Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Grayson wrote: »

European law, and even our laws are based on utilitarian principles, not religious ones. There are some exceptions and they're very noticeable. We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights. The UN have said that our abortion laws are in violation of human rights.

The fact is that we're ditching "religious" laws where they don't align with utilitarian principles.

You will find that the religious leaders were around before them lads , when it came to matters like right to life,liberty etc . Of course,without the likes of Bentham, the world would have been a scarier place today. They improve and bettered the principles that were already there. All I say is that , the core rights, that I cited were recongised when the religious leaders dominated European affairs

We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights.

BS! Big time, baby.


At NO STAGE has any European Court, whether EU or ECJ ruled that the ban on gay marriage was ILLEGAL, and certainly NOT against Ireland .

That is the biggest load of rubbish and you have no basis for that . Gay Marriage is not even an universal right and many countries, including the US (as a whole) have not recognised it, yet.

Because Gay Marriage IS NOT universally recognized, the EU and the ECtHR have no competence to rule against a country and force them to recognise it . Nor did they try to.There have been the odd case around 10 years ago on that and they pointed out that it was a matter for each country

The UN, EU, and ECtHR Played NO role whatsoever in Ireland changing it's laws on Gay Marriage. They simply do not have the competence to do so

The ECtHR HAVE however, ruled that the criminalisation of homosexual acts is illegal. That is a massive difference. That eventually lead to the decriminalisation of gays in Ireland (they were slow in doing it too)


"The UN have said that our abortion laws are in violation of human rights. "

1. No one gives a flying feck what the UN think. The UN have very little powers to force countries to bow to their ultimate demands. Fines and compensation won't do much for the claimant if the Country still refuses to recongise abortion in all cases. Problem is, Ireland has refused to legislate on abortion based on rules of our own court

Our laws must be expanded, short of abortion in all cases (the only realistic chance of progress, because a proposal of abortion in all cases, will fail, at this time) as the status quo is not satisfactory. Neither the UN , EU , or ECtHR will dictate that however.

2. The ECtHR themselves, a group that can force us to do things (I don't mean that in a bad by either, ECtHR has been very good for Ireland) , acknowledged in 2010, that they had no right to rule on the abortion ban as they had no competence and were bound to respect our cultural and legal differences and stay within the remit of the text of what is actually set out in the Convention.

Nevertheless, boy they tried as it was a tiny majority 4:3 ruled that Ireland was not in violation for their ban on abortion, and was only on a technicality rather than their own personal view on abortion . However, they did find Ireland in breach of the Convention for their failure to enforce the laws on abortion that was already there ie X Case, (which the government, even via referendums , have done their level best to over rule) Compensation still would make a country act to change the laws and it certainly will not deter those who oppose an issue that goes to a referendum.


Ditching religious laws. Who is we?

Churches still run the hospitals and schools. A lot of shiny new and refurbished schools have been propping up around the country. Bar the lunatics , the leading RC hierarchy were wisely pretty silent on gay marriage and the Church of Ireland was very much in favour and always had been .

Those who oppose abortion outright or oppose in cases outside the status quo don't have to cite God as their reasons for it, they are not all religious .

Blasphemy laws are still on the Statute. Would be interesting to see how that went down it they were tested. Not sure why Dermott Aherne bothered, even theologians and priests (the sane ones) were miffed by it

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

I fear there has been something of a reading comprehension failure from you there. I will add some bolding to highlight your failure:

Grayson wrote: »

We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights.

Lt Dan wrote: »

At NO STAGE has any European Court, whether EU or ECJ ruled that the ban on gay marriage was ILLEGAL

You are lambasting the user as espousing "BS" on the basis of something he never actually said. He nowhere said they ruled it was ILLEGAL. He said they ruled it a violation of human rights.

For example "Norris V Ireland" in 1988 saw the European Court rule that the criminalizing of homosexuality in Ireland violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Or for example Dudgeon v the United Kingdom in 1981 say the European Court rule that Criminal Law criminalizing homosexual acts in the UK violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is unclear you are aware what the difference is (or even that there is one) between ruling something to be a violation of human rights, and ruling something to be outright illegal.

