I don't want to stay

Kiwi in IE

iguana wrote: »

Look Kiwi, if you are unhappy about your family being routinely discriminated against you should just go away or find a therapist or preferably both. Screw the human rights of you and your child you should have known that your human rights would be infringed on a near daily basis if you moved to this country, according to so many people from this country who themselves have no idea what your child's school experience is like, yet expected you to magically know it from halfway around the world.

It's a mind boggling thread full of some of the worst hypocrisy and nonsensical double-speak I've seen on boards. I'm sorry, and frankly deeply ashamed, that you are being subjected to it.

Maybe I could find a Christian conversion therapist so I fit in better then I wouldn't want to leave (aside from the underlying reasons that I'm being secretive about). It has turned into a dreadful thread really, I had started it because I was feeling particularly frustrated and wanted to chat with A&A regulars about how they cope when surrounded with this nonsense. I have found an atheist family in the school and they are coming for coffee after school. I'm baking biscuits and ridiculously excited. She has travelled and lived outside of the town too, which is another huge bonus. Maybe I will feel better after talking to her, we are going to discuss whether or not to approach the school and ask could Grow in Love be done either first or last thing. She has thought about asking too, but like me didn't want to be seen as a problematic parent alone.

endacl

Would you not just go to mass, Kiwi?

:pac:

meeeeh

Well you can't find people who travelled and lived outside the town there.

Kiwi in IE

meeeeh wrote: »

Well you can't find people who travelled and lived outside the town there.

It was a slight exaggeration but only slight

smacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

These 'Christian morals' must be why there is so much Christain opposition and busybodying toward issues that don't concern them, past and present (divorce, contraception, marriage equality, abortion, euthanasia etc, etc). I think they failed to include that in very many Christian educations.

Ah but these things entirely concern Christianty, which if you think about it is essentially a sex and death cult. They try to control when you can have sex and with whom, and they say that by following their rules you can cheat death and become immortal. Break those rules, for example by having sex with someone you shouldn't, and you face eternal damnation. Pretty simple carrot and stick stuff, but sex and death are the bread and butter of most organised religions and they get very uppity when you mess with either. It beggars belief that there are still people gullible enough out there to fall for this nonsense, but each to their own.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

These 'Christian morals' must be why there is so much Christain opposition and busybodying toward issues that don't concern them, past and present (divorce, contraception, marriage equality, abortion, euthanasia etc, etc). I think they failed to include that in very many Christian educations.

You genuinely think Christians shouldn't concern themselves with, or are not affected by, laws regarding divorce, contraception, marriage equality, abortion, euthanasia and of course - education?

Anyhow, the reason I was reluctant to comment up until now is because something like a decision of this magnitude, one that affects your whole family Kiwi, isn't something that you should ever, ever ask the Internet for their opinions tbh. You're actually just as bloody well off asking God ffs!! :pac:

I know you've really tried with Little Kiwi up to this point to avoid indoctrination and so on, but it's impossible to advise you in any way, shape or form without knowing a whole lot more about you. This is a decision you have to make between yourself and your partner for your whole family and there wouldn't be any way in hell I'd be basing that decision on anything I read on the Internet.

I wouldn't feel I owed anyone any explanations either btw.

looksee

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Maybe I could find a Christian conversion therapist so I fit in better then I wouldn't want to leave (aside from the underlying reasons that I'm being secretive about). It has turned into a dreadful thread really, I had started it because I was feeling particularly frustrated and wanted to chat with A&A regulars about how they cope when surrounded with this nonsense. I have found an atheist family in the school and they are coming for coffee after school. I'm baking biscuits and ridiculously excited. She has travelled and lived outside of the town too, which is another huge bonus. Maybe I will feel better after talking to her, we are going to discuss whether or not to approach the school and ask could Grow in Love be done either first or last thing. She has thought about asking too, but like me didn't want to be seen as a problematic parent alone.

Not really dreadful Kiwi, in fact as someone who is a 'blow in' and has been on Boards for about 10 years, it is great that there has not been as much of the 'if you don't like it, leave' as there might have been not so many years ago.

A lot of people do in fact agree with you, but this is an open forum and the superstitious are free to come in and push their agendas, to a much greater extent in fact than non-believers are allowed to go and annoy the Christians and Muslims for example.

