Church and School

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then isn't it great that I am proposing a system that DOES acknowledge the importance of religion to people who are religious. Yay me.

Clearly it doesn't adequately at all acknowledge the importance of religion to people who are religious, and given that you aren't religious yourself, it's understandable why you would still in spite of being told that it doesn't, insist that it does.

If nothing else anyway at least I appreciate the fact that your self-congratulation did give me a chuckle, shows at least you have a sense of humour!

Estrellita

waterfaerie wrote: »

That says it all, really. There's no point in trying to communicate with people who think like you.

What a load of bloody tripe. I don't agree with you, so now there's 'no communicating' with me. How manipulative and impossibly self important of you.

MadDog76

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By your definition, that means that 78% of the population is athiest.

I identify as a Catholic ..... I don't think that athiests actively participate in Catholic activities as myself and my family do?
Or maybe they do?? You tell me ......

MadDog76

waterfaerie wrote: »

Firstly, as has been pointed out numerous times, that figure is a load of nonsense. It's bad enough being discriminated against by religious zealots without also being discriminated against because there are so many people who don't even believe in the whole thing but like to casually "identify" as catholic.

Secondly, even if 78% of the population truly were devout catholics, what about the other 22%? Do they not matter? Should they not exist or be taken into consideration at all?

I suppose it's a fundamental problem with democracy. If the majority are deluded and want something abhorrent, the minority have to just suck it up.

The fact remains that when 78% of the population were given the option to tick whatever box they wanted they still chose to tick Catholic ..... they did so of their own free will in their own homes without the local Parish Priest holding a loaded gun to their head.
Like it or not, that is a significantly impressive percentage ..... any "changes" you want are a long long way off.

DEFTLEFTHAND

MadDog76 wrote: »

The fact remains that when 78% of the population were given the option to tick whatever box they wanted they still chose to tick Catholic ..... they did so of their own free will in their own homes without the local Parish Priest holding a loaded gun to their head.
Like it or not, that is a significantly impressive percentage ..... any "changes" you want are a long long way off.

I suppose there's a large cultural aspect to it also. This country has a rich Christian history and heritage.

Also for anyone Confirmed into the Catholic Church it becomes part of what you are. You become a full made member for life, whether you like it or not.

This is why I would support the Sacrament of Confirmation not being carried out until the prospective member is of an age (lets say 18) to make a conscious and informed decision on the matter.

Either to join or to walk away.

Pithythefool

If you don't want to send your child to a Christian school, don't.

If you don't have the choice of school you want, move.

If you cant get employment in a different area, change.

In other words, stop expecting a "majority" to bend to your "minority" beliefs.

Be the change you want, don't force/expect others to change if they don't want to.

Simple solution that can be applied to so many things in life. The opposite stance is merely childish.

waterfaerie

Estrellita wrote: »

What a load of bloody tripe. I don't agree with you, so now there's 'no communicating' with me. How manipulative and impossibly self important of you.

If you read the post I originally quoted again you will see that it's nothing to do with the fact that you disagree with me. I think you very well know that, which points towards you being the "manipulative" one by misrepresenting why I said what I did.

I will quote it again here, just to be clear. You suggested that the OP shouldn't have his kids in a catholic school and when I pointed out that many people have no choice in the matter you said:

Estrellita wrote: »

Not my problem, quite frankly.

It's not my problem either because I intend to homeschool anyway but it is a huge problem in our country and anyone who's not completely selfish would care about that.

You clearly don't care about the lives of others as long as you're happy. I like how you think I'm the self important one!

Anyway, you've just proven my point so I will stand by what I said and politely decline further communication with you.

byhookorbycrook

nice_guy80 wrote: »

most school buildings were funded by the state

Actually, that's untrue, historically.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Clearly it doesn't adequately at all acknowledge the importance of religion to people who are religious

You are back pedaling now quite a bit. First you claimed that *I* do not understand that, when in fact I do.

Then you back peddled that to my proposed system fails to acknowledge it, when in fact it does.

And now you are just claiming it does not acknowledge it adequately enough.

If we keep making progress at this rate you will get it by midnight.

The mistake I think you are making is in thinking that because I / my proposals do not acknowledge "the importance of religion to people who are religious" in the way YOU do, that it must not be enough.

But no having a difference in how our concerns for the importance of religion to people manifest in what we say and do, does not mean that you or I have a greater concern for it than the other. You just want to pretend it does, so you can allocate an attribute to me that simply does not fit.

I am more than aware of how important religion is to many people. And my system and proposals acknowledge it entirely.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and given that you aren't religious yourself, it's understandable why you would still in spite of being told that it doesn't, insist that it does.

