Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

Michael Nugent

On 3rd May, Atheist Ireland attended a consultation at the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Draft Irish State Report to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.

We have also made a written submission that Government Departments will consider as the State prepares its final report, and we will later make a Submission directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Ireland is due up before the UN Human Rights Committee at the end of the year and, under Article 40 of the Covenant, has undertaken to submit State Reports every few years. At the meeting later this year, the Committee will examine how Ireland has made progress in implementing the concerns of the UN in 2008.

In their Concluding Observations in 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concern about the human rights of secular parents in the Irish education system. They stated that denominational schools were private and had adopted a religious integrated curriculum which denied parents access to a secular education for their children.

They also raised the issue of the requirement of judges to take a religious oath. The human rights that the UN referred to were the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

At the consultation on the 3rd of May, Atheist Ireland raised the issues of the Irish Education system and the failure of the State to protect Covenant rights. In particular we raised the issue of recent Report from the Ombudsman for Children. We pointed out that the Ombudsman’s Report shows clearly that the regulatory framework has failed to protect the human rights of parents and children under the Covenant. We also raised the issue of Blasphemy and the requirement to take Religious oaths under the Constitution.

Here is the full written submission that we have made to the Government on the draft State report:

Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

Lucy8080

well, thank odin for the u.n. and atheist ireland.

as long as we are not outsourcing authority and responsibility for ourselves....who could see a problem with the above.

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

well, thank odin for the u.n. and atheist ireland.

as long as we are not outsourcing authority and responsibility for ourselves....who could see a problem with the above.

This has been explained to you before, and you have clearly ignored it.

Whether you like it or not, Ireland has signed a number of treaties. Those treaties require Ireland to do certain things. Ireland has not done those things, even though, by signing the treaties, they agree they would. This is simply part of the process of understanding why Ireland has not done what it agreed to do.

If you get a job somewhere and sign an employment contract which states you will act to the benefit of the company and not steal from that company are you outsourcing responsibility for your actions in respect to that company? Of course you aren't. What you are saying is that you agree to act in a certain way, if you don't the company has a right to investigate your actions and potentially take some action themselves.

This is not outsourcing responsibility, it is simply how agreements between adults and states work. You agree to do something, if you don't do it you get investigated. Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand?

MrP

a5y

That stupid blasphemy law.

If this draft report results in serious questions being asked about bad ideas get enshrined in law in this country then I'm all for it.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

well, thank odin for the u.n. and atheist ireland.

as long as we are not outsourcing authority and responsibility for ourselves....who could see a problem with the above.

Lucy, we live in an interdependent world. The idea of nation-states as independent self-reliant entities is part of history.

Ireland has no more outsourced its authority and responsibility to the EU and UN, than has the Kingdom of Meath outsourced its authority and responsibility to Ireland.

The EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are part of our overall laws and treaties. They are agreed by us, not imposed on us.

Having agreed these laws and treaties, we and everyone else have to abide by them. Otherwise nobody has any authority or responsibilities.

Thankfully, the EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are better framed to protect our rights than are the domestic elements of our laws.

That is why Atheist Ireland focuses on these areas, as well as on political lobbying within Ireland, in order to protect our rights.

jank

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Lucy, we live in an interdependent world. The idea of nation-states as independent self-reliant entities is part of history.

Ireland has no more outsourced its authority and responsibility to the EU and UN, than has the Kingdom of Meath outsourced its authority and responsibility to Ireland.

The EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are part of our overall laws and treaties. They are agreed by us, not imposed on us.

Having agreed these laws and treaties, we and everyone else have to abide by them. Otherwise nobody has any authority or responsibilities.

Thankfully, the EU and UN elements of our laws and treaties are better framed to protect our rights than are the domestic elements of our laws.

That is why Atheist Ireland focuses on these areas, as well as on political lobbying within Ireland, in order to protect our rights.

I am confused, what rights are these that are being suppressed?

Michael Nugent

jank wrote: »

I am confused, what rights are these that are being suppressed?

It depends on the issue.

In this particular case, it is the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

If you follow the link in the opening post you will get more details.

jank

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It depends on the issue.

In this particular case, it is the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

If you follow the link in the opening post you will get more details.

Are there cases where these rights are blatantly taken away?

Michael Nugent

jank wrote: »

Are there cases where these rights are blatantly taken away?

Yes.

If you follow the link in the opening post you will get more details.