In the end this is a good thing, as otherwise we would have much less to say and would just sit around agreeing with each other, much as they do.

Hang in there and try not to be too frustrated about it. If you do decide Ireland is not where you want to be, then fine, that is your decision, but do not allow the chat that goes on here to influence you too much in either direction, that is all it is, chat. Yes most of us are sincere in what we are saying, but in a forum like this it becomes concentrated and can seem more significant than it is. Kind (and calming) thoughts to you, enjoy your meeting later!

magicbastarder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You genuinely think Christians shouldn't concern themselves with, or are not affected by, laws regarding divorce, contraception, marriage equality, abortion, euthanasia and of course - education?

there's a very blurry line between having a stance on an activity because you think it's wrong or because it goes against the teachings of your church, though.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You genuinely think Christians shouldn't concern themselves with, or are not affected by, laws regarding divorce, contraception, marriage equality, abortion, euthanasia and of course - education?

By all means they can have a viewpoint,
However, should the Irish Catholic Church and by extension the Vatican lobby or threaten Irish TD's on any level in relation to any of the above?. No, certainly not.

Should Christians try and stop equality when it comes to state marriage when it comes to other people wishing to marry that are a different race, colour, sex?. No, certainly not.

If you take the marriage example the state allowing marriage equality for gay couples changes nothing about a church religious marriage.

A christian marriage said by a priest or minister is in no way de-valued or changed. Christians can still refuse to marry gay people if they so wish.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

By all means they can have a viewpoint.

Yes they can, and they can have a vote too, because as citizens of the State they have every right to have just as much a say in legislation and in the Constitution, and to lobby whoever for whatever they want, just as much as you or I or anyone else that is a citizen of the State.

That's one of the things I do like about this country - if someone doesn't like the way something is done, they are free to campaign for support to demand a change to either legislation or the Constitution.

I'm not sure how it works in NZ...

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes they can, and they can have a vote too, because as citizens of the State they have every right to have just as much a say in legislation and in the Constitution, and to lobby whoever for whatever they want, just as much as you or I or anyone else that is a citizen of the State.

That's one of the things I do like about this country - if someone doesn't like the way something is done, they are free to campaign for support to demand a change to either legislation or the Constitution.

I'm not sure how it works in NZ...

Even if it is to force conformity to specific beliefs ? For instance if enough people voted to replace the constitution with Sharia law would that be ok ?

catbear

Look Kiwi, I'm sorry I came across too dismissively.

I went through the system and I'm firmly non-religious. My nieces and nephews weren't baptised and they go through local schools no problem. I even got my name struck off the RCC baptismal register out of principle and I have no problem asserting my non-affiliation whenever occasion requires. To me and my family our parents religion is just a scratchy jumper stuffed in a box in the attic along with a lot of other paraphernalia of the past.

Then I know other people who went to non religious schools completely fall for it when they're overwhelmed by a personal crisis!

Pardon me for saying it again but I find it extremely hard to believe that this one issue is the reason enough for a family to uproot so completely. I've seen plenty of Irish in NZ, Australia, the US and elsewhere uproot to come home for multiple reasons, but never just one. That's just my opinion and if it offends then please take my apology.

By the sounds of it you need more like minded people in your immediate circle but there may be more around than you realise but they might not like confrontations. As an outsider you rightly say it as you see it but consensus takes care and time to build but once widely established the momentum for change can only increase. I find when trying to engender change proffering positive options goes further than attacking the status quo.

Best of luck with whatever you do. Again apologies for my incredulity.

meeeeh

marienbad wrote: »

Even if it is to force conformity to specific beliefs ? For instance if enough people voted to replace the constitution with Sharia law would that be ok ?

That can happen in democracy. It's not limited to only religious beliefs or influences either.

marienbad

meeeeh wrote: »

That can happen in democracy. It's not limited to only religious beliefs or influences either.

That is the big question isn't it though, is it ok for one generation of democrats to rule out democracy for future generations . Or are certain rights above and beyond the immediate electorate .

But we digress

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You genuinely think Christians shouldn't concern themselves with, or are not affected by, laws regarding divorce, contraception, marriage equality, abortion, euthanasia and of course - education?

They have no business poking their noses into other people's bedrooms, no. Unwarranted interference in other people's lives is what it's all about - no christian or anyone else is obliged to use contraception, get divorced, marry a person of the same sex, just because it's now legal to do so.