Ah the old "Because you are not like me, you can not understand me" move. I have had that move pulled at least once on just about every topic I speak on at some point. You even tried it, and it failed then too, on the topic of homelessness. But a "move" is all it is. And an empty one at that. There is no indication AT ALL that I need to be religious in order to understand a shred of your espousal here.

byhookorbycrook

Ok, once more for those of you not listening down the back. ET schools are multi-denom NOT non-denom. There are only a handful of non-denoms in Ireland and they generally don't fall under the remit of the DES.
As to being "paid" to teach religions- either faith formation or about religions, teachers aren't. The half an hour a day notionally given to this was actually taken from the traditional " lunch hour."So teachers actually work for free for that time.

end of the road

Pithythefool wrote: »

If you don't want to send your child to a Christian school, don't.

If you don't have the choice of school you want, move.

If you cant get employment in a different area, change.

no . those are not viable, and it's not people's job to do those to support, at their expence, religious discrimination, and your wish to use and disrespect a religion for your own convenience.

Pithythefool wrote: »

In other words, stop expecting a "majority" to bend to your "minority" beliefs.

no . people have a right to expect religious discrimination to be removed from schools, and not to have to fund people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience. removing religious discrimination from schools means the beliefs of the majority aren't being bended to suit a minority, as the majority are not catholic, not believeing in the religion.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Be the change you want, don't force/expect others to change if they don't want to.

agreed. so lets remove religious discrimination from publically funded schools. if i'm to fund schools, i have a right to expect that those schools are fully inclusive to all children, and provide an education of a high standard that insure those children can go as far as possible. religion and religious discrimination does not fit that standard of education.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Simple solution that can be applied to so many things in life. The opposite stance is merely childish.

it's not a simple solution, but a selfish solution wanted so people can keep up an appearance for their own convenience. when it involves discrimination, especially against children, then people have a right to insure such nonsense is stamped out.
if you want the status quo to remain, you support religious discrimination against children. whether you wish to face that fact or not is up to you, but it's reality and it's not going to change.
the good news is religious discrimination will be removed from schools at some stage, and the fo/alacart catholics will have to suck it up. no more will this country pander to people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience.

Pithythefool

end of the road wrote: »

no . those are not viable, and it's not people's job to do those to support, at their expence, religious discrimination, and your wish to use and disrespect a religion for your own convenience.



no . people have a right to expect religious discrimination to be removed from schools, and not to have to fund people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience. removing religious discrimination from schools means the beliefs of the majority aren't being bended to suit a minority, as the majority are not catholic, not believeing in the religion.



agreed. so lets remove religious discrimination from publically funded schools. if i'm to fund schools, i have a right to expect that those schools are fully inclusive to all children, and provide an education of a high standard that insure those children can go as far as possible. religion and religious discrimination does not fit that standard of education.



it's not a simple solution, but a selfish solution wanted so people can keep up an appearance for their own convenience. when it involves discrimination, especially against children, then people have a right to insure such nonsense is stamped out.
if you want the status quo to remain, you support religious discrimination against children. whether you wish to face that fact or not is up to you, but it's reality and it's not going to change.
the good news is religious discrimination will be removed from schools at some stage, and the fo/alacart catholics will have to suck it up. no more will this country pander to people's use and disrespect of a religion for their convenience.

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

And again, the simple solution is to go where you can be with others who think like you. Life would be easier for everyone that way. Like, you know, the way you pal around with people you actually like, as opposed to people you don't like.

bodice ripper

Tell your kids to attend, but to sit there coughing "bollox" occasionally.

Candamir

Pithythefool wrote: »

If you don't want to send your child to a Christian school, don't.

If you don't have the choice of school you want, move.

If you cant get employment in a different area, change.

In other words, stop expecting a "majority" to bend to your "minority" beliefs.

Be the change you want, don't force/expect others to change if they don't want to.

Simple solution that can be applied to so many things in life. The opposite stance is merely childish.

So you would force a person (and their child) out of their home, their community, their job, and their career even though their taxes are paying for education in the local schools?. Very Christian. And not a very simple solution at all.

end of the road

Pithythefool wrote: »

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

And again, the simple solution is to go where you can be with others who think like you. Life would be easier for everyone that way. Like, you know, the way you pal around with people you actually like, as opposed to people you don't like.

it's not as i'm not in a minority, and i'm entitled to expect people to tell the truth on the census form. the reality is the majority of people are not catholic. putting it down on the census form doesn't make someone catholic. the simple solution is to force the removal of religion from publically funded services, a religion a minority actually believe in.
your nonsense comparison to people i like and don't like is beyond laughable.
i will get what i want, it's going to take time i know, but it is going to happen. as much as it doesn't effect me personally, not having children, i know removing religion and religious discrimination from schools is the right thing to do.

