Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

marienbad

wokingvoter wrote: »

I asked the poster if he felt that the enrolment policy should be "first come first served"
He answered me by expressing puzzlement in how "first come first served" could be a problem
I've shown him how it could be
You really need to read the thread before jumping in

No ,you need to stop cherry-picking to defend the indefensible

wokingvoter

marienbad wrote: »

No ,you need to stop cherry-picking to defend the indefensible

You need to read the thread because you don't know what your talking about
When you've read it you can come back and tell us what you think about a school having a "first come first served" enrolment policy

marienbad

wokingvoter wrote: »

You need to read the thread because you don't know what your talking about
When you've read it you can come back and tell us what you think about a school having a "first come first served" enrolment policy

And you need to stop thinking you are the school prefect and give over admonishing everyone that doesn't agree with you.

When you do that you can come back and try and have a discussion like an adult and not take each line literally because it suits you .

wokingvoter

marienbad wrote: »

And you need to stop thinking you are the school prefect and give over admonishing everyone that doesn't agree with you.

When you do that you can come back and try and have a discussion like an adult and not take each line literally because it suits you .

So you don't have any opinion on a "first com first served" policy then?
That was the post of mine that you chose to reply to.

marienbad

wokingvoter wrote: »

So you don't have any opinion on a "first com first served" policy then?
That was the post of mine that you chose to reply to.

How to did you draw that conclusion ? I see comprehension skills are not your forte .

But I shouldn't be surprised , you would like to keep the discussion to as narrow a definition of 'first come first served' as possible .

You can throw out some of the bathwater you know and still hold on to the baby .

Kiwi in IE

What is with people who are unable to cope with the younger generations of their families making different choices than what they made? Seems to be a common theme that baptism/church wedding etc is done to spare parents/grandparents feelings at best, and at worst to prevent parents/grandparents throwing a strop/causing a family rift/refusing to attend ceremony if it's not done their way! What is this about? Why do these parents/grandparents feel a need to be so manipulative, controlling, unpleasant and immature?

If my son grows up and meets a partner who is Muslim/Seventh Day Adventist/Scientologist and they decide to have a ceremony in the partners religion, or he decides to convert and bring his children up in that religion, that's not really my business is it? Once he's an adult he will make his own choices. I'm certainly not going to make scenes, throw tantrums, cause rifts with prospective in laws and refuse to attend important celebrations in my child's life because of it. People who carry on like this need to grow up.

wokingvoter

marienbad wrote: »

How to did you draw that conclusion ? I see comprehension skills are not your forte .

But I shouldn't be surprised , you would like to keep the discussion to as narrow a definition of 'first come first served' as possible .

You can throw out some of the bathwater you know and still hold on to the baby .

You mean you want an enrolment policy at a Catholic ethos school belonging to the Catholic Church with no mention of Catholicsm in it?
Only in Ireland

marienbad

wokingvoter wrote: »

You mean you want an enrolment policy at a Catholic ethos school belonging to the Catholic Church with no mention of Catholicsm in it?
Only in Ireland

Should any non catholics be accepted ?

eviltwin

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What is with people who are unable to cope with the younger generations of their families making different choices than what they made? Seems to be a common theme that baptism/church wedding etc is done to spare parents/grandparents feelings at best, and at worst to prevent parents/grandparents throwing a strop/causing a family rift/refusing to attend ceremony if it's not done their way! What is this about? Why do these parents/grandparents feel a need to be so manipulative, controlling, unpleasant and immature?

If my son grows up and meets a partner who is Muslim/Seventh Day Adventist/Scientologist and they decide to have a ceremony in the partners religion, or he decides to convert and bring his children up in that religion, that's not really my business is it? Once he's an adult he will make his own choices. I'm certainly not going to make scenes, throw tantrums, cause rifts with prospective in laws and refuse to attend important celebrations in my child's life because of it. People who carry on like this need to grow up.

It's very much an Irish thing. We don't have children, wr produce clones of ourselves or at least some of us expect to. We have a hard time respecting children as independent beings with their own opinions in this country.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

It's very much an Irish thing. We don't have children, wr produce clones of ourselves or at least some of us expect to. We have a hard time respecting children as independent beings with their own opinions in this country.

Even as adults.

Although I wonder how often parents really would follow through on dire warnings of what they'll do if their adult children step out of line.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

It's very much an Irish thing. We don't have children, wr produce clones of ourselves or at least some of us expect to. We have a hard time respecting children as independent beings with their own opinions in this country.

My parents are both atheists, and if OH had been a practicing Catholic and I'd told them I was getting married in a Catholic Church, converting to Catholicism and bringing Little Kiwi up Catholic, I am 100% certain that neither would have even made the slightest negative comment, never mind behave in a passive aggressive/controlling/threatening manner, in order to try and coerce me to do otherwise. I find this appalling behaviour.

