Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

server down wrote: »

You know so little of history that it would be non-trivial to educate you. I doubt it would change your opinion anyway.

Ah there is one of those cop outs I spoke about above. Where you insult the person as a cover for the fact you are actually dodging answering a simple and direct question about YOUR point.

What makes your dodge even more comical is that I did not even ask you a question about history. Not only am I far from ignorant about it, it was not in any way relevant to what I asked you.

And who asked you to change my opinion? I certainly did not. I asked you for some examples and context to fill out YOUR statement. What is so wrong with that? Why do you even need to dodge it? I do not get it.

But I repeat anyway..... what is this "handbook". What is in it. Give me some examples and some context, rather than some dodge.

Lt Dan

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

server down wrote: »

Most of what passes for anti-clericism in the Irish atheists handbook is regurgitaed anti-Catholicism, like a diluted playbook for ranger's fans, with about that level of historical understanding.

Exactly, forget about the rights and wrongs of Catholicism for one moment. Historically, to pretend that their influence and the influence of other churches/mosques etc in Nations legal and social history is point blank wrong, pigheaded and frankly they are not fit to discuss this topic and it is too far above them.

Even the bloody language that is used , it is clear

Now, if they want to discuss the future, that is different gravy.Some people conflate that though, whether through stupidity (we have gone far beyond it being a mistake) or they are just trolling .

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

Historically, to pretend that their influence and the influence of other churches/mosques etc in Nations legal and social history is point blank wrong, pigheaded and frankly they are not fit to discuss this topic and it is too far above them.

This is another one of your incomplete sentences that seem to make no sense. Is there something missing between "history" and "is point" there?

However I think there is a CHASM of difference between saying they had influence...... which I am not sure anyone else here has actually denied............. and claiming that ALL Basic Human rights were first recognized in/by religion(s).

The latter claim seems to be egregious hyperbole. And your reaction thus far to being asked to substantiate it has been..... illuminating if disproportionate. But substantiate it you certainly have not managed to (attempt to) do thus far.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

LtDan and nozzferrahhtoo, those massive walls of text are horrible for everybody who look at the thread. Please calm down

Lt Dan

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is another one of your incomplete sentences that seem to make no sense. Is there something missing between "history" and "is point" there?

However I think there is a CHASM of difference between saying they had influence...... which I am not sure anyone else here has actually denied............. and claiming that ALL Basic Human rights were first recognized in/by religion(s).

The latter claim seems to be egregious hyperbole. And your reaction thus far to being asked to substantiate it has been..... illuminating if disproportionate. But substantiate it you certainly have not managed to (attempt to) do thus far.

In order for basic human rights to be recongised by society , they will be codified into law.

In order for them to be codified into law, they must be approved of by the ruler or rulers of the land.

Guess who were the rulers of the European lands back in the day?

Guess who drafted the Magna Carta ? Guess who declared themselves the Supreme Lord of many nations in Europe?

Religious leaders, in particular The Pope, dictated the fate of many a king. Until one lad from Germany told him to take a jump, Pope more or less did and said what he wanted. Of course the German lad was not altogether that different , Kings then became leaders of their nice new churches and continued to do the same as the Pope.

The teachings of principles that religious orders adopted (because, hey, not every thought is original) influenced many other lay leaders in the future

Guess where the Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life aka right to life comes from? One of them commandments, guess which one

You lost the argument. Now please stop.

The_Valeyard

This thread is giving me thumb cancer.

I muted Nozzzzz posts a few months back, so I dont see them, but Dan appears to trying to get the No.1 spot of long posts.

Ken.

Mod- there is a warning above about the walls of text. Thread bans will follow if it happens again.

Lt Dan

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

The_Valeyard wrote: »

This thread is giving me thumb cancer.

I muted Nozzzzz posts a few months back, so I dont see them, but Dan appears to trying to get the No.1 spot of long posts.

I am simply addressing everything, which I am being accused of failing to do . Don't worry Valeyard, I will have more respect for your eyes and thumb in the future. I promise. xxx. Thank you for bringing that you my attention. I will heed the errors of my ways.

Seriously though, what are you doing with your thumb? I hope it is in private

DEFTLEFTHAND

server down wrote: »

Most of what passes for anti-clericism in the Irish atheists handbook is regurgitaed anti-Catholicism, like a diluted playbook for ranger's fans, with about that level of historical understanding.