Grayson

I actually meant to say gay sex. That was illegal here until the ECHR ruled against the law.

And that law is the perfect example of a religious law. It's not based on harm, it's based on religious principles.

Our laws are based on utilitarian principles. That's why very few of the 10 commandments are laws. I'm sure we'd all agree that respecting a parent is generally a good thing. However it's not the law. Our laws are designed to stop harm whilst maximising freedom and happiness.

Our laws are not based on christian principles, except for the 8th amendment. Which is why it is weird that the vast majority of our primary schools are religious. It's essentially state sponsored madrassas

realdanbreen

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Indoctrinating a child is the same as indoctrinating a mentally-disabled adult. It should be illegal. The child spends his or her childhood attending (a usually Catholic) school with little or no alternative choice.

I am 26 years old, and when I was growing up there was little or no other choices in my vicinity having grown up in a small-ish town on the outskirts of Dublin. The Roman Catholic Church has autonomy over most schools in Ireland.religion

An over-subscribed school often uses religion as a filtering process to filter out candidates. A horrific process if you ask me.

In my opinion, any school that receives even a penny of state funds should be forbidden from subscribing to any particular religion and religion should only be taught as a general subject for a minimal amount of time (from a neutral cultural education point of view). No class time should be wasted on Communion or Confirmation or first confession. If the parents really feel so strongly about religion, then they should bring their own kids to make their first confession, Communion and get confirmed.

Bringing up a kid to believe in a God is a horrid form of abuse.

Why not move to an atheist country, like North Korea?

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Why not move to an atheist country, like North Korea?

Yea because a country ruled by an ETERNAL leader who is allegedly partially reincarnated through his own son sounds totally atheistic and nothing at all like the Christian Narrative.

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea because a country ruled by an ETERNAL leader who is allegedly partially reincarnated through his own son sounds totally atheistic and nothing at all like the Christian Narrative.

Then perhaps Mongolia or Albania?

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Then perhaps Mongolia or Albania?

I would be curious after your awful first example what it is exactly you think is atheistic about those countries PRECISELY. Openly admit I have studied them as countries a LOT less than I have NK.

Am I to take it from your offering of these two examples that you at least see the problem with your first example?

Actually Christopher Hitchens used to tell a story about some people who escaped NK and were found, desperate and hungry by christian missionaries. As is their wont the Missionaries combined helping them with preaching to them.

Imagine their horror as they were told about an all loving eternal father who was born partly into his own son to bring us leadership and mercy......... sitting there thinking "is this not what we just escaped from? Its EVERYWHERE!".

Imagine their horror then hearing that THIS eternal father can get you even after you die. At least with North Korea everyone escapes in the end..... when they die. But with the Christian narrative that is only when the "fun" begins.

server down

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would be curious after your awful first example what it is exactly you think is atheistic about those countries PRECISELY. Openly admit I have studied them as countries a LOT less than I have NK.

Am I to take it from your offering of these two examples that you at least see the problem with your first example?

Actually Christopher Hitchens used to tell a story about some people who escaped NK and were found, desperate and hungry by christian missionaries. As is their wont the Missionaries combined helping them with preaching to them.

Imagine their horror as they were told about an all loving eternal father who was born partly into his own son to bring us leadership and mercy......... sitting there thinking "is this not what we just escaped from? Its EVERYWHERE!".

Imagine their horror then hearing that THIS eternal father can get you even after you die. At least with North Korea everyone escapes in the end..... when they die. But with the Christian narrative that is only when the "fun" begins.

I’d say Hitchens made that up. It sounds trite and neat.

Also being similar to religion isn’t religion. If NK seems like they are worshipping dear leader as a god then maybe that is what happens when you ban other religions. If there were other religions then the statist worship of NK would be seen by those religions as blasphemy after all.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

I do not doubt the possibility at all it was a made up story, but it does highlight the point being made well all the same. The utility of the point is not one reliant on the story being true, otherwise I would not have offered it without some evidence it was.

The point being simple, that it is way beyond even a joke to call such a state atheistic when it is not only the opposite of what atheists tend to espouse, but it also reminiscent of the Christian Narrative. That state is only one short of a trinity.

