NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

philologos

crucamim wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is the responsibility to the Catholic Church to educate the children of non-Catholics? If so, I disagree with you.

If, as you claim, 86% of the population are RC, why are only 49% of the schools controlled by the RCC? Presumably, it is because only 49% of the secondary schools are owned by the RCC. And why are only 49% of the secondary schools owned by the RCC? Has the Department of Education been discriminating against Catholics?

92% of primary schools. That's at least 6% in excess.

robindch

Amateurish wrote: »

Throwing them into a monastery where they would od no harm and come to no harm would have been protection, Moving them around as happened was complicity in my book.

Ah, but not in the Vatican's book -- it's those moving goalposts again.

You'll get used to them, even if the speed they move at may make you dizzy from time to time.

Amateurish

robindch wrote: »

Ah, but not in the Vatican's book -- it's those moving goalposts again.

You'll get used to them, even if the speed they move at may make you dizzy from time to time.

I wouldn't actually bother checking the Vatican's book tbh. If it were at all possible to bring criminal charges I would, unfortunately a specific offence probably doesnt (or didn't) exist to bring a criminal prosecution for hiding paedophiles or failing to report rape. In france though I understand there can be an offence of ommission like failing to assist at an accident. Civil law has no such limits though.

crucamim

Amateurish wrote: »

I'll nail my colours to the mast and say the church has no business owning property of any kind actually. Any other posts I might have made would really have been leading to this argument anyway.

I assume that by "church" you mean the "Catholic Church". You might think that the Catholic Church has no right to own property. Those who imposed the Penal Laws had the same opinion. Catholics tend to have a different opinion.

crucamim

dvpower wrote: »

0% of our Garda divisions and none of the social welfare offices are controlled by the RCC - its a disgrace I tell you.

Discrimination against Catholics is not a joking matter.

crucamim

philologos wrote: »

92% of primary schools. That's at least 6% in excess.

Whose fault is that? If you secularists were to establish your own schools (as Catholics did - and also Protestants) the schools owned by the RCC would constitute a smaller percentage of the total number of schools. Indeed, competition from secularist schools might cause some Catholic schools to close due to falling numbers of pupils. So please get up off your secular backside and gang up with other secularists and establish your own schools. These might be atheist schools, agnostic schools, communist schools, Educate Together schools, Hindu schools - whatever takes your fancy.

And please leave us Catholics alone, all alone. Let us do our own thing in our schools.

Amateurish

crucamim wrote: »

I assume that by "church" you mean the "Catholic Church". You might think that the Catholic Church has no right to own property. Those who imposed the Penal Laws had the same opinion. Catholics tend to have a different opinion.

I mean the catholic church has no reason to own property. Certainly not outside of churches anyway. If something is going on in a parish hall owned by the church it should either be fit to happen inside the church itself or not happen. Anything else is the church approving activities which it should not. How many houses did Jesus own? Did he manage to preach without surround sound?
I would reserve my respect for those orders within the church which hold a vow of poverty or a dependence on charity.

ironingbored

crucamim wrote: »

It could be argued that the Catholic priests were acting on "frolics of their own" rather than in the course of their employment but, for some reason, the Catholic Church did not avail of that defense. Probably becasue, it would have been bad public relations.

Well I suppose that's one way of putting it. :rolleyes:

crucamim

Amateurish wrote: »

I mean the catholic church has no reason to own property. Certainly not outside of churches anyway. If something is going on in a parish hall owned by the church it should either be fit to happen inside the church itself or not happen. Anything else is the church approving activities which it should not. How many houses did Jesus own? Did he manage to preach without surround sound?
I would reserve my respect for those orders within the church which hold a vow of poverty or a dependence on charity.

Please leave the internal affairs of the RC Church to Catholics. If you do not like us, please just stay away from us. Leave us alone, thank you.

The Mad Hatter

GarIT wrote: »

That wouldn't really work, theres no way to tax only catholics, If you use money from catholic taxpayers it would be coming out of somewhere else so everyone would suffer anyway. It would be illegal to impose an extra tax on catholics only. I do agree with the idea of removing all state funding for any religious or non state run school.