Kiwi in IE

mickoneill31 wrote: »

4: I find it distasteful that we as a country go to priests for soundbites whenever somebody dies in an accident. I was watching the priest involved in the Buncrana tragedy yesterday and he was rolling off platitudes and an obviously prepared sermon. If I die in a tragedy I don't want my local priest pontificating about how the community is in shock and how I was a valued member of the community. Obviously it's all true but my local priest, like most priests probably doesn't know anything about most of the people they spout about.

This is off topic, but in relation to the Buncrana tragedy, if the primary school curriculum substituted some of the time spent on religious indoctrination with compulsory swimming/lifesaving/water safety from junior infants level to sixth class, tragedies involving water would be far less common.

The amount of Irish Adults who have no idea how to swim or how to respond if they or someone else gets into trouble in water is astounding, but most are well versed in how to genuflect and recite the rosary.

I am not meaning to criticise anyone involved in that tragedy, I am criticising the way education is prioritised. Water safety is a basic life skill, and in my opinion should be taught along side reading and writing, and prioritised over indoctrinating children with useless nonsense. Not all parents have the resources and funds available to pay for swimming/life saving lessons, and as a result a ridiculous amount of people reach adulthood with no skills in this area.

marienbad

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This is off topic, but in relation to the Buncrana tragedy, if the primary school curriculum substituted some of the time spent on religious indoctrination with compulsory swimming/lifesaving/water safety from junior infants level to sixth class, tragedies involving water would be far less common.

The amount of Irish Adults who have no idea how to swim or how to respond if they or someone else gets into trouble in water is astounding, but most are well versed in how to genuflect and recite the rosary.

I am not meaning to criticise anyone involved in that tragedy, I am criticising the way education is prioritised. Water safety is a basic life skill, and in my opinion should be taught along side reading and writing, and prioritised over indoctrinating children with useless nonsense. Not all parents have the resources and funds available to pay for swimming/life saving lessons, and as a result a ridiculous amount of people reach adulthood with no skills in this area.

I normally love your posts Kiwi , but this is out of line .

eviltwin

marienbad wrote: »

I normally love your posts Kiwi , but this is out of line .

I think it's spot on. Religion takes up a massive amount of time that could be spent teaching kids useful life skills. Things that could help them or help others, swimming, first aid or just basic stuff like DIY, cooking etc

Canadel

marienbad wrote: »

I normally love your posts Kiwi , but this is out of line .

It's not pretty, but then the truth rarely is.

Kiwi in IE

marienbad wrote: »

I normally love your posts Kiwi , but this is out of line .

I understand why you think that and maybe I didn't word it right/choose the right scenario to bring it up, but the priority of the education system is all wrong is what I am saying. There was one person present in Buncrana who was able to respond and he did an amazing job, if water safety/lifesaving was taught in all schools from junior infants, the chances that there might have been 6 people in the vacinity who could have responded, one for each occupant of the car, would have increased dramatically. It is something that needs to be taught, those in charge of education need to be focusing on knowledge in skill like this that are essential, can save lives and are currently lacking, rather than funding the teaching of nonsense and fairytales.

galljga1

marienbad wrote: »

I normally love your posts Kiwi , but this is out of line .

Simply, no. Our school, we fundraise to teach our kids to swim.
Spend govt funds teaching them nonsense from an ancient book full of crap as opposed to a life skill? Get real.

Kiwi in IE

galljga1 wrote: »

Simply, no. Our school, we fundraise to teach our kids to swim.
Spend govt funds teaching them nonsense from an ancient book full of crap as opposed to a life skill? Get real.

I think Marienbad meant that it was out of line that I brought this up in the immediate context of the tragedy in Buncrana, rather than it being out of line to suggest swimming/lifesaving skills as a more appropriate use of educational resources than religious indoctrination, which is fair enough, it was really.

Cabaal

wokingvoter wrote: »

But your going to a church to avail of the RCC sacrament of marriage.
Your going to stand up in front of all your loved ones family and friends on the biggest day of your life and solemnly promise to bring up any children you have as Roman Catholics
do you not think that's absolutely ridiculous ?
The hypocrisy is actually breathtaking

On this note,
I got married in a church, would have caused ALOT of grief on the other side if it wasn't.

Now, before you claim I'm a hypocrite.....I was always upfront about it,
Told the priest before hand the whole thing meant nothing to me and was only doing it to keep the peace,

Other half's family also know I don't believe in god and I must certainly do not like the catholic church due to its history, they also have been told from the very start that no children will be baptised and that I was only doing the church bit to keep them happy.