Lucy8080

mr.p.

i havent ignored a word. you may labour under that belief...but, it doesnt make it true just because you claim it so.

you also seem to be labouring under the belief that ireland is "required" by some entity to yield under said entities dicatates.

and ,again, you have placed ireland into some kind of employer/employee relationship with said entity.

is the above true?

it seems six people who thanked your post not only agree to what you have said....but also...i presume....would be happy with such an arrangement.

we did not sign up to such an arrangement....at least i hope we did not.

Lucy8080

michael,

you're royal meath analogy just does not hold water. i cant ever see meath being threatened by the other 25 counties with expulsion from the national currencency . To name but one difference bEtween ireland and meath and ireland and the e.u.

there is no such thing as a "national minority".

not under our laws. regardless of colour ,class or creed.

but , if folks want to take on that false belief....it makes sense to me that they will need a saviour....and also a church to represent the saving entity.

religion comes in many forms.

Morag

It is no different then the other cases which were taken in the eu courts to force irish governments to stop faffing around and to make the changes needed. With out the EU to scapegoat we would not have the equal pay act and homosexuality would still be illegal.

Lucy8080

sharrow,

if you are a national, it matters not wether you are gay or straight.

the only matter is that you are not hindered because of it.

have we the right to make sure you are not hindered?

we have....we always had it.

we still have it.

those that wrote our constitution and laws were not prophets or nostradamus ....but they had the wisdom to leave us space to redress whatever they overlooked ....

if we ignore that space...lets blame ourselves...not europe ...or catholicism...or athiest ireland...or britain...or whoever..

but lets never cede that space.

Morag

I really wish that was the case but it hasn't been.

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p.

i havent ignored a word. you may labour under that belief...but, it doesnt make it true just because you claim it so.

I'm sorry Lucy, but I am going where the evidence points... In this round of posts for example, I specifically said ireland has signed up to certain treaties, yet in this very post I am quoting you state that we did not sign up to such an arrangement. What am I to think other than you are ignoring what people post?

Lucy8080 wrote: »

you also seem to be labouring under the belief that ireland is "required" by some entity to yield under said entities dicatates.

I labour under no such belief. I do, however, believe that Ireland that Ireland, quite rightly, should act in the manner it agreed to when it signed certain treaties and agreements.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

and ,again, you have placed ireland into some kind of employer/employee relationship with said entity.

No I have not. That was an analogy to show that when you agree to something, to behave in a certain way, it is right and proper for the entity you made the agreement with to ensure you are complying. I used the employee / employer example simply as I thought it was easy to understand.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

is the above true?

Not really. In a sense it is, which is why I used the analogy. So I would say it is true only in the sense that there is an agreement between two parties that they will behave in a certain way. If a party acts outside of the agreed way then there may be consequences.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

it seems six people who thanked your post not only agree to what you have said....but also...i presume....would be happy with such an arrangement.

You will have to ask them.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

we did not sign up to such an arrangement....at least i hope we did not.

Yes we did. That is the point. Ireland signed up to a number of treaties and agreed to do a number of things. Ireland has, effectively, not kept its side of the bargain and this is the consequence.

As Sharrow rightly points out, we have a number of rights which it is highly likely we would not have were it not for the fact we are part of the EU. We would probably still have a death penalty were it not for our involvement with the EU.

MrP

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

On 3rd May, Atheist Ireland attended a consultation at the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Draft Irish State Report to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.

We have also made a written submission that Government Departments will consider as the State prepares its final report, and we will later make a Submission directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Ireland is due up before the UN Human Rights Committee at the end of the year and, under Article 40 of the Covenant, has undertaken to submit State Reports every few years. At the meeting later this year, the Committee will examine how Ireland has made progress in implementing the concerns of the UN in 2008.

In their Concluding Observations in 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concern about the human rights of secular parents in the Irish education system. They stated that denominational schools were private and had adopted a religious integrated curriculum which denied parents access to a secular education for their children.

They also raised the issue of the requirement of judges to take a religious oath. The human rights that the UN referred to were the right to freedom of conscience, the right to be free from discrimination, the rights of the child and the right to equality before the law.

At the consultation on the 3rd of May, Atheist Ireland raised the issues of the Irish Education system and the failure of the State to protect Covenant rights. In particular we raised the issue of recent Report from the Ombudsman for Children. We pointed out that the Ombudsman’s Report shows clearly that the regulatory framework has failed to protect the human rights of parents and children under the Covenant. We also raised the issue of Blasphemy and the requirement to take Religious oaths under the Constitution.