As for "being similar to religion isn't religion" I have no idea what that even means. A state religion is just that, a state religion. But the point was that it is not even REMOTELY similar to the atheism narrative the user was mapping on to it.

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fear there has been something of a reading comprehension failure from you there. I will add some bolding to highlight your failure:




You are lambasting the user as espousing "BS" on the basis of something he never actually said. He nowhere said they ruled it was ILLEGAL. He said they ruled it a violation of human rights.

For example "Norris V Ireland" in 1988 saw the European Court rule that the criminalizing of homosexuality in Ireland violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Or for example Dudgeon v the United Kingdom in 1981 say the European Court rule that Criminal Law criminalizing homosexual acts in the UK violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is unclear you are aware what the difference is (or even that there is one) between ruling something to be a violation of human rights, and ruling something to be outright illegal.

Nozzferrahhtoo



You really have to stop this . You are absolutely spectacularly clueless as what was said and the law. Predictable as well.! If you are going to try to talk down, to someone at least wait until you actually have grounds to do so

The following has to be put in bold, for your benefit

1. The poster stated the following :

"We had gay marriage as illegal. The European court of human rights declared that in violation of human rights"

Okay, so well will now break it down

(a) "We" : Ireland

(b) "gay marriage as illegal". Correct. Or, alternatively, we, like many nations , did not recognise it as a right. The gays claimed discrimination (a human right that prohibits discrimination) and demanded the right to marry (a human right)

(c) "The European Court of Human Rights Declared THAT in violation of human rights"

NO THEY DID NOT! They NEVER DECLARED that the ban on gay marriage was either illegal or in violation of human rights, for the precise reasons that I already stated, and that YOU have failed (and will continue to fail) to rebut.

The very least you and the person to whom I responded to could have actually, you know, provided the case law.

Gay Marriage is not a universally recongised right. The ECHR have in fact acknowledged that in 2004!!!!!!

In fact, just last June year they confirmed confirmed that Gay Marriage has yet to be considered a Human Right. (Right to marry)

https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-non-existence-of-a-right-to-gay-marriage

So, No, deary, the ECtHR have NOT ruled , at any time , that Ireland was in violation of Human Rights Law. Not once!

Apologise, for entering a discussion that you are completely devoid of understanding

Facts allow me to stand correct, and prove that you and your friend are wrong.


2. " nowhere said they ruled it was ILLEGAL. He said they ruled it a violation of human right"

If you are going to try and sound padeantic, best have a solid footing, please.

When something/someone is in violation of a recognized Human Right, then the culprit has acted in an illegal manner. It is illegal to violate a person's human Right without justification. A person put up for war crimes is found to have violated Human Rights laws and that individual can go to jail. A State, obviously can not go to jail, but, it can potentially be forced to change it's laws and it can be fined.

They have both the same effect and potential results,


What is sad is, in your desperate need to have something to say, you in fact ignored the serious flaw in the person's comment: The BS is that he wrongly claimed that any European court had ruled on gay marriage in a way that made it recognised . You Could not rebut that , so you tried to be pedantic and even then, it was weak. Sad

3. Norris - This is very very predictable, I addressed this with the other poster, knowing full well that he conflated the matter.

Norris case had NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Period. Their mere existence and ability to enjoy their life was what was at stake The result was, eventually, Ireland was forced to change its stupid laws, but it only came a few years later (even though no one was ever convicted under the offending legislation, so why the delay?)


Please, just stop. I am correct to point out that the person's claim is BS. No European Court did what he believed . There is a huge difference between Norris and the other case that you referred to (as did I - on que reply denying that I did not, so be it, but read what I said in full, first) and the recognition of gay marriage

server down

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not doubt the possibility at all it was a made up story, but it does highlight the point being made well all the same. The utility of the point is not one reliant on the story being true, otherwise I would not have offered it without some evidence it was.

The point being simple, that it is way beyond even a joke to call such a state atheistic when it is not only the opposite of what atheists tend to espouse, but it also reminiscent of the Christian Narrative. That state is only one short of a trinity.