Similarly it makes no difference to any christian's life whether a woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be has to buy a pill on the internet, or can go to her doctor / pharmacist to get one. Nobody else will ever know and it's none of anyone else's business either.

Euthanasia should be legalised to prevent unnecessary suffering, many people with degenerative illnesses are terrified of how they may end up, wishing to end their life but powerless to do so.

It'd be comical were it not so unjust, that the vocal minority who want to use the education system to impose religion on everyone else's kids are painting themselves as victims somehow, and the only system which is equal and fair to everyone of all religions and none - secularism - is painted as extremist.

Basically butt out and let other people make choices about their lives, it in no way changes the choices you make for yourself.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They have no business poking their noses into other people's bedrooms, no. Unwarranted interference in other people's lives is what it's all about - no christian or anyone else is obliged to use contraception, get divorced, marry a person of the same sex, just because it's now legal to do so.

Similarly it makes no difference to any christian's life whether a woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be has to buy a pill on the internet, or can go to her doctor / pharmacist to get one. Nobody else will ever know and it's none of anyone else's business either.

Euthanasia should be legalised to prevent unnecessary suffering, many people with degenerative illnesses are terrified of how they may end up, wishing to end their life but powerless to do so.

It'd be comical were it not so unjust, that the vocal minority who want to use the education system to impose religion on everyone else's kids are painting themselves as victims somehow, and the only system which is equal and fair to everyone of all religions and none - secularism - is painted as extremist.

Basically butt out and let other people make choices about their lives, it in no way changes the choices you make for yourself.

It still hasn't occurred to you then that a person by virtue of their religious beliefs is not precluded from being affected by laws regarding all of the things you mention above then?

They're still a human being, they live in the same country you do, are subject to the same laws and legislation that you are subject to, and so they are entitled to the same regard and the same right to advocate for their welfare as you are.

I'm fairly sure there are Christians in New Zealand too, they're kinda hard to avoid no matter what jurisdiction one might think of traveling to, to try and avoid them.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It still hasn't occurred to you then that a person by virtue of their religious beliefs is not precluded from being affected by laws regarding all of the things you mention above then?

They're still a human being, they live in the same country you do, are subject to the same laws and legislation that you are subject to, and so they are entitled to the same regard and the same right to advocate for their welfare as you are.

I'm fairly sure there are Christians in New Zealand too, they're kinda hard to avoid no matter what jurisdiction one might think of traveling to, to try and avoid them.

I think you are missing the point .

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're still a human being, they live in the same country you do, are subject to the same laws and legislation that you are subject to, and so they are entitled to the same regard and the same right to advocate for their welfare as you are.

How does the legalisation of any of those things affect them, apart from the butthurt at campaigning against change (as usual) and being defeated again (as usual) ?

I'm fairly sure there are Christians in New Zealand too, they're kinda hard to avoid no matter what jurisdiction one might think of traveling to, to try and avoid them.

And...?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How does the legalisation of any of those things affect them, apart from the butthurt at campaigning against change (as usual) and being defeated again (as usual) ?

It's probably because you equate a minority of fundamentalist fcuknuts with the majority of moderate Christians that you're overlooking the fact that there are many women put in a double bind when they are forced to deal with an unwanted pregnancy for example. Perhaps you've never encountered LGBT Christians either?

The fact is that you have far more in common with other human beings than you don't, and like I said - in just the same way as you are entitled to campaign for changes in the law that you want, they are equally entitled to that same right. That is the underpinning of a democracy, a democracy which would be undermined by the efforts of a minority to tell the majority to butt out of having a say in how the country they live in is run.

And...?

And what? It's simply another factor that a person has to consider before they go jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I know Kiwi objects strongly to the influence of religion in Irish society, but it's not like they can ever avoid the influence of religion completely, whether it be in Ireland, New Zealand, or elsewhere.

Ash.J.Williams

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I have reached a point where I am prepared to admit (including to myself) that we might have made a mistake moving to Ireland, and OH and I are talking a lot at the moment about going back to New Zealand.

I don't want my child constantly surrounded by religion and religious views on everyday issues. There is just no option in education and the general attitude seems to be that non religious people should just shut up and get on with it. I realise that I may sound pathetic, but I feel completely marginalised, like I have no right to decide what is best for my child in what is a private, family matter to be decided by parents.