I was being a wee bit facetious. It seems to me the logical extreme of crucamim's line of thinking.

ironingbored

crucamim wrote: »

please just stay away from us. Leave us alone, thank you.

I'm sure the victims of systematic child rape would hold the same sentiments in the other direction.

philologos

crucamim wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is the responsibility to the Catholic Church to educate the children of non-Catholics? If so, I disagree with you.

If, as you claim, 86% of the population are RC, why are only 49% of the schools controlled by the RCC? Presumably, it is because only 49% of the secondary schools are owned by the RCC. And why are only 49% of the secondary schools owned by the RCC? Has the Department of Education been discriminating against Catholics?

crucamim wrote: »

Whose fault is that? If you secularists were to establish your own schools (as Catholics did - and also Protestants) the schools owned by the RCC would constitute a smaller percentage of the total number of schools. Indeed, competition from secularist schools might cause some Catholic schools to close due to falling numbers of pupils. So please get up off your secular backside and gang up with other secularists and establish your own schools. These might be atheist schools, agnostic schools, communist schools, Educate Together schools, Hindu schools - whatever takes your fancy.

And please leave us Catholics alone, all alone. Let us do our own thing in our schools.

Bloomin 'eck. There's no bloody winning is there?

Firstly if the number of RCC secondary schools isn't 86% you're being under represented and that's discrimination, but if there is over representation alá the primary school sector that's the non-Catholics fault for not having the money or means to build schools or acquiring State funding.

Where's the consistency in that logic?

Edit: By the by, I'm a Christian.

crucamim

ironingbored wrote: »

I'm sure the victims of systematic child rape would hold the same sentiments in the other direction.

Probably true and I would agree with them.

crucamim

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I was being a wee bit facetious. It seems to me the logical extreme of crucamim's line of thinking.

Please do not be facetious about so important a subject. Keeping defenceless Catholic children out of the clutches of anti-Catholics can never be a joking matter.

I think your suggestion of selective taxation is worth further consideration. e.g. Could the cost of compensating the victims of crime by immigrants be recovered from those who supported immigration?

ironingbored

crucamim wrote: »

Probably true and I would agree with them.

I'd say most definitely true not probably and I'm happy you agree.

However, I did find your previous "frolics of their own" comment highly reductive and distasteful.

crucamim

philologos wrote: »

Firstly if the number of RCC secondary schools isn't 86% you're being under represented and that's discrimination, but if there is over representation alá the primary school sector that's the non-Catholics fault for not having the money or means to build schools or acquiring State funding.

You have aroused my interest? Why does the RC Church own only 49% of the secondary schools when 86% of the population are Catholics? One explanation might be that the RC bishops are happy with the State controlled secondary schools? Another explanation might be that the RC Church has had difficulty getting funding for new RC secondary schools? If so, why?

I am suspicious, very, very suspicious.

crucamim

ironingbored wrote: »

I'd say most definitely true not probably and I'm happy you agree.

However, I did find your previous "frolics of their own" comment highly reductive and distasteful.

The phrase "frolic of his own" is an important principle in vicarious liability. i.e. The employer is liable for the misdeeds of an employee only where the misdeed was done "in the course of the employment". The employer is not responsible for anything done by the employee on a "frolic of his (the employee's) own".

What does "reductive" mean?

ironingbored

crucamim wrote: »

The phrase "frolic of his own" is an important principle in vicarious liability. i.e. The employer is liable for the misdeeds of an employee only where the misdeed was done "in the course of the employment". The employer is not responsible for anything done by the employee on a "frolic of his (the employee's) own".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding; surely child abuse carried out by priests was perpetrated "in the course of the employment".

crucamim wrote: »

What does "reductive" mean?

Tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form. (I think)

youngmagee

crucamim wrote: »

If you do not like us, please just stay away from us. Leave us alone, thank you.

I think I remember this been stated earlier in the thread but just because a person is non-catholic doesn’t mean that they are anti-catholic.

