion is a woman's issue is frankly ridiculous.

Mark Hamill

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm not sure that analogy works properly, though, because he's not saying that only people who have never had abortions should shut up about it. It's a question of capacity: women can carry a child to term; men cannot, therefore I think it's fair to say that men should think long and hard before voicing any opinion on the subject. I don't think it's fair to say that men shouldn't have a say at all, any more than I would suggest that white people shouldn't talk about black rights, or straight people about gay rights, but there is an awful lot of thoughtless opinion out there.

If you are going to bring in capacity, then you have to question the capacity of women to get pregnant without men. Unless a woman has freely gotten pregnant without a mans direct informed input (anonymous sperm donation) then that man has a say in what happens, the baby/feotus/zygote is not entirely hers.

And as for thinking long and hard about what to say? Doesn't that go without saying? Or is it ok for women or black people or gays to have opinions without putting any thought in them?

The Mad Hatter

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you are going to bring in capacity, then you have to question the capacity of women to get pregnant without men. Unless a woman has freely gotten pregnant without a mans direct informed input (anonymous sperm donation) then that man has a say in what happens, the baby/feotus/zygote is not entirely hers.

True, but the man's job is certainly easier. But in any case, we're not talking about specific instances (and I think it should be obvious that in most cases man should have a say in what happens to his potential child), we're talking about the opinions of men and women on abortion in general.

And as for thinking long and hard about what to say? Doesn't that go without saying?

You would think it would, but no, it doesn't.

bnt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Um, if I killed you right now then there would be no "you" around to do the missing. And if I killed, say, a homeless person with no family or friends then no one would miss them. Is it ok to kill homeless people?

I don't know whether you're misrepresenting my argument, or whether it just went over your head. Let me put it this way: people are dying all the time, and you don't notice. Some reports are saying that over 200 people have been killed by Qadaffi's troops in Libya. What are you doing about that? Over 250,000 people died, in various parts of South Asia, in a matter of minutes on 26 December 2004. Did any god keep even one of them alive? No?

So why do we value life? Because we choose to, because not caring about life cuts both ways. What is life, anyway? Some ineffable "spark" that is beyond human understanding and control (the "vitalist" argument)? Well, since we can take life, it's clearly not beyond our control, is it? It's up to us to place value on life - which we do, as reflected in our laws and customs. There's need for "moralizing", or "authorities" to pronounce on the matter, when we have experience and history to show us what happens when we get it wrong. That's why we don't murder - regardless of who the other person is. Unless you join the army and go to war, then it seems that "absolute morals" are quite negotiable, apparently. :rolleyes:

I'm suggesting that we drop the illusion that we are somehow "special" just because we were born. Why would I think that? I played no part in the process, for most of it I was a passenger. Being born is not good enough. What are we doing with our lives? Are we learning about how to live on this planet? Do we need to be told what is right and wrong by ancient tribal leaders, or can we figure it out for ourselves? Looks to me like that's exactly what we've been doing all along, anyway, and our "absolute morality" is only "absolute" when it suits our purposes.

So "moral" or "vitalist" arguments against abortion just don't cut it for me. I don't like the idea, have never been involved in an abortion and probably never will be, but that doesn't give me the right to tell anyone else not to do it if they deem it necessary.

Mark Hamill

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

True, but the man's job is certainly easier. But in any case, we're not talking about specific instances (and I think it should be obvious that in most cases man should have a say in what happens to his potential child), we're talking about the opinions of men and women on abortion in general.

So in general, men should just "shut the fcuk up" about abortion?

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm not sure that analogy works properly, though, because he's not saying that only people who have never had abortions should shut up about it. It's a question of capacity: women can carry a child to term; men cannot, therefore I think it's fair to say that men should think long and hard before voicing any opinion on the subject. I don't think it's fair to say that men shouldn't have a say at all, any more than I would suggest that white people shouldn't talk about black rights, or straight people about gay rights, but there is an awful lot of thoughtless opinion out there.