Reminds me somewhat of the self hating jew phenomenon. Confirmed catholics bashing their own people.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

In order for basic human rights to be recongised<snip>Guess who were the rulers

You did not answer the question about missing words in your sentence. Not being petty here, but I genuinely can not parse the sentence until you fix it.

This is still not answering the question I've asked many times. That people who signed off on laws were also religious is not what I questioned. But that ALL basic rights were first recognized by religion.

If you essentially dilute the claim to "They were first codified into law by people who also were religious" then that certainly is a less hyperbolic claim, and one that warrants much less substantiation.

Lt Dan wrote: »

You lost the argument. Now please stop.

A back pedal / dilution of your original assertion is not my loss by any means.

valoren

I think Physicist Paul Dirac's quote about the ongoing teaching of religion sums it up for me;

If we are honest — and scientists have to be — we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards — in heaven if not on earth — all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

Comment made at the 1927 Solvay Conference.

Lt Dan

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

kylith wrote: »

Right, so in your mind 'freedom of religion' means freedom for everyone else to be educated in your religion?

Actually, the head of ET has said that they are having to turn away non-catholics, who then have to attend Catholic schools, because they are oversubscribed with Catholic children, and that since, unlike Catholic schools, they have a non-discrimination policy they won't turn them away. Going by that it seems that there are an awful lot of Catholic parents who want secular education for their children.

Bunreaht ha hÉireann:

Article 40 on Fundamental Rights

"1° the state guarantees in its laws to respect, and,
as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and
vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

Note the bold part .

On Religion

1 the state acknowledges that the homage of
public worship is due to almighty God. it shall
hold his name in reverence, and shall respect and
honour religion.

2 1° freedom of conscience and the free profession
and practice of religion are, subject to public
order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

2° the state guarantees not to endow any
religion.

3° the state shall not impose any disabilities or
make any discrimination on the ground of
religious profession, belief or status.

Obviously, the bold bit here, deals with nut jobs like Scientologists.

There is absolutely nothing from stopping parents who oppose Catholicism from setting up their own schools and then seeking to get State funds. The children can also be taught at home, so long as they meet the State requirements.

Ruairi Quinn offered a solution, not enough parents took it up.

Article 42 Education

the state acknowledges that the primary and
natural educator of the child is the family and

guarantees to respect the inalienable right and
duty of parents to provide, according to their
means, for the religious and moral, intellectual,
physical and social education of their children.
2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in
their homes or in private schools or in schools
recognised or established by the state.
3 1° the state shall not oblige parents in violation
of their conscience and lawful preference to send
their children to schools established by the state,
or to any particular type of school designated by
the state.
2° the state shall, however, as guardian of the
common good, require in view of actual conditions
that the children receive a certain minimum
education, moral, intellectual and social.
4 the state shall provide for free primary education
and shall endeavour to supplement and give
reasonable aid to private and corporate
educational initiative, and, when the public good
requires it, provide other educational facilities or
institutions with due regard, however, for the
rights of parents, especially in the matter of
religious and moral formation.

article 42a
1 the state recognises and affirms the natural and
imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as
far as practicable, by its laws protect and
vindicate those rights.

Article 9 of ECHR

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief
and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public
or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to
such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection
of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.

No one stopping the non Catholics from getting their education elsewhere.

The Educate together schools are growing

If sending little Tommy to a bordering school in another county eg Clongowes, was good enough for John and Mary ...................... surely sending the child to an Educate Together school that is no more than 20 -30 miles away is hardly a huge issue

Lt Dan

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You did not answer the question about missing words in your sentence. Not being petty here, but I genuinely can not parse the sentence until you fix it.

This is still not answering the question I've asked many times. That people who signed off on laws were also religious is not what I questioned. But that ALL basic rights were first recognized by religion.

If you essentially dilute the claim to "They were first codified into law by people who also were religious" then that certainly is a less hyperbolic claim, and one that warrants much less substantiation.



A back pedal / dilution of your original assertion is not my loss by any means.

I have answered your questions

There has been no back peddling. No dodging.

When you discover the gift of comprehension, then you will understand what has been said and why. Until then, give this discussion a miss, you are not fit to be involved.