I don't want to be constantly monitoring what he is being told in school for the next 11 years, because I know that they will be telling him all sorts of things that are inappropriate. I don't want to be constantly deciding whether or not he will be included in classes, activities and events with his friends because many of them are unsuitable. I don't want him being set apart constantly from everyone else in his class and learning therefore that people should be segregated according to religion. I don't want him being taught that the Catholic Churches view on issues such as abortion and relationships are reasonable positions to hold, because I think many of them are unethical, wrong, discriminatory and prejudice, but nor do I want to have to constantly paint the Catholic Church in a bad light. My ideal for bringing up my children was that when these issues arose, I would encourage them to think them through from an ethical perspective and come up with their own conclusions, but here I'm having to make sure I get in first constantly before the school does.

I don't want him being taught about totally insane concepts like transubstantiation, saints with 'stigmatas', relics, moving statues, holy healing tourism hotspots etc. To me this stuff belongs back with age of 'witch' trials.

It is a bigger issue than just the school system, it probably seems a bit ridiculous to say that we are going home because of that, I'm not going to go too much into the more personal side of it, but as a small example of what I'm up against, a while ago I put up a post about secular parenting on Facebook and got a response from a great aunt of Little Kiwis 'I hope not Kiwi in IE, I was brought up with 'right thinking' and I hope you will do the same for Little Kiwi'. I'm not challenged or contradicted but I feel a general disapproval of the fact I'm not allowing Little Kiwi to be brought up Catholic. I know that many of you guys have probably also gone totally against your family's beliefs and norms and I don't want to minimise that in any way, but I think it's maybe easier to do when they are your family!

All other things weigh up pretty equal, the cost of living is worse back home but the weather is better. I don't dislike Ireland generally, just this side of it, but I know how different things would be if Little Kiwi were being brought up in New Zealand and all of this would be removed from our lives instantly if we moved back. Maybe I am just looking for an easy life when life isn't meant to be easy. Is it easier to stick when it's what you've grown up with do you think? It bothers me far more than OH, although he doesn't like the religious bollocks either. Any tips for coping long term before I throw in the towel?

I apologise if this sounds like it should be in the personal problem forum.

I'd go for the weather...I doubt he'd be tought about moving statues this century

marmurr1916

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No no no not Dublin! Small town Ireland at it's finest

And this is it! We have only lived here because this is where OH's family live, and if what I see/hear around here wasn't often reinforced by issues raised in the National news, I would absolutely have put it down to small town crazies. I know well enough that there are plenty of back arse of nowhere places in NZ that resemble something out of The Deliverence as well. I try not to judge the country on where I am living, and I do acknowledge completely that in Dublin the very vibe/atmosphere feels different. I would have been happier here if we had settled in Dublin, I have no doubt, but it's still an unknown so deciding to sell up and move there is risky, if we are going to do that we might as well just bite the bullet and go with the known quantity of back home.

Do you think that the ideology (whatever that may be) that you and your OH impart to your child, along with his/her own ideas, might not be sufficiently strong to counteract whatever s/he's taught in school?

I know from my own experience and that of the majority of my peers that we came to our own conclusions about religion (which were usually of the indifferent/agnostic/atheist variety) rather than anything we were told about it in school.

We also had (and have) very different positions about various social issues compared to the positions held about those issues by the Catholic church and, as we can see from the various referendum results, the majority of the population do too.

I genuinely don't see this as an issue at all unless you think that nobody in your family has the independence of mind or strength of character to disagree with or ignore what is taught in schools.

In terms of daily life, as far as I can see most Irish people are either utterly indifferent to or have a healthy disrespect for religion and those that are religious now tend to be far less inclined to force their beliefs on other people.

I genuinely think that Ireland is nowadays pretty much a secular country albeit one where some sort of formal identification with religion and the use of religious rituals to mark significant life events is more prevalent than in most western countries.

However, while rituals like Communion might seem intensely religious to an outside observer, to most Irish people they're just an excuse to dress up a bit and get together with family and friends - the religious content of these rituals is pretty much ignored by most people, the social aspect is by far the most important.