It’s an Asian atheistic state. How the Christian narrative managed to worm its way in there hasn’t been explained either by you or Hitchens. That said he never came across as a man who read much.

As for "being similar to religion isn't religion" I have no idea what that even means. A state religion is just that, a state religion. But the point was that it is not even REMOTELY similar to the atheism narrative the user was mapping on to it.

You have no idea what the phrase being similar to something isn’t something means in general? A wasp (some people think) is similar to a bee. It isn’t.

It’s an atheistic state. The fact that this state starts to worship a leader like a personality cult doesn’t mean it isn’t atheistic or that it is Christian. Your argument is like an anti catholic who blames Catholicism for all Protestant atrocities, as real Protestantism wouldn’t do this.

I suppose it’s a variation of the no true Scotsman argument.

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Grayson wrote: »

I actually meant to say gay sex. That was illegal here until the ECHR ruled against the law.

And that law is the perfect example of a religious law. It's not based on harm, it's based on religious principles.

Our laws are based on utilitarian principles. That's why very few of the 10 commandments are laws. I'm sure we'd all agree that respecting a parent is generally a good thing. However it's not the law. Our laws are designed to stop harm whilst maximising freedom and happiness.

Our laws are not based on christian principles, except for the 8th amendment. Which is why it is weird that the vast majority of our primary schools are religious. It's essentially state sponsored madrassas

The Commandments eg thou shall not kill/murder and religions principals and teachings have been sources and influence of the laws over decades, whether that is by fluke that the religious folk have more influence or not at the time , is another matter. The Utilitarians did not pluck things from the sky


Our laws not based on Christian Values?

Our? Ireland? WOW!

Do some research on the legal history of Ireland .........You should later move on to the First Paragraphs of the Preamble of Bunreacht na hEireann and numerous Judge's comments (the best ones were where they were used to recongise rights that the RCC would not have been happy with) to what they believed was the source of Ireland's principals. So , essentially, what you have just said, is greatly undermined much of the whinging that Atheist Ireland have been doing

Very Christian theme in the Constitutional provision about Family, in fact, very very very Catholic, since, despite the ECHR rulings, the Constitutional Family is ONLY the family based on Marriage. All laws come from God.........hmmm....

"Which is why it is weird that the vast majority of our primary schools are religious. It's essentially state sponsored madrassas"

What is even weirder is that a person like you, presumably born and bred in Ireland, could be so blind and lack any self awareness to come out and make that Statement about Ireland and its society, least the past. Pick up a history book, spend time reading the Dail Speech archives, come back to us then .

Best you stay away from the Constitutions of many European countries and their references about God.You might get triggered. Even the "godless" old England sing "God save .................." and has a State Religion

Hotblack Desiato

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

The fact de Valera was licking the arse of the catholic church should not dictate the present or future of our nation. The more you cite the nonce-sence in the constitution, the more I'll call for the whole despicable document to be torn asunder.

JupiterKid

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The fact de Valera was licking the arse of the catholic church should not dictate the present or future of our nation. The more you cite the nonce-sence in the constitution, the more I'll call for the whole despicable document to be torn asunder.

Our Constitution was drafted in 1937 when the power of the Church over this country was probably at or close to its zenith. It is totally unfit for purpose in 21st century Ireland and needs to be completely rewritten.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Here is what the OP thinks about our teens...

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

What are your missed opportunities?

I am here in Derry with my gorgeous OH. I went to the bar to order a Guinness and a Hop House for me and her respectively.

A girl, approx 18, bought 3 shots. She took one herself, gave one to her friend and handed one to me. At the time I didn’t realise she was offering it to me.

I didn’t realise it.

She was gorgeous.

Young meat. I could have ****ed her up the ass.

Frankly I'd rather teenagers facing the odd crucifix on a wall than old men who want to get them drunk for anal sex. Which is not to equivocate the two, I fully appreciate it's not an either/or. Just pointing to how shallow the OPs concerns about our youth might be given his own...interests.

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The fact de Valera was licking the arse of the catholic church should not dictate the present or future of our nation. The more you cite the nonce-sence in the constitution, the more I'll call for the whole despicable document to be torn asunder.