Your lies, b.s., sectarian bigotry has been entertained for far too long. You ought to be grateful that you are being responded to. You don't deserve to be treated with respect or responded to.

You want to deny basic common historical facts go ahead, but you have no right to be taken seriously and you will not be taken seriously

The discussion goes no where, and your argument /challenge fails big time , when you refuse to acknowledge who were the power leaders and instigators of legal and social development in Europe in the past (IE THE RECOGNITION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS -WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR - because, you reject the examples given of when it was first mentioned ). It is convenient, because, to do so, undermines your challenge/argument

Apparently Magna Carta and the drafters means nothing to you (mentioned more than 3 occasions) , which is odd considering what legislative developments came next

How convenient that you have nothing to say about your armchair analysis of thou shall not kill/murder and the pointing out that the RC doctrine of sanctity of life (aka Right to Life) undisputedly comes for that Commandment . Very silent there.

You are trolling.

optogirl

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Reminds me somewhat of the self hating jew phenomenon. Confirmed catholics bashing their own people.

I am a confirmed Catholic who has since left however that 'confirmation' was not a choice - it was enforced upon me along with baptism & communion & education. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to sign an infant up to a club - especially one with such a questionable history & the many glaring hyprocrasies within it. My own children were not signed up - they can make that decision for themselves when they have access to all the information. The RCC is not 'my own'. Infact I'm angry that I was ever a part of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

I have answered your questions

I am not sure you have answered the question at all, as to what the basic human rights are (in your mind) and how you come to claim that they were recognized first in religion. But you have diluted that claim into a back pedal, which was my initial aim as it happens, to one about it being codifed into law by people who were religious.

The new claim, different from the old, is not one I have an issue with. Historically MOST people were religious and often were compelled to pretend to be if they were not. So MOST things in history were done by the religious. Plucking Chickens. Building Schools. Codifying laws.

I have also asked you however to show a statement I made that was bigoted. You have not done that either. So how you can claim to have answered my questions, when so many of them hang there unanswered, while accusing others of lies, is a mystery to me.

I am also not "being silent" on the issue at all. My long post is still there with all the content on it. If you wish to ask me a question about that post which you have not replied to, then by all means do and I will elaborate further on whatever it is you think I have not yet said.

kylith

Lt Dan wrote: »

If sending little Tommy to a bordering school in another county eg Clongowes, was good enough for John and Mary ...................... surely sending the child to an Educate Together school that is no more than 20 -30 miles away is hardly a huge issue

I am not aware of any ET boarding schools, or are you actually suggesting that parents drive up to 120 miles a day in order for their child not to receive religious education in school?

And, sure if driving 120 miles a day is 'hardly a huge issue' then cracking open a bible with your child in the evening and driving them 5 minutes to your local church for instruction a couple of times a week should be no issue whatsoever.

Lt Dan

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure you have answered the question at all, as to what the basic human rights are (in your mind) and how you come to claim that they were recognized first in religion. But you have diluted that claim into a back pedal, which was my initial aim as it happens, to one about it being codifed into law by people who were religious.

The new claim, different from the old, is not one I have an issue with. Historically MOST people were religious and often were compelled to pretend to be if they were not. So MOST things in history were done by the religious. Plucking Chickens. Building Schools. Codifying laws.

I have also asked you however to show a statement I made that was bigoted. You have not done that either. So how you can claim to have answered my questions, when so many of them hang there unanswered, while accusing others of lies, is a mystery to me.

I am also not "being silent" on the issue at all. My long post is still there with all the content on it. If you wish to ask me a question about that post which you have not replied to, then by all means do and I will elaborate further on whatever it is you think I have not yet said.

You are sure or you are not sure. Which?

I have stated on at least three occasions: The right to life, the right to family, the right not to be tortured or receive ill human and degrading treatment, the right to liberty , they right to due process and speedy Trial (that last two found in Magna Carta) the right to free speech (this was recognized in the 1620's Bill of Rights , but in the context of Parliament) and conscience , Right to property, right to religion (linked with conscience , again religion , a starting point is Magna Carta )

Other ones, were later acknowledge like right to good name (but, thou shall not bear false witnesses can be an influence, church boys can't take credit )


So you are wrong, again.

"and how you come to claim that they were recognized first in religion."