If a school is to be considered public it shouldn’t be able to discriminate otherwise they are not public schools their private. This goes for a school of any religion and even if someone wanted a fully Atheist school. This is the only way to be fair in such a diverse society.

I’m not saying that parents should be penalised just because they are catholic but other parents and children shouldn't just because they are not.

crucamim

youngmagee wrote: »

I think I remember this been stated earlier in the thread but just because a person is non-catholic doesn’t mean that they are anti-catholic.

If a school is to be considered public it shouldn’t be able to discriminate otherwise they are not public schools their private. This goes for a school of any religion and even if someone wanted a fully Atheist school. This is the only way to be fair in such a diverse society.

I’m not saying that parents should be penalised just because they are catholic but other parents and children shouldn't just because they are not.

Who said that a Catholic schools should be considered "public"? Or a Protestant school? Or a Muslim school?

crucamim

ironingbored wrote: »

Maybe I'm misunderstanding; surely child abuse carried out by priests was perpetrated "in the course of the employment".

That might be correct. So far as I know, in no country has the Catholic Church or any Catholic religious order offered that defence. I suspect that sexually abusing children (or adults) was not in their job descriptions.

P.S. I suspect that it was the failure to weed out the sex offenders which would leaves the religious order or the diocese liable.

Pygmalion

Ok, so what I've learned in this thread.

Over-representation of Catholics is due to the laziness of non-Catholics.
Under-representation of Catholics is due to the active oppression of non-Catholics.

The state should not concern themselves with what goes on in Catholic schools.
When children in Catholic schools are abused it is the fault of the state for putting them there.

People should not blame all Catholics for the crimes of a few (with collaboration from a wide variety of church higher-ups).
Everyone who is not a Catholic is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed near children.

Anything I'm missing?
crucamim: Any other words of wisdom for me?

Pygmalion

crucamim wrote: »

Who said that a Catholic schools should be considered "public"? Or a Protestant school? Or a Muslim school?

The fact that they're funded with public money?

Turtwig

Pygmalion wrote: »

Ok, so what I've learned in this thread.

Over-representation of Catholics is due to the laziness of non-Catholics.
Under-representation of Catholics is due to the active oppression of non-Catholics.

The state should not concern themselves with what goes on in Catholic schools.
When children in Catholic schools are abused it is the fault of the state for putting them there.

People should not blame all Catholics for the crimes of a few (with collaboration from a wide variety of church higher-ups).
Everyone who is not a Catholic is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed near children.

Anything I'm missing?
crucamim: Any other words of wisdom for me?

D'uh like Ireland is a Catholic Country.:rolleyes:

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

Discrimination against Catholics is not a joking matter.

The figures show a discrimonation against non catholics if anything.

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

Whose fault is that? If you secularists were to establish your own schools ...

I think that's what Ruairi Quinn is doing.

crucamim wrote: »

And please leave us Catholics alone, all alone. Let us do our own thing in our schools.

... the ones that we (all) pay for? I presume you don't want the state to leave you alone with the teachers salaries, the buildings' maintenance, the insurance costs, the admin costs...?

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

Who said that a Catholic schools should be considered "public"? Or a Protestant school? Or a Muslim school?

When all of the operational funding comes from the state.
(Are we all being wound up here?)

crucamim

Pygmalion wrote: »

The fact that they're funded with public money?

If you buy your home with help from the tax-payer, does that make it a public house? If your home is a council house, does that mean that every Tom, Dick or Harry has a right to sleep overnight in your sitting room against your wishes?

Where did you get the idea that it is only wealthy people who have a right to privacy?

And please tell me why only 49% of secondary schools are owned by the RC Church.

crucamim

dvpower wrote: »

When all of the operational funding comes from the state.
(Are we all being wound up here?)

When you say "the state", do you mean the taxpayers - including Catholic taxpayers?

crucamim

dvpower wrote: »

I think that's what Ruairi Quinn is doing.

I think he is trying to steal schools from Catholics and compel defenceless Catholic children to share clasrooms with anti-Catholic children and to submit to the authority of anti-Catholic teachers.