I suspect that you're missing New Zealand for reasons that are far more profound and different than the ones that you're posting about, the reasons that appear at the front of your consciousness.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's probably because you equate a minority of fundamentalist fcuknuts with the majority of moderate Christians that you're overlooking the fact that there are many women put in a double bind when they are forced to deal with an unwanted pregnancy for example. Perhaps you've never encountered LGBT Christians either?

Why would 'a majority of moderate christians' seek to use the law to impose their concepts of 'sin' on everyone else? You still haven't explained how this is justified. 'Good christians' wouldn't do these things because they are 'sinful', they don't need the force of the law to follow their dogmas, and it is wrong for them to attempt to use the law to impose christian dogma on non-christians.
You mentioned that the private choices of other adults somehow affects the 'welfare' of christians, and when questioned on this, ran away as usual when your outlandish assertions are questioned.

The fact is that you have far more in common with other human beings than you don't, and like I said - in just the same way as you are entitled to campaign for changes in the law that you want, they are equally entitled to that same right. That is the underpinning of a democracy, a democracy which would be undermined by the efforts of a minority to tell the majority to butt out of having a say in how the country they live in is run.

They need to butt out of people's private lives, nothing between consenting adult(s) which does not harm other people should be illegal, especially not because a very silly book with talking snakes in it says so.

And what? It's simply another factor that a person has to consider before they go jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I know Kiwi objects strongly to the influence of religion in Irish society, but it's not like they can ever avoid the influence of religion completely, whether it be in Ireland, New Zealand, or elsewhere.

This is just another example of religion demanding special treatment and influence, isn't it really. If they want a change in the law and can't justify it except on grounds of religious dogma, they haven't justified it at all.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why would 'a majority of moderate christians' seek to use the law to impose their concepts of 'sin' on everyone else? You still haven't explained how this is justified. 'Good christians' wouldn't do these things because they are 'sinful', they don't need the force of the law to follow their dogmas, and it is wrong for them to attempt to use the law to impose christian dogma on non-christians.
You mentioned that the private choices of other adults somehow affects the 'welfare' of christians, and when questioned on this, ran away as usual when your outlandish assertions are questioned.

The point isn't whether they should or they shouldn't; the point is that in a democracy, they can.

They need to butt out of people's private lives, nothing between consenting adult(s) which does not harm other people should be illegal, especially not because a very silly book with talking snakes in it says so.

Still missing the point above.

This is just another example of religion demanding special treatment and influence, isn't it really. If they want a change in the law and can't justify it except on grounds of religious dogma, they haven't justified it at all.

No it isn't. It's an example of people (the citizens within a country) having exactly the same rights with regard to decisions in law and politics in a democracy as you do. When you become the arbiter of law, then you can decide what is or isn't justified, but that would be more akin to a totalitarian regime than a democracy.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why would 'a majority of moderate christians' seek to use the law to impose their concepts of 'sin' on everyone else?

At a guess, because any society legislates based on what the current politicians and/or voting population believes to be right and just, which in very many cases is still based around archaic doctrine hammered into them in primary school. As can be seen from the introduction of gay marriage, old notions of sin being the basis of morality are fading out, but this takes generations. Allowing the church to interfere with primary education to such a massive extent stalls this process, but given the collapse of church attendance by the adult population change is inevitable. The RCC is barely hanging on by the skin of its teeth, and in my opinion Catholicism will be a minority religion in this country within two generations. If you look at the increasing number of lay teachers that don't push the Christian agenda along with the rapid rise of educate together, even without formal change the status quo is shifting rapidly.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack you are still evading an explanation regarding this:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It still hasn't occurred to you then that a person by virtue of their religious beliefs is not precluded from being affected by laws regarding all of the things you mention above then?

They're still a human being, they live in the same country you do, are subject to the same laws and legislation that you are subject to, and so they are entitled to the same regard and the same right to advocate for their welfare as you are.

You have claimed they are affected by such laws, how?

You have claimed these laws would impact on their welfare, how?

On the contrary their interest is prurient, simply sticking their noses into other people's lives because they can, using what they call 'morality' or 'family values' as a means of enforcing conformity on believers and non-believers alike. Now THAT is unacceptable in a democracy.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it isn't. It's an example of people (the citizens within a country) having exactly the same rights with regard to decisions in law and politics in a democracy as you do. When you become the arbiter of law, then you can decide what is or isn't justified, but that would be more akin to a totalitarian regime than a democracy.