They were the people making the rules in society back then, they were the ones lobbying Kings and acting as advisors.........You deny the power of a Pope like Pope Innocent III?

I can't talk about the Middle East or Egypt as my knowledge on history and the legal system is pretty non existent (they were the first groups to come up with the ideas most of the time) , I clearly stuck with Europe, which, was the center of the world anyway lol

Sure, the theory is that these laws are already there, already obvious, not really discovered, but, bull, they are not plucked out of thin air. The rights are irrelevant if they are not recognized and respected . The greatest way to recognise something in law is to make it part of the laws, whether by judgment or by codifying it through statute


You have NOT addressed the rebuttal regarding Thou Shall not Murder-Kill vs Right to Life. You just came out with some smug waffle in response to it being pointed out to you that murder is killing. You got very jumped up about the rhetorical questions put to you as to what it meant and to who, in practice, it protects. You did not address the point that Thou Shall Not Kill is central to the RC doctrine on the right to sanctity aka Right to Life.

The tone of your statements is clear for all to see. Do not pretend for one millisecond that you believe that the religious beliefs are inferior to your views and you do not possess any hatred .You can dislike or disagree with the teachings all you want, you won't be the only person (me including) but don't embarrass yourself into thinking that religious groups did not play a major role in the laws , customs and social matters in Europe, which includes the development of human rights. Whether they practiced what they preached (they did not) is another matter.

McTigs

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lorenzo Clever Chinchilla wrote: »

Or they can pull the building from use and the state will have to build schools or else agree to continue allowing the church owned schools to be catholic ethos schools.

Those buildings should be seized by the state to cover the taxpayers burden due to the church's woefully inadaquate compensation of the victims of their abuse

Lt Dan

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

kylith wrote: »

I am not aware of any ET boarding schools, or are you actually suggesting that parents drive up to 120 miles a day in order for their child not to receive religious education in school?

And, sure if driving 120 miles a day is 'hardly a huge issue' then cracking open a bible with your child in the evening and driving them 5 minutes to your local church for instruction a couple of times a week should be no issue whatsoever.

Nice try

The reason for the comparison was because the usual whinging from parents about where the ET schools are, they can be miles away. Fair complaint but not justifiable

I do not think that there is any boarding schools.

But, the comparison was to do with the distance of the nearest ET school.
The Boarding school comparison, to any one with cop on , was , if those parents are prepared to not let distance be an issue, then the other parents who have a secular school, should let it be an issue (plenty of bus companies around)

120 miles a day, 60 each way?

This is a rough map of the primary and secondary schools in Ireland
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1EJwizQ-nIqe-Aokcnacgm-O70T0&ll=53.39859886655539%2C-8.296775386718764&z=6

3 in the midlands (Mullingar, Tullamore, Portlaoise) were it would be no more than 40 miles each way to serve the areas in between ., out to Athlone, up to Roscommon Town over to Longford

Tuam,like St Jarlaths, would cover much of North East Galway, where they populations are low ,and no more than 1 hour to get to . Galway city is well catered

You have zero excuse in Dublin, Dublin County and Kildare and parts of Meath . Navan, Ardee and Drogheda cover that region

There will not be travelling 120 miles a day!

Schools in Athlone, receive students from North of Roscommon Town (despite schools being there) most of Roscommon South, some in Ballymahon, even the odd close to Tullamore/Ferbane (despite good schools being there) and a good chunk from the Ballinasloe area (despite good schools there) . Fair bit of mileage to go to secondary school? Na, 1 hour


Kerry, Donegal and West Cork is the only real problem (hardly the most liberal counties are they?), with only Tralee .Parts of Tipp as well, but they are not far from Limerick time wise. Mayo has problems (odd, considering so many refugees stay there) Sligo can cater for North Roscommon and Leitrim (more sheep there)

Sure, you will rightly point out , what if they are full up? Well, that ensures high demand , doesn't it? Give the State the direction to address it (I know, it takes decades for those feckers to do anything)

Ruairi Quinn offered a solution, it was not taken up

Right now, the distance is not really the only issue, is it?

Lt Dan

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

McTigs wrote: »

Those buildings should be seized by the state to cover the taxpayers burden due to the church's woefully inadaquate compensation of the victims of their abuse

Thankfully, there are property laws on that.

Could you imagine a government surviving that stunt?