Here is the full written submission that we have made to the Government on the draft State report:

Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

So by a natural extension of this Atheist Ireland is also against in the strongest possible terms any future moves by the state to ban the Burqa and/or the Hijab.

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

And I've bolded point 4 above for a reason. Does that then again as a natural extension of your position mean that Atheist Ireland fully respects the rights of parents to categorise their childrens religous beliefs in the census?

Lucy8080

mr.p,

sorry for the delay. ive been living it up...

you have put up a big defence for michael and atheist ireland. fair play .

can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

endacl

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p,

sorry for the delay. ive been living it up...

you have put up a big defence for michael and atheist ireland. fair play .

can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

A question for Michael, surely...?

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

How would I know?

MrP

Nervous Wreck

I don't post in here much but even I'm getting sick of the trolls around this forum...

endacl

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I don't post in here much but even I'm getting sick of the trolls around this forum...

Like midges, they're relatively easy to swat away. But they keep coming back, and you'd rather not have to...

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p, can you explain to me why michael wont thank your posts?

I'm afraid my thanking record is somewhat erratic.

I've now thanked Mr P for correcting Lucy, and thanked Lucy for reminding me to do so.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So by a natural extension of this Atheist Ireland is also against in the strongest possible terms any future moves by the state to ban the Burqa and/or the Hijab.

Although, as it happens, I think such a ban is a crude mechanism for addressing the problem of women being forced to wear such garments, and I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions, it is not a natural extension of what you have quoted that we should oppose such a ban, either at all or in the strongest possible terms.

If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And I've bolded point 4 above for a reason. Does that then again as a natural extension of your position mean that Atheist Ireland fully respects the rights of parents to categorise their childrens religous beliefs in the census?

You're again creating 'natural extensions' where they don't exist. There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.

endacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm afraid my thanking record is somewhat erratic.

I've now thanked Mr P for correcting Lucy, and thanked Lucy for reminding me to do so.

Thanked. Just in case anybody brings it up, like...

Lucy8080

"the law should protect people not ideas".

michael nugent.

i agree.

i include "atheist" as one of those ideas we try to protect.

Lucy8080

the other thing was...im surprised you thanked mr.p for correcting me!

i dont think he did. im quite happy for my post and mr.p,s correction to stand side by side.

quite an incorrect correction, in my view...

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

"the law should protect people not ideas".

michael nugent.

i agree.

i include "atheist" as one of those ideas we try to protect.

Are you saying atheists aren't people?

Lucy8080 wrote: »

the other thing was...im surprised you thanked mr.p for correcting me!

i dont think he did. im quite happy for my post and mr.p,s correction to stand side by side.

quite an incorrect correction, in my view...

Please point out the parts of my post that are, relative to yours, incorrect.
I understand that you may not agree with some of what I said, but that does not make it incorrect.

MrP

Ellis Dee

I've just read the submission, Michael, and want to say "thank you" to yourself and Atheist Ireland. It is a good and reasonable document, and the only thing that is disgraceful is that there is still a need to write something like it in this day and age.:)

Even today, when I look around me and see how difficult it is for secular parents to bring their children up right in Ireland, I thank my "lucky stars" (figuratively speaking, of course) that I was able to bring up my children in Finland, where the educational system is very good and the church has no involvement at all (and, to its credit, doesn't even try to stick its nose in).

It's high time our State made it possible for every child to have a good education and for religious indoctrination to be kept out of schools.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Although, as it happens, I think such a ban is a crude mechanism for addressing the problem of women being forced to wear such garments, and I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions, it is not a natural extension of what you have quoted that we should oppose such a ban, either at all or in the strongest possible terms. .

Michael, make your mind up. Either you are for protecting the "Covenant rights" you speak of (below) for all or you are not.

At the consultation on the 3rd of May, Atheist Ireland raised the issues of the Irish Education system and the failure of the State to protect Covenant rights.

Here again is the relevant section in relation to any possible moves by the stae to ban the Burkha:
Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.

Strawman.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You're again creating 'natural extensions' where they don't exist. There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.

So you do respect the rights of religious parents to raise their children religious as a "covenant right"?

MrPudding

Unless I am mistaken, we should be looking at the European Convention on Human Rights. I would guess that this is where the particular rights in question flow from.

Freedom of religion is covered by Article 9. Article 9, like several of the other rights, it is a qualified right.

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 wrote:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Section 2 is the interesting part and clearly allows for restrictions in this area.



MrP

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

Unless I am mistaken, we should be looking at the European Convention on Human Rights. I would guess that this is where the particular rights in question flow from.