Ah, but, your statement betrays any understanding that you have of the Constitution in the first place.

There is always one Gerard Hogan Article that I like turning to and inviting people to read regarding those who listened or are influenced by historians and social commentators with limited knowledge or understanding of the Constitution and its history. I am trying in vein to locate it. Have a hard copy someone , but it is an excellent piece, makes a few people look rather silly and exposes some flaws in their research, one in particular TP Coogan (his hacket book on Dev) If I relocate an online version , I will post it up for people who might want to read it.

Essentially, the article deals with how Catholic the Constitution really is and addresses several comments from historians, arm chair historians who , really, haven't a clue .

If De Valera licked the CC so much, then, McQuaid would have been, and was , very disappointed with what came out. No where near the insensitivity of Catholicism as McQuaid would have liked

The Constitutional gave the courts substantial powers to interpret the Constitution, and since the text is only a basic outline of our laws, it is the case law that colours in the huge holes. Bear in mind, many a Protestant sat at the Bench. Not to mention that the true source for our Constitution came from the Weimer Republic !

So , we make a new Constitution, one that will succeed in get passed a plebiscite or referendum in whole, what actually changes from the current document?

Uber Catholic Preamble: Despite actually being used to great success in recognizing rights , some of whom would not have made the RCC too happy, this is a harmless piece now that has little or no use.

Reference to God: Me, I don't buy into notions that everything comes from God. Rubbish, me, man , made our law, our success and failures are down to us, not him. You can spot a spoofer when you see all them Americans sports stars thanking God, pure marketing rubbish: Pretend to be humble and God Fearing. Sod that. Remove. No big deal

Family: Prefer the Family under Article 8 of ECHR, especially since unmarried fathers are getting better rights now in the Family Law Courts. The removal of this provision might cause issues with people who take marriage seriously. One interesting note would be , the fact that the family provision would be used to justify the favorable tax credits to married couples (regardless of kids) compared to unmarried couples. Married people's self interest might oppose the removal / absence of a reference in the Constitution. Moreover, we might set into silly season as to what Constitutes a Family. Not entirely an overtly Catholic provision as many countries have a similar provision . This might be the first MAJOR Change /Issue of Concern(the other two are not as big deal)

Position of Mother in the Home: This is not going to be removed / or absent from a new Constitution . Possibility of Gender neutral, but, the State won't want to bind itself to any financial promises to fathers (married or unmarried?) with regard to paternity leave . Second Major Change/Issue of Concern

Abortion: Reference is going to stay. Period. Until there is widespread acceptance of abortion in all cases, and there most certainly is not, any absence of a reference to abortion would see the Constitution failing to pass. Best the abortion lot can hope for is extension to the current grounds :Biggest Issue of concern

Divorce: 2 years separation before a divorce is more than enough time. The current position is excessive. Have a referendum now, and then , come the day of a new Constitution, completely remove references to Divorce from the Constitution . Probably the Biggest Change in a New Constitution

Children: We have just changed that, it is fine. There is no way in Hell that the State will put into writing the list of rights and State Promises that are Contained in the UN Convention on Children. State only has limited resources. Besides, South Africa's Constitution has all these rights stated, and, well, South Africa is a joke

Education: This will not change. The parents will continue to be the primary educator . Religion will continue to be part of Education, as set out by the Courts. It will be for parents to decide what schools they want . No need for any Constitutional provision regarding this. Anything radical would possibly fail

Religion: Remove the Blasphemy clause. Since it has never been invoked, and is greatly laughed at, even by progressive Catholics and even some priests, the change would not really be a big deal. Cosmetic, in light of reality


Property Rights: Anything that remotely adversely affects Individual's property rights would see any proposed Constitution crash and burn. And Commies or socialists would do well to stay away from lamp posts

Expressed reference to what constitutes property and treasures owned by the State: Meh, not really a significant change. Water meters? Meh

Expressed Enumerated Rights: A difference, but still no big deal since they are already recongised by the Courts

Senand Reform: Big Deal,needs reform. Universal vote? Who should be excluded from running? eg failed Dáil Candidate or someone who lost their seat? Surely people with real experience and knowledge of industry etc should be brought sitting there and not career politicians? Not really keen on the lower educated class lay abouts voting , but voting rights could expand to other Third Level Institutes

President: Reduce to 5 years . Give more power? God no. Voters rights to Nordies? Might as well. Voters rights to citizens abroad? Depends on how long they have been abroad. 10 years max

Dail: What do you propose? Offer something realistic, and no bs rubbish that we would hear from students who would not know their arse from their elbow. Voting rights for foreigners? No way. Voting rights for Irish abroad? That would be topical. 5 years max.