Even if it was popular, on principle, no substantial property owner could possible allow or agree to it as it sets precedent

Talk about Henry VIII style (That would be the propaganda)

The Government of the Day is solely responsible for the woefully inadequate compo scheme. They entered contracts. Look up Dr Michael Woods , around 2002ish. Blame the Government .

kylith

Lt Dan wrote: »

Nice try

The reason for the comparison was because the usual whinging from parents about where the ET schools are, they can be miles away. Fair complaint but not justifiable

I do not think that there is any boarding schools.

But, the comparison was to do with the distance of the nearest ET school.
The Boarding school comparison, to any one with cop on , was , if those parents are prepared to not let distance be an issue, then the other parents who have a secular school, should let it be an issue (plenty of bus companies around)

120 miles a day, 60 each way?

This is a rough map of the primary and secondary schools in Ireland
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1EJwizQ-nIqe-Aokcnacgm-O70T0&ll=53.39859886655539%2C-8.296775386718764&z=6

3 in the midlands (Mullingar, Tullamore, Portlaoise) were it would be no more than 40 miles each way to serve the areas in between ., out to Athlone, up to Roscommon Town over to Longford

Tuam,like St Jarlaths, would cover much of North East Galway, where they populations are low ,and no more than 1 hour to get to . Galway city is well catered

You have zero excuse in Dublin, Dublin County and Kildare and parts of Meath . Navan, Ardee and Drogheda cover that region

There will not be travelling 120 miles a day!

Schools in Athlone, receive students from North of Roscommon Town (despite schools being there) most of Roscommon South, some in Ballymahon, even the odd close to Tullamore/Ferbane (despite good schools being there) and a good chunk from the Ballinasloe area (despite good schools there) . Fair bit of mileage to go to secondary school? Na, 1 hour


Kerry, Donegal and West Cork is the only real problem (hardly the most liberal counties are they?), with only Tralee .Parts of Tipp as well, but they are not far from Limerick time wise. Mayo has problems (odd, considering so many refugees stay there) Sligo can cater for North Roscommon and Leitrim (more sheep there)

Sure, you will rightly point out , what if they are full up? Well, that ensures high demand , doesn't it? Give the State the direction to address it (I know, it takes decades for those feckers to do anything)

Ruairi Quinn offered a solution, it was not taken up

Right now, the distance is not really the only issue, is it?

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?

A Little Pony

500 years since the reformation. Think this is important to mention.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

You are sure or you are not sure. Which?

Again you have listed some, but not shown they were recognized first in religion. You just diluted the claim to it being codified in law by people who were religious.

There is a HUGE difference between "The religious first put it into law" and "It was first recognized by/in religion". The former statement I (mostly) agree with. The latter is unsubstantiated nonsense.

The difference still exists between thou shalt not murder and kill. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. Admonishing people not to murder is about their right to take a life, not the other persons right to have one.

As for any "hatred" you want to imagine on my behalf, that is all it is. Imagination. You have not shown one statement of mine that is bigoted. Nor, I suspect, will/can you.

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. /QUOTE]

I want you to answer these questions.

2 hours? 120km? Where?

The map has been produced to show where the ET schools are. You ignore that, conveniently .

Offer 10 towns/villages/townlands, AND their population, for examples that would require to travel 60 km each way. to get to a ET school or to another non Catholic School.

It won't be the Midlands, it won't be Dublin County or Kildare or Meath, or parts of Louth , It won't be East Galway, It won't be Galway City, Limerick City

You suggesting that all parents personally drive their children to school? Don't thinks so. Depending where you are , there is public transport (that won't work in many rural areas)

Until you have a majority of parents , in a an area, signing from the same hymn sheet regarding the kind of school that they want, which you do not have at this time, you can not have your bread buttered both ways.

You keep ignoring that Ruiairi Quinn's project failed, for now.

The excuses are not acceptable. If the parent care that much , the distance won't be a problem (and for many, it won't even be 60 km round trip) , after all, it is the parent's choice and their decision to enforce their views that Catholicism and the schools are wrong (perfectly entitled to hold that view) on the children

They can always send them to Church of Ireland schools or other religion basis schools that don't have the same emphasis on religion or "indoctrination" alleged about RC schools.

kylith wrote: »

You still haven't given a decent answer, though: If you think that a 2 hour daily commute is ok for non-Catholics

You point out the towns /village/townlands where one would have to travel that far .