Sermons from the pulpit for/against specific legislation, or threatening certain politicians to vote in a certain way in the Dail is certainly not 'people having the same rights with regard to decisions as you do'.

Encyclicals from bishops, the same. They should have no more influence than you or I, but that's not the case - yet.

It would also mean a fully secular state with all taxpayer funded services delivered in a religion-neutral fashion, no legislation pandering to religion(s), and a complete rewrite of our constitution to remove the privileges and deference to religion in general and christianity in particular.

Until these things happen, it's simply incorrect to claim that religious advocates have no more rights or influence than any other group of citizens.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One eyed Jack you are still evading an explanation regarding this:



You have claimed they are affected by such laws, how?

You have claimed these laws would impact on their welfare, how?

On the contrary their interest is prurient, simply sticking their noses into other people's lives because they can, using what they call 'morality' or 'family values' as a means of enforcing conformity on believers and non-believers alike. Now THAT is unacceptable in a democracy.

The laws regarding the issues you were referring to are the same for everyone, regardless of whether they are religious or not. The whole "privacy of people's bedrooms" stuff is nonsense. That's not how laws are applied, and they're not made nor passed with any interest in what anyone gets up to in their bedroom. They're made for the benefit of a society, and apply to everyone in that society equally, so of course any laws would affect their welfare, not because of their religion, but because they are citizens of the State, who must abide by those laws.

Because we live in a democracy, the Church Hierarchy have as much right to influence those laws as any other lobby group have to influence the laws, and your assertion that they should have no voice and no representation is the opposite of a democracy. You want to silence dissent. That is an affront to democracy. If your voice was silenced and you had no representation, could you still claim you live in a democracy?

Then why would you expect anyone else should be held to a standard you would hope would never be applied to yourself?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sermons from the pulpit for/against specific legislation, or threatening certain politicians to vote in a certain way in the Dail is certainly not 'people having the same rights with regard to decisions as you do'.

Encyclicals from bishops, the same. They should have no more influence than you or I, but that's not the case - yet.

That would only make any sense if all lobby groups were held to that standard. They're not. Just as there are lobby groups to represent my interests, there are lobby groups to represent yours. Some lobby groups have more influence than others because they have greater numbers. It's not "tyranny of the majority", it's representative democracy.

It would also mean a fully secular state with all taxpayer funded services delivered in a religion-neutral fashion, no legislation pandering to religion(s), and a complete rewrite of our constitution to remove the privileges and deference to religion in general and christianity in particular.

You're arguing as though the way things should be, is the way they are now. Takes some absence of mind then to be mocking what you consider other people's fantasy ideas.

Until these things happen, it's simply incorrect to claim that religious advocates have no more rights or influence than any other group of citizens.

They don't have any more rights than anyone else. I never argued that they didn't have more influence. They do, by virtue of their numbers, a fact which you seem to want to ignore. This isn't Mythbusters where you get to reject reality and substitute it with your own. You can only do that when you get a consensus in a democracy, which you currently don't have.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because we live in a democracy, the Church Hierarchy have as much right to influence those laws as any other lobby group have to influence the laws, and your assertion that they should have no voice and no representation is the opposite of a democracy.

But to go back to the opening post, if you accept that the Church are foisting religious instruction and ethos on some families that do not want it, and are precluding children of other families from state schools, I think it could be reasonably argued that they're exerting influence in a manner that is very far from democratic.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

But to go back to the opening post, if you accept that the Church are foisting religious instruction and ethos on some families that do not want it, and are precluding children of other families from state schools, I think it could be reasonably argued that they're exerting influence in a manner that is very far from democratic.

The Church is undoubtedly undemocratic. The State however, is applying democracy, representative democracy. That's how in spite of the influence of the Church's influence, marriage equality was passed, because the Church did not have as much influence on society in the area of marriage as it does in education.

If people want the Church to have less of an influence in education, then those people have to exert more of an influence on education themselves, because the Church isn't going to say "Ah yeah lads, you're right, we're being unfair and undemocratic alright, we'll ease up and give ye a chance".

The onus is on people to elect politicians who will commit to representing their interests, as that is the essence of democracy, rather than expect other people should remain silent and cowtow to a regime in which their interests are ignored. Why anyone would expect someone else to do that is beyond me tbh.