So while you might claim I'm the hypocrite, remember the priest was ok with it and as were all the Catholics who would have been upset if we didn't.

The whole church bit was utterly meaningless to me,

Its not the first time I've seen priests ok marrying people that are up front about not believing in the church, I know of another person who told the priests "well, its like this father, you know I don't believe in this stuff so I won't be doing the "catholic" marriage course, so you can either not do the marriage and upset my other half or you can do it"...the priests did the marriage.

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

The whole church bit was utterly meaningless to me,

See, I couldn't start out married life in a place and with a ceremony that was meaningless to me and I know himself felt the same way. There was some subtle and not so subtle hints about having a 'real' wedding when we got engaged but I couldn't give into that from the start of our married life.

Canadel

lazygal wrote: »

See, I couldn't start out married life in a place and with a ceremony that was meaningless to me and I know himself felt the same way. There was some subtle and not so subtle hints about having a 'real' wedding when we got engaged but I couldn't give into that from the start of our married life.

You can take part in a ceremony without placing any meaning or importance on it. Religion has made humans experts in compartmentalization, both conscious and sub-conscious.

intheclouds

Cabaal wrote: »

So while you might claim I'm the hypocrite, remember the priest was ok with it and as were all the Catholics who would have been upset if we didn't.

Again though, youre just another number that gives weight to the notion that people "need" the church.

In the stats for the year you got married your ceremony will be numbered amongst "church weddings".

This is why its a never ending cycle, people clamour for non denominational primary schools and the government say "well lets look at the numbers - we got 80+% of people saying they are catholic on the census, we have this percentage of weddings being church weddings last year, we have this number of baptisms out of this number of births etc...etc.... so I see no need to change the policy as the majority of people are practising catholics and using the church for the important ceremonies in their lives".

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

See, I couldn't start out married life in a place and with a ceremony that was meaningless to me and I know himself felt the same way. There was some subtle and not so subtle hints about having a 'real' wedding when we got engaged but I couldn't give into that from the start of our married life.

The religious part was meaningless,
The part with familys and the state part most certainly were not

Cabaal

intheclouds wrote: »

Again though, youre just another number that gives weight to the notion that people "need" the church.

In the stats for the year you got married your ceremony will be numbered amongst "church weddings".

This is why its a never ending cycle, people clamour for non denominational primary schools and the government say "well lets look at the numbers - we got 80+% of people saying they are catholic on the census, we have this percentage of weddings being church weddings last year, we have this number of baptisms out of this number of births etc...etc.... so I see no need to change the policy as the majority of people are practising catholics and using the church for the important ceremonies in their lives".

I'm aware of the issues, but when certain partys will refuse to attend the wedding otherwise it does limit options sadly.

For the record, I'm none religious on census...always have been since I started filling it out.

No kids will ever be baptised, no funerals will be religious.

intheclouds

Canadel wrote: »

Change comes slowly. You can't expect everyone to act against their own current short term interests in the name of some idealistic, secular vision of society.

Sure, change comes slowly, but theres no point in people like the OP claiming to want a secular society if they themselves are keeping the whole charade going.

Walter H Price

lazygal wrote: »

See, I couldn't start out married life in a place and with a ceremony that was meaningless to me and I know himself felt the same way. There was some subtle and not so subtle hints about having a 'real' wedding when we got engaged but I couldn't give into that from the start of our married life.

See for us it was a little different , the church ceremony has no meaning to either of us or any of either of our families in any religious sense. I do think it still has allot of meaning in terms of we are still committing to love each other and stick by each other in sickness and health for the rest of lives and all that jazz, with all our friends and family there.

I'd have rather gotten married in Dublin in a hotel or away on a beach somewhere nice then in a cold old church in Kildare , but being able to have her Nan at some part of the wedding really means allot to my OH and her family , so kinda outweighed all the rest.

intheclouds

Cabaal wrote: »

....no funerals will be religious.

Interested to hear what you plan here as besides cremation Im not aware of any non religious burial options?

Canadel

intheclouds wrote: »

Sure, change comes slowly, but theres no point in people like the OP claiming to want a secular society if they themselves are keeping the whole charade going.

Sure there is.

They just said their kids won't be baptised. Change comes slowly.

Cabaal

intheclouds wrote: »

Interested to hear what you plan here as besides cremation Im not aware of any non religious burial options?

One example of a none standard burial. Of course you can likely have a non religious burial in your local graveyard to as the land is not owned by the church.
http://www.greengraveyard.com/

lazygal

intheclouds wrote: »

Interested to hear what you plan here as besides cremation Im not aware of any non religious burial options?

Most burial grounds are owned by local authorities. There's no legal requirement for a funeral ceremony of any sort. The last one we attended was humanist.