If they are the minority , it is NOT IDEAL, but, tough. State is only Constitutionally required to do what is practicable regarding people's religious beliefs. Ruiairi Quinn offered a solution, why was it not taken up in droves? (has anyone got a genuine explanation for that? Was it flawed?)

It is really that easy, campaign in your area and talk to parents about the divestment of the schools and seek to get the Church out of the schools,; join the parent committees and strive for change in the school of their ethos.

DO NOT BE SITTING HERE, EVERY FEW MONTHS MOANING ABOUT IT. Credit if you are actually doing something about it

kylith wrote: »

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?

You said it was a hassle?


Why should the majority pander to the minority?

You and your people have , so far, failed to muster up enough people to see your way and seek changes in the schools. Why aren't ye getting enough numbers to seriously show a demand for a certain type of school and seeking the State to assist?

Loads of newly built and newly refurbished schools around lately, why are many still RC schools?

Perhaps getting out there on knocking on doors would be more proactive than the bi monthly whinge on a social media forum?

Lt Dan

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you have listed some, but not shown they were recognized first in religion. You just diluted the claim to it being codified in law by people who were religious.

There is a HUGE difference between "The religious first put it into law" and "It was first recognized by/in religion". The former statement I (mostly) agree with. The latter is unsubstantiated nonsense.

The difference still exists between thou shalt not murder and kill. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. Admonishing people not to murder is about their right to take a life, not the other persons right to have one.

As for any "hatred" you want to imagine on my behalf, that is all it is. Imagination. You have not shown one statement of mine that is bigoted. Nor, I suspect, will/can you.

It is crystal clear that you are clueless as to how many Human Rights would be considered the BASIC Foundation of Human Rights.

Have a count as to how many are contained in the ECHR

Take your failures elsewhere.

Right to Life (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

Right to Fair Trail aka DUE PROCESS (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

Right to Liberty (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

Probation of Torture /ill humane degrading treatment MENTIONED AND SOURCES COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

No Punishment without law is closely related to due process and Liberty

Right to Family (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES - Christ they talk nothing but family )

Right to Marry is closely related to Family

Freedom of Expression (Related to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Speech was mentioned and sourced )

Freedom of Religion, Conscience and thought (RELIGION WAS MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)



There is the right of Assembly but I don't claim that, nor did I ever. Same with Effective Remedies that is a more recent one (ie last century), like wise prohibition of discrimination (hardly, Spanish Inquisition and all , again loads of those canons about them Jews )


You just don't get it, it pains you, it utterly rips you apart that religious principles and figures played a key influence in Europeans first attempts of codification of laws and rules

You attacked me when I offered the 10 Commandments, by saying that you did not ask for the first time that it was mentioned. Then I offered you three sources of biblical works and made reference to the Council of Trent as examples of recognition by religion, and you ignored that. And we haven't even touched on the amount of Canons written over the last 700 years

Now, bitching about these principles being codified into European laws by LEADERS OF RELIGION? FFS.




Diluted NOTHING , absolutely NOTHING. Your problem is you refuse to make any effort to comprehend and you hate it!

solodeogloria

Good evening!

kylith wrote: »

Do you teach them the bible is fact, or do you give them all the information for and against the existence of deities and encourage them to come to their own conclusions? If a kid maintained that they did not see enough evidence of a deity to accept that they were real what would you do/say?

We teach them about what Christians believe on a number of different issues. We trust that they are learning about other worldviews in their classes at school.

We share a Christian perspective with these children with the express consent of their parents in a safe environment. Their parents bring them because they want their children to learn about Jesus. The church gives me permission to do this precisely because this is what I'm doing and the Church of England at a diocesan level and at a national level give their undivided support to this.

I personally don't feel I deserve to be prosecuted for doing the right thing both on Wednesdays and on Sundays.

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?

I am sympathetic to secular schooling but I feel that you're being inconsistent. Should churches be free to teach children about Jesus? To put the time into perspective. The time we spend on Wednesday is 1 hour 45 in total and we spend 30 mins discussing something from the Bible in a relatively interactive way.

I'd really appreciate it if someone could answer the questions in my original post since you're speaking about something that would have an impact on my life if I chose to return to Ireland. This isn't an abstract question for me.