Pithythefool

bodice ripper wrote: »

Tell your kids to attend, but to sit there coughing "bollox" occasionally.

Or go to another school with likeminded parents and pat each other on the back constantly. You know, leaving the contrarian mindset behind you and being around people you actually enjoy being around.

If there aren't enough of you, invade some island and start a commune.

Pithythefool

end of the road wrote: »

it's not as i'm not in a minority, and i'm entitled to expect people to tell the truth on the census form. the reality is the majority of people are not catholic. putting it down on the census form doesn't make someone catholic. the simple solution is to force the removal of religion from publically funded services, a religion a minority actually believe in.
your nonsense comparison to people i like and don't like is beyond laughable.
i will get what i want, it's going to take time i know, but it is going to happen. as much as it doesn't effect me personally, not having children, i know removing religion and religious discrimination from schools is the right thing to do.

Don't confuse not being in a minority with being extremely loud, don't confuse statistics with what you "imagine" the REAL truth to be.

As for the bolded....a real insight into the childish, contrarian attitude.

end of the road

Pithythefool wrote: »

Or go to another school with likeminded parents and pat each other on the back constantly. You know, leaving the contrarian mindset behind you and being around people you actually enjoy being around.

or remove religion from schools, as those who are genuinely religious are in a minority anyway.

Pithythefool wrote: »

If there aren't enough of you, invade some island and start a commune.

no need. religion will be removed from schools eventually.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Don't confuse not being in a minority with being extremely loud, don't confuse statistics with what you "imagine" the REAL truth to be.

As for the bolded....a real insight into the childish, contrarian attitude.

i'm not confusing anything. i know the real truth and people will eventually face it themselves.

waterfaerie

Pithythefool wrote: »

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

And your attitude is more along the lines of "I'm in the majority, the way things are suits me, so let the minority continue to suffer", despite the fact that the alternative solution would involve nobody suffering.

By catering to the needs of what you have decided is a "minority", it would actually be better for everyone. I don't see what would be so bad for you. What is it you're afraid of losing? Do you seriously think having secular education would impact on you to the same extent that the current situation impacts on non catholics?

Pithythefool

end of the road wrote: »

or remove religion from schools, as those who are genuinely religious are in a minority anyway.



no need. religion will be removed from schools eventually.



i'm not confusing anything. i know the real truth and people will eventually face it themselves.

Nah, youre definitely confused.

Heres the likely scenario: you'll bitch and moan and rant, and some people will cave into appeasing you just to not listen to you and your like anymore. Most wont.

You'll die, having lived a life of "activism" that just brought you in contact with a lot of people who you don't like, and don't like you......seems like a waste of time, no? Enjoy your life with people like you, not unlike you.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

...the simple solution is to force the removal of religion from publically funded services, a religion a minority actually believe in.
your nonsense comparison to people i like and don't like is beyond laughable.
i will get what i want, it's going to take time i know, but it is going to happen. as much as it doesn't effect me personally, not having children, i know removing religion and religious discrimination from schools is the right thing to do.

How much more will you pay in taxes to fund the wholesale building of new schools on property that was not provided by the Church?

Pithythefool

waterfaerie wrote: »

And your attitude is more along the lines of "I'm in the majority, the way things are suits me, so let the minority continue to suffer", despite the fact that the alternative solution would involve nobody suffering.

By catering to the needs of what you have decided is a "minority", it would actually be better for everyone. I don't see what would be so bad for you. What is it you're afraid of losing? Do you seriously think having secular education would impact on you to the same extent that the current situation impacts on non catholics?

So your logic is......a minority (who don't like the majority "way of life"), should be appeased so as they have a "way of life" that they like instead.

Are you blind to the contradiction there? That most people should be "unhappy" so as a smaller amount of people can be "happy"?

Do you let your dog take you for a walk too? Arse-backwards logic.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pithythefool wrote: »

Thats a whole lot of words to say "I don't like being in a minority, I want the majority to change"

Hardly. Because firstly it is not just atheists feeling this way. Atheist Ireland for example, on the subject of effecting change in Irish schools, have made an alliance with OTHER minorities too including Evangelical Alliance Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland.

So not this is not about one minority trying to change the minority. It is about a range of minorities wanting to effect a change that will benefit people across the board while, such as the solutions I described in previous pages, minimizing the impact on the supposed majority.