There would probably be some more, but, there are actually very few that relate or concern religion.

You want to rip up a document, which, you evidently don't understand and certainly clueless as to how it was drafted, but, the document will more or less be the SAME , but with a few cosmetic changes, bear in mind the expectations you have to hold on Irish voters.

Think you will find that those who waffle about the Constitution being outdated are the people who really haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Bar the excessive bits, with the role of the Court, the Constitution has aged very well

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

kylith wrote: »

Good grief, think for a minute! Do you really think that a parent will drop their child to school 30 miles away and then spend the day sitting outside? Of course not! They will have to go home, or go on to work, which is probably close to their house. This means a 60 mile round trip twice a day, and a 2 hour commute each day.

You still haven't given a decent answer, though: If you think that a 2 hour daily commute is ok for non-Catholics then why is a 5 minute drive to a church and taking 10 minutes a day to talk to their children about their faith sooooo much of a hassle for people who want their kids to have a religious upbringing that they insist it must be done in schools?

Yo, did you get a chance to read that map that I offered to you?

When you get a chance, will you list those 10 towns/villages and their populations , where children would have to travel 60+ miles each way every day to get to a ET school

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I live in a large suburb in Dublin, no ETs here (although there are two gaelscoils :rolleyes:) and all the ones in the adjoining suburbs are full, becase of the overwhelming demand from those areas

Dept of Education chose to expand the existing religious schools a few years ago rather than open an ET. Parents were not consulted at all

But why let facts intrude into your narrative if the facts don't suit you, eh?

And what about Quinn? Funny you don't address that

Name the "large suburb" (Electoral Area will suffice) , a map was produced earlier , look at it. Tell us where he nearest ET school is and the distance from it . They are all full? Well, that means that they will be looking for grants to get another block or two extended so.Good for them. Watch them also turn away kids from outside their area as they will feel that they have to prioritizes for the locals . How far away is the next one?

You have an issue with Gaelscoils. Why? Are they full up ?


Ruairi Quinn was the Minister for Education in recent years. He invited people to come and consult with the Department about divestment. Does anyone actually know why this failed spectacularly ? Surely, like minded people in your area would not be saying that they weren't consulted when you had the chance to take up Quinn's initiative?


"But why let facts intrude into your narrative if the facts don't suit you, eh?"

Clearly, instead of doing something pro active , like responding to ex Minister Ruairi Quinn's invitation for consultations over this very matter , you would rather sit around here moaning

Yes or No, did you respond to the invitation for consultation with the Department of Education when Quinn was Minister . If so, what happened?

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

JupiterKid wrote: »

Our Constitution was drafted in 1937 when the power of the Church over this country was probably at or close to its zenith. It is totally unfit for purpose in 21st century Ireland and needs to be completely rewritten.

If you read it and understood how it actually works, you would not make such a ridiculously ill informed comment like that

You remember what was going on in 1937? Democracy was not exactly in a safe place , was it? Yet, Democracy was guaranteed in the Irish Constitution with LOADS of safeguards to prevent any one individual from having too much power and giving our Courts more than adequate rights to protect the public from questionable legislation via Article 26 References of Bills and the Public's right to challenge legislation themselves.

Funny enough, the Jews were specifically mentioned in the old Religious clause, and they were not that happy about the removal in 1970s, where as the rest of the population, including theologians (read up on their statements of the time) , accepted that with Northern Ireland, it needed to change.

The Basic fundamental rights were expressed, and although De Valera probably never imagine the extent of the results as we saw from 1960 onwards, it allowed a lot of freedom of the Courts on how it was interpreted . Not once did he bad mouth any judge.