You're still only looking at it from a pro-choice perspective. The pro-life side see it as a moral issue so the fact that men can't have children is completely irrelevant. From their perspective if something is wrong it's wrong and you should be allowed voice this regardless of what you have in your pants.

bnt wrote: »

I don't know whether you're misrepresenting my argument, or whether it just went over your head. Let me put it this way: people are dying all the time, and you don't notice. Some reports are saying that over 200 people have been killed by Qadaffi's troops in Libya. What are you doing about that? Over 250,000 people died, in various parts of South Asia, in a matter of minutes on 26 December 2004. Did any god keep even one of them alive? No?

So why do we value life? Because we choose to, because not caring about life cuts both ways. What is life, anyway? Some ineffable "spark" that is beyond human understanding and control (the "vitalist" argument)? Well, since we can take life, it's clearly not beyond our control, is it? It's up to us to place value on life - which we do, as reflected in our laws and customs. There's need for "moralizing", or "authorities" to pronounce on the matter, when we have experience and history to show us what happens when we get it wrong. That's why we don't murder - regardless of who the other person is. Unless you join the army and go to war, then it seems that "absolute morals" are quite negotiable, apparently. :rolleyes:

I'm suggesting that we drop the illusion that we are somehow "special" just because we were born. Why would I think that? I played no part in the process, for most of it I was a passenger. Being born is not good enough. What are we doing with our lives? Are we learning about how to live on this planet? Do we need to be told what is right and wrong by ancient tribal leaders, or can we figure it out for ourselves? Looks to me like that's exactly what we've been doing all along, anyway, and our "absolute morality" is only "absolute" when it suits our purposes.

So "moral" or "vitalist" arguments against abortion just don't cut it for me. I don't like the idea, have never been involved in an abortion and probably never will be, but that doesn't give me the right to tell anyone else not to do it if they deem it necessary.

Not noticing people dying in natural disasters and conflicts on the other side of the world where I had no power to prevent it doesn't mean that those lives weren't valuable. I think your argument might still be going over my head because it sounds to me like you're saying that we're free to arbitrarily choose which lives we value and which we don't. To try to clarify: if a large enough number of people (large enough to enforce their will) decided tomorrow that black people's lives were worthless and enslaved them again, would you see that there was anything wrong with this or would you support it on the basis that we as a society had chosen not to value these lives and you see no reason to change this position?

The Mad Hatter

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So in general, men should just "shut the fcuk up" about abortion?

No.

MagicMarker

Free abortions for everyone!!

Antbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So in general, men should just "shut the fcuk up" about abortion?

Unless they're pro-choice. Then it's cool.

Back to the original topic, he's right when he says having homosexuals teaching would infringe on teaching Catholic morals. All the more reason to do away with all the bloody Catholic schools.

Zombrex

MagicMarker wrote: »

Free abortions for everyone!!

Free tiny flags for everyone!

mehfesto

Wicknight wrote: »

Free tiny flags for everyone!

"Miniature American Flags". C'mon people, bitta respect for the one true religion in here, please. :pac:

aidan24326

In fairness that's a long way from being the worst article he's ever written, though that probably says more about his other articles than it does this one.

He's an angry little man that seems to hold a lot of grudges. Hates gays, though more specifically the male kind, detests atheists, detests the labour party etc etc

Dades

Antbert wrote: »

Back to the original topic, he's right when he says having homosexuals teaching would infringe on teaching Catholic morals.

It's been a while since I was in school but I don't think the church teach their homophobia as part of the RE curriculum, so that's a bit of a non-argument.

Zombrex

Antbert wrote: »

Back to the original topic, he's right when he says having homosexuals teaching would infringe on teaching Catholic morals. All the more reason to do away with all the bloody Catholic schools.

No more so than anyone else, I think you would be hard pressed to find any teacher in Ireland who's personal life didn't infringe on Catholic teaching one way or another.

Teddy_Picker

mehfesto wrote: »

"Miniature American Flags". C'mon people, bitta respect for the one true religion in here, please. :pac:

Bad Wicknight, bad, bad! How dare you blaspheme! :pac: Now kneel in front of the screen and watch 50 times!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me_E5Kl6EPc