What would the proposed penalty be for teaching about Jesus?

solodeogloria wrote: »

As someone who could potentially be prosecuted under what you're proposing I've naturally got a few questions.

Firstly, what constitutes indoctrination? - This is an important question. I have some sympathy for the idea that schools should be secular in nature and that parents should be free to teach their own children at home, or as a part of church activities. The latter is where I come in. I'll explain more in a moment.

Secondly, what is inherently wrong about sharing with children about Jesus and enabling them to think for themselves? - That's what I do at an evangelical church in London suburbia. Every Wednesday evening I help run a Christian group at our church for 11-14 year olds and on a lot of Sunday mornings. I do this for two reasons which are linked - both because I love our kids and I want to be a part of our church family in that way but also because I want to share with them about Jesus and how He can change our lives forever by making us right with God. I want to share with them about that because I believe that's the most important thing they should know. This is run on the clear consent of parents and pretty much every kid there wants to be there, both to have fun and to hear about God's word. They know that's what's involved. Not everyone fully trusts in Jesus for themselves, many are working it through, but the team of 6 that I serve with are there if anyone has any questions or if they want to know how to take it further. All members on our youth and families teams have been vetted by the police and child safety is held to the highest regard. Is it just wrong because you think that Christianity is wrong? Or is it wrong for some other reason?

Should I be in jail according to the original post on the thread?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Grayson

Lt Dan wrote: »

It is crystal clear that you are clueless as to how many Human Rights would be considered the BASIC Foundation of Human Rights.

Have a count as to how many are contained in the ECHR

Take your failures elsewhere.

Right to Life (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

Right to Fair Trail aka DUE PROCESS (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

Right to Liberty (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

Probation of Torture /ill humane degrading treatment MENTIONED AND SOURCES COUNTLESS OF TIMES)

No Punishment without law is closely related to due process and Liberty

Right to Family (MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES - Christ they talk nothing but family )

Right to Marry is closely related to Family

Freedom of Expression (Related to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Speech was mentioned and sourced )

Freedom of Religion, Conscience and thought (RELIGION WAS MENTIONED AND SOURCED COUNTLESS OF TIMES)



There is the right of Assembly but I don't claim that, nor did I ever. Same with Effective Remedies that is a more recent one (ie last century), like wise prohibition of discrimination (hardly, Spanish Inquisition and all , again loads of those canons about them Jews )


You just don't get it, it pains you, it utterly rips you apart that religious principles and figures played a key influence in Europeans first attempts of codification of laws and rules

You attacked me when I offered the 10 Commandments, by saying that you did not ask for the first time that it was mentioned. Then I offered you three sources of biblical works and made reference to the Council of Trent as examples of recognition by religion, and you ignored that. And we haven't even touched on the amount of Canons written over the last 700 years

Now, bitching about these principles being codified into European laws by LEADERS OF RELIGION? FFS.




Diluted NOTHING , absolutely NOTHING. Your problem is you refuse to make any effort to comprehend and you hate it!

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

Take your failures elsewhere.

The only failure here is to substantiate the original assertion. You have listed some rights and places where they are mentioned. You have NOT listed any evidence they were "discovered first" in religion.

You have however back pedaled the claim back into a more dilute one which I think is less hyperbolic nonsense, that of religious people codifying said rights into law. Which is a much different claim. One I even agree with mostly.

As for the 10 commandments, that is the same fail. You are listing places this right or that right have been mentioned. But AGAIN nothing to show it was the FIRST place. You are not answering what is actually being asked.

And I stlll await you quoting a SINGLE statement from me that was bigoted. You have failed to do that too. Instead you keep making up emotions for me on my behalf that I have neither felt or expressed. Deflection I guess.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

You have zero excuse in Dublin, Dublin County

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?

Lt Dan

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

optogirl wrote: »

I am a confirmed Catholic who has since left however that 'confirmation' was not a choice - it was enforced upon me along with baptism & communion & education. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to sign an infant up to a club - especially one with such a questionable history & the many glaring hyprocrasies within it. My own children were not signed up - they can make that decision for themselves when they have access to all the information. The RCC is not 'my own'. Infact I'm angry that I was ever a part of it.

Take it up with your parents, either way, the State can not and will not interfere