I never thought that the Weimar Republic was ubber Catholic

Nah, you didn't think about that



The Core elements of the Constitution would essentially be the same if it was redrafted tomorrow, many of the changes would be minor or cosmetic, there would be a few significant ones but that would have nothing to do with religion. Many "new" provisions would only just confirm what has already being agreed by the Courts.

Go read the 1996 Constitutional Reform Report (free on line) the the Progress Reports for the next 12 years .It will give you some idea of what would be possible or not in a New Constitution

With the powers to change the current Constitution being ever so easy, a new one would be no more than a vanity project. In fact, this was confirmed when the PD's published their own version in the very early 2000's . Don't get fantasies that that some clowns from the left will get anything through, there won't be any revolutions

Lt Dan

Lt Dan wrote: »

Ah, but, your statement betrays any understanding that you have of the Constitution in the first place.
...
...Essentially, the article deals with how Catholic the Constitution really is and addresses several comments from historians, arm chair historians who , really, haven't a clue .

If De Valera licked the CC so much, then, McQuaid would have been, and was , very disappointed with what came out. No where near the insensitivity of Catholicism as McQuaid would have liked...
...
You want to rip up a document, which, you evidently don't understand and certainly clueless as to how it was drafted, but, the document will more or less be the SAME , but with a few cosmetic changes, bear in mind the expectations you have to hold on Irish voters.

Think you will find that those who waffle about the Constitution being outdated are the people who really haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Bar the excessive bits, with the role of the Court, the Constitution has aged very well

Excellent analysis, and good history too. The whole thing about de Valera and McQuaid is real wrong end of the stick stuff, as if the voters were a blank slate that were moulded by that relationship. Yes the document had a Catholic ethos...because the country was staunchly Catholic, not because of de Valera. In fact the Church felt if anything it was not Catholic enough and much of the opposition to it was because it was considered too liberal. Protestant and Jewish groups welcomed it, the Vatican opposed it.

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent analysis, and good history too. The whole thing about de Valera and McQuaid is real wrong end of the stick stuff, as if the voters were a blank slate that were moulded by that relationship. Yes the document had a Catholic ethos...because the country was staunchly Catholic, not because of de Valera. In fact the Church felt if anything it was not Catholic enough and much of the opposition to it was because it was considered too liberal. Protestant and Jewish groups welcomed it, the Vatican opposed it.

The opposition was for a lot of the wrong reasons, genuine Civil War stuff. More a case of, "Vote no, it's Dev's Constitution". If you google it, the party later known as Fine Gael said some ridiculous stuff ( when did they gave a toss for women before 1937 or after) The vote in the counties depended on which party was dominant there. No surprise parts of Cork said no

https://www.adams.ie/catalogue_images/7032/medium/15.jpg

https://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/women1937no.jpg?w=759&h=665

http://irishpoliticalmaps.blogspot.ie/2011/05/plebiscite-on-draft-constitution-1937.html


The only serious issue , at that time, was the references to women. Problem was, since women got SFA when it came to property rights until the Succession Act in the 1960's , the noble, cough, idea of women not being forced out to work or run the farms while man was in England (thousands of women had to do men's work while the men were working in England etc) , not to mention the fact that the French had to bribe Ireland to bring in maternity leave.... were greatly undermined by Government inaction to really offer them protection.

By the 1940's the English had coped on about the importance of women in the labour force.

MadDog76

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is what the OP thinks about our teens...



Frankly I'd rather teenagers facing the odd crucifix on a wall than old men who want to get them drunk for anal sex. Which is not to equivocate the two, I fully appreciate it's not an either/or. Just pointing to how shallow the OPs concerns about our youth might be given his own...interests.

He just seems obsessed with starting threads for the sake of it for some reason???

He's started 30 plus threads in the last 3 weeks and rarely sticks around to make any significant contribution to his own thread ........ he'd rather move on to start a new thread .......... is there some Boards related prize for starting x amount of threads?

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

You are absolutely spectacularly clueless as what was said and the law.

Do keep up, I was not talking about what was said in law.... so you have no idea what my level of knowledge about the law is at all.