And there is people WITHIN your alleged majority calling for that change too because they realize that this is not an "us against them" issue of the majority against the minority, but a basic human rights issue.

The goal here is not to have the minority force change on the majority. But to recognize the ever increasing level of diversity in an ever more pluralist country...... and to respond to that change in a way that benefits the most people. And that is much bigger that the egregiously selfish thought processes we have seen on this thread of "The current system advantages ME so I do not want it to change".

Pithythefool wrote: »

And again, the simple solution is to go where you can be with others who think like you.

Check your privilege I guess. Many people can not just arbitrarily up sticks to new homes, new counties, new countries, new jobs as easily as you apparently can. For all kinds of reasons ranging from health to financial.

Pithythefool

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hardly. Because firstly it is not just atheists feeling this way. Atheist Ireland for example, on the subject of effecting change in Irish schools, have made an alliance with OTHER minorities too including Evangelical Alliance Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland.

So not this is not about one minority trying to change the minority. It is about a range of minorities wanting to effect a change that will benefit people across the board while, such as the solutions I described in previous pages, minimizing the impact on the supposed majority.

And there is people WITHIN your alleged majority calling for that change too because they realize that this is not an "us against them" issue of the majority against the minority, but a basic human rights issue.



Check your privilege I guess. Many people can not just arbitrarily up sticks to new homes, new counties, new countries, new jobs as easily as you apparently can. For all kinds of reasons ranging from health to financial.

The reason I have that privilege (loathe to use those infantile sentiments), is because I am in the majority, you are not.

And youre right, not everyone can change easily. That's the part where you deal with it, and not complain because you don't have what you want.

Check your reality, I guess.

Pithythefool

waterfaerie wrote: »

And your attitude is more along the lines of "I'm in the majority, the way things are suits me, so let the minority continue to suffer", despite the fact that the alternative solution would involve nobody suffering.

By catering to the needs of what you have decided is a "minority", it would actually be better for everyone. I don't see what would be so bad for you. What is it you're afraid of losing? Do you seriously think having secular education would impact on you to the same extent that the current situation impacts on non catholics?

Another completely blind comment.

"It would be better for everyone if it suited a smaller amount of people."

Makes sense, alright!

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

How much more will you pay in taxes to fund the wholesale building of new schools on property that was not provided by the Church?

i wouldn't be able to put a number on it. i would be fine with paying some extra tax to build more schools though. ideally these buildings would be simply compulsory purchased at a small rate. it can be the compensation to the people of ireland.

Pithythefool wrote: »

The reason I have that privilege (loathe to use those infantile sentiments), is because I am in the majority, you are not.

And youre right, not everyone can change easily. That's the part where you deal with it, and not complain because you don't have what you want.

Check your reality, I guess.

are you a practicing catholic? or just an alacart one?

Pithythefool wrote: »

Another completely blind comment.

"It would be better for everyone if it suited a smaller amount of people."

Makes sense, alright!

it does make sense as this is about the majority rather then the minority. the minority want to force religion on the people in the school system.

Pithythefool

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't be able to put a number on it. i would be fine with paying some extra tax to build more schools though. ideally these buildings would be simply compulsory purchased at a small rate. it can be the compensation to the people of ireland.



are you a practicing catholic? or just an alacart one?



it does make sense as this is about the majority rather then the minority. the minority want to force religion on the people in the school system.

Only you know the truth, you will get your way 100%, and up is down to you.

Delusion can be bliss, but you really have to be fully on board because if you let just the slightest bit of reality fester at the back of your mind you'll be a pretty miserable person when its all said and done.

Keep up the good fight.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

The reason I have that privilege (loathe to use those infantile sentiments), is because I am in the majority, you are not.

And youre right, not everyone can change easily. That's the part where you deal with it, and not complain because you don't have what you want.

Check your reality, I guess.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Another completely blind comment.

"It would be better for everyone if it suited a smaller amount of people."

Makes sense, alright!

Everyone - regardless of whether they are in the majority or not - pays taxes and therefore has a right to be catered for, no?

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Everyone - regardless of whether they are in the majority or not - pays taxes and therefore has a right to be catered for, no?

Yep, and the majority still decides what happens. How else can it be?

When a majority are told what to do is it not getting close to a dictatorship (one person versus many)?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

Yep, and the majority still decides what happens. How else can it be?

When a majority are told what to do is it not getting close to a dictatorship (one person versus many)?

Contradicting yourself here.

Yes, the minortiy should be catered for, but no the majority should decided if they're catered for or not..?

I'm of the opinion your stance is take the taxes and **** them because ONLY the majority matters. Yes or no?