Freedom of religion is covered by Article 9. Article 9, like several of the other rights, it is a qualified right.

[/LIST]Section 2 is the interesting part and clearly allows for restrictions in this area.
MrP

It does but obviously wearing an burkha or any other item of clothing does not fall under

"are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

Dades

There is already a *comprehensive* thread on Burkas. We don't need spillover here. New posts on that subject will be deleted/moved.

Lucy8080

o.k.



it seems that both michael and b.b. are in dispute over freedom of conscience. both cite it in their arguments.

can all parties here tell me what that phrase means to them personally.

im all ears. i dont want to jump the gun.

Lucy8080

thx for ur reply mr. p.

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It does but obviously wearing an burkha or any other item of clothing does not fall under

"are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "

Responded in the "correct" thread.

MrP

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

thx for ur reply mr. p.

You're welcome. Are you going to show me which of my corrections were incorrect?

MrP

Lucy8080

mr.p.

i can answer ur question. but, im not gonna make u a sacrificial lamb in this thread....or,let others hide behind ur shield of honesty.

i asked you one question...you ansewered factually and honestly....much credit. it was an unfair burden i placed on you.

if you have family or kids....i give you my word i wont offend their rights or freedoms or responsibilities.

lets form a queue for replies to questions.

and let all those who thanked mr.p. explain themselves.

mr. p. deserves a little more defence than that.

if they cannot explain themselves mr. p.....ill not leave this thread without answering your question.

in the meantime...take a backseat...you deserve it. let others take the burden...ill have a reply for em.

u have earnt my respect...right or wrong....none of us are infallable...

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p.

i can answer ur question. but, im not gonna make u a sacrificial lamb in this thread....or,let others hide behind ur shield of honesty.

i asked you one question...you ansewered factually and honestly....much credit. it was an unfair burden i placed on you.

if you have family or kids....i give you my word i wont offend their rights or freedoms or responsibilities.

lets form a queue for replies to questions.

and let all those who thanked mr.p. explain themselves.

mr. p. deserves a little more defence than that.

if they cannot explain themselves mr. p.....ill not leave this thread without answering your question.

in the meantime...take a backseat...you deserve it. let others take the burden...ill have a reply for em.

u have earnt my respect...right or wrong....none of us are infallible...

Are you drunk? Seems like you have had a good night. Whilst your concern for my wellbeing is touching, it is somewhat misplaced. I am a big boy and I can look after myself.

You said my posts were incorrect so it is up to you to explain what parts of my posts you think are incorrect and why. I will then likely respond. Nice and simple. My exams are over for the year so it is not really a burden. I am not sure I understand why people who thanked my posts have to explain themselves.

MrP

Lucy8080

mr.p.

what are you defending? ive already said earlier in this thread i trust my post versus yours.

accussations of drunkeness... whilst the dear leader and followers put you up on the ramparts?

im sure you are a big guy mr. p.....

why not reread this thread...and figure out why the thanks are dropping off.

if they pick up again i wont ask you to explain!

ill ask michael.

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p.

what are you defending? ive already said earlier in this thread i trust my post versus yours.

I am struggling to suck any meaning out of your posts, if think that by saying you trust your post over mine you are saying that you think my post is wrong in some way, which is where my earlier request came from, but I will get back to that...

Lucy8080 wrote: »

accussations of drunkeness...

If it walks like a duck...

Lucy8080 wrote: »

whilst the dear leader and followers put you up on the ramparts?

What? OD you think we have a rota or something? That it was my turn on the late shift to "protect" the forum from random drunken theists?

Lucy8080 wrote: »

why not reread this thread...and figure out why the thanks are dropping off.

if they pick up again i wont ask you to explain!

ill ask michael.

What does this even mean?

Let me summarise things for you:

You make a couple of inaccurate statements, for example:

Lucy8080 wrote: »

we did not sign up to such an arrangement....at least i hope we did not.

I responded with a couple of posts explaining how things actually work, as opposed to how you seem to think they works. You responded to this this meaningless garbage and went off on some stupid tangent about how Michael had not thanked my post.


As a result, Michael thanked my post and posted this:

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm afraid my thanking record is somewhat erratic.

I've now thanked Mr P for correcting Lucy, and thanked Lucy for reminding me to do so.

You then responded this this gem:

Lucy8080 wrote: »

the other thing was...im surprised you thanked mr.p for correcting me!

i dont think he did. im quite happy for my post and mr.p,s correction to stand side by side.

quite an incorrect correction, in my view...