What I was pointing out was the VAST difference between what the user said (that it was ruled to be a violation of human rights) and what you PRETENDED he said (that they ruled it to be illegal).

But rather than answer that you have decided to invent a comment about my comprehension of something I did not even mention. Weird.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

server down wrote: »

It’s an Asian atheistic state. How the Christian narrative managed to worm its way in there hasn’t been explained either by you or Hitchens.

You will have to show me what definition of "atheism" you are using there then because I have yet to find a single atheist in my own experience who thinks about "eternal" leaders and reincarnations and the like.

As for the Christian narrative..... if you find nothing familiar about an eternal father partially incarnating himself in his own son.... then I can only invite you to revisit the narrative again.

server down wrote: »

That said he never came across as a man who read much.

Which is a comment as ridiculous as saying that Van Morrison never came across as a person who wrote many songs, or David Beckham never came across as someone who ever played much football.

If you are going to make ridiculous comments like that one in other words, you are pretty much disqualifying yourself as being taken even remotely seriously.

server down wrote: »

You have no idea what the phrase being similar to something isn’t something means in general?

In general, I do. In this particular case, I do not. Again do not purposefully make ridiculous comments for effect.

Mr. CooL ICE

Lt Dan wrote: »

<massive wall of text>

Mod: LtDan, you have been warned before about making massive wall of text posts. It's a nightmare for mobile users and, well, who the hell is going to read that?

Keep your points concise or don't post in this thread at all.

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do keep up, I was not talking about what was said in law.... so you have no idea what my level of knowledge about the law is at all.

What I was pointing out was the VAST difference between what the user said (that it was ruled to be a violation of human rights) and what you PRETENDED he said (that they ruled it to be illegal).

But rather than answer that you have decided to invent a comment about my comprehension of something I did not even mention. Weird.

You are have zero knowledge on the law, period. This has been proven. You tried to lecture and correct me on the terms of "in violation" and illegal" and now have looked rather silly. Considering that even if your where correct, and you are not, it is not remotely relevant to what the op said and he is spectacularly wrong, and he had the decency to admit it later.

Like I said, when you want to talk down to people, make sure you have your facts first.

Despite it being spelt out to you, there IS NOT A "VAST DIFFERENCE" ! A declaration of either has the SAME EFFECT from a practical point of view ! If you knew what you were talking about, you would not dare make that stupid comment.

Nice try, now give it up! Have some self respect for yourself. You are trying desperately to have the last word, and trying to sound clever. But the pedantry has blown up in your face big time.

Now, please, stop. The thread was never intended to attract idiots

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

You are have zero knowledge on the law, period.

See since I know that is entirely untrue, and there is no way you could know either way, you are just outing yourself as someone who is more interested in personal ad hominem rather than discussion.

AGAIN however the point I made was not about the law. So what you IMAGINE is my level of knowledge is not even relevant to the point you are now dodging. Again there is a difference between ruling something in violation of the TREATY and ruling it to be ILLEGAL. Learn the difference please.

Ken.

Mod- Lt Dan and Nozzferahhtoo both thread banned.

Also stop dragging yere childish spat around AH and stop using the report post function to try get each other banned. It is getting bloody ridiculous and if ye keep it up ye will both get long bans from AH and be reported to the admins for abusing the report post function which may lead to site ban.

The best thing ye can do right now is put each other on ignore.

Lt Dan

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod- Lt Dan and Nozzferahhtoo both thread banned.

Also stop dragging yere childish spat around AH and stop using the report post function to try get each other banned. It is getting bloody ridiculous and if ye keep it up ye will both get long bans from AH and be reported to the admins for abusing the report post function which may lead to site ban.

The best thing ye can do right now is put each other on ignore.

Since my name got mentioned here, I wish to address an untrue allegation made by you.

"stop[/B] using the report post function to try get each other banned."

Your statement is a lie and unbecoming of a moderator.

At not point did I make any complaint or report against another poster on this thread.

I am not pathetic like that, I have no need to shut people down like that when the weakness of their argument can be addressed with ease.

Prove your allegation or publicly retract and apologies for making that untrue statement .

Ken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOZ3IzRaf4