And this is the post that I am referring to when I ask you to point out the mistakes in my posts. Michael has said I corrected your posts, you have responded by saying I have not corrected your posts. The implication of this is, considering I made my posts with the intention of correcting yours, being that you consider my posts to be in some way incorrect. I would like you to tell me where my posts are incorrect.


This has nothing to do with thanks dropping off; nothing to do with a burden I have to carry; nothing to do with some kind of imaginary rota that you seem to think operates in this forum and most certainly is not something that other people on this forum have to pick up.


You have said that, compared to yours, my posts relating to Ireland's responsibilities in Europe relating to the treaties and agreements they have signed is incorrect. I want you to point out to me the bit that are incorrect. Very simple really. This isn't really the forum to declare someone's post incorrect but not actually say how or why.


MrP

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent,

You've only given one non-commital response in 5 weeks. Any chance of a response...?

I can't see how it is anything other than shilling for Atheist Ireland if you won't even discuss what you are promoting and advertising.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79239990&postcount=29

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Michael Nugent,

You've only given one non-commital response in 5 weeks. Any chance of a response...?

Sorry, I had forgotten about this. Thanks for reminding me.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can't see how it is anything other than shilling for Atheist Ireland if you won't even discuss what you are promoting and advertising.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79239990&postcount=29

Do you seriously believe I won’t discuss things? I’ll respond when I have time.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can't see how it is anything other than shilling for Atheist Ireland if you won't even discuss what you are promoting and advertising.

Brown, can you please try and be a bit more civil -- it should make people more likely to reply to your requests, as well as raising the forum tone.

qrrgprgua

Lucy8080 wrote: »

mr.p.

what are you defending? ive already said earlier in this thread i trust my post versus yours.

accussations of drunkeness... whilst the dear leader and followers put you up on the ramparts?

im sure you are a big guy mr. p.....

why not reread this thread...and figure out why the thanks are dropping off.

if they pick up again i wont ask you to explain!

ill ask michael.

Mr Nugent's proposal are about making less than 10% of the population more important and better funded that the other 90%.

Religious oaths.. Yes this should be changed. It should be an Oath to the state.

Rights of the Child... I will agree with Him if the rights cover all the child's life and not just when its born.

Secular schools.. Ok as long as the majority want them. Don't rail road everyone into your point of view unless you have consensus.

And finally... We are a sovereign country.. And won't be bullied by anyone. Instead of running to the UN.. why not lobby Irish Politicians for your cause. Look for Consensus in Ireland. You have not learned much from history if you think the Irish are going to bow down in front of a foreign authority.

your (Mr. Nugent) Atheist and secular views have a right to be respected... But in the same token my religious views and values should also be respected. My grandparents, Parents, myself and my children all went to a religious school. Why should over a centenary of tradition be extinguished because an atheist family arrives and does not like the ethos? Who want "Their" secular school? Do we not have a right to protect our culture, out tradition, our history? Why do we need to change?

If you don't like the status Quo.. Change it with dialogue and consensus.

ShooterSF

I'm starting to think I should start a feedback thread to request that the words "culture" and "tradition" be blocked by the swear filter because I know I find the "f-word" and "c-word"s much less disgusting.

Nodin

qrrgprgua wrote: »

And finally... We are a sovereign country.. And won't be bullied by anyone. Instead of running to the UN.. why not lobby Irish Politicians for your cause. Look for Consensus in Ireland..

....because they refuse to even obey the Irish supreme court.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

your (Mr. Nugent) Atheist and secular views have a right to be respected... But in the same token my religious views and values should also be respected. My grandparents, Parents, myself and my children all went to a religious school. Why should over a centenary of tradition be extinguished because an atheist family arrives and does not like the ethos? Who want "Their" secular school? Do we not have a right to protect our culture, out tradition, our history? Why do we need to change?

.

Atheist, agnostic, orthodox, protestant, jew and muslim. You seem to think these schools are your property. They aren't. The state funds them, we fund the state, and not all of us are catholic. If you want a "catholic" education, why should the state fund it to the detriment of others?

Sarky

Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?

Nodin

Sarky wrote: »

Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?

Because the game is nearly up, and they know it.

Burt Lancaster

Sarky wrote: »

Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?

Nodin wrote: »

Because the game is nearly up, and they know it.

Thats telling em

Nodin

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Thats telling em

You've some point you wish to add?

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

If you want a "catholic" education, why should the state fund it to the detriment of others?

Sarky wrote: »

Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?

There's your answer.