Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?
Comments
-
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Be interesting to see the evidence for this claim and how you come to make it.
You can not be serious!
If you are devoid of the understanding of history, this ain't the time and place to offer you free legal history lessons. Read up, start with Constantinople and onto Canon Laws . Compare and contrast what is said , particularly the wording.
You genuinely think concepts like "natural law" or "just laws" came out of thin air?
That many countries Constitutions who refer to the powers coming from"god" was just poetry ? (well, it is really, since it is man that makes the laws)
You going to pretend that European society's moral codes is not embedded with Christianity ? Our law system, adopted from the Brits, reflects the Judaio-Christian background from which our country beginnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Could you start by listing "every" basic human right. Then show how they were "recognized first" by religion.
Right to life - Earliest Religious source, the Ten Commandments , would be a start
Abolitionism were strongly religiously based,
The civil rights movement in 'Merica also had strong religious underpinnings. ,Martin Luther King jr. Studied theology
The beliefs about freedom and individual rights eg right to life, right to a fair trial, right not to be tortured, are based on religious codes.
In fact, contrary to the uneducated rubbish that is rife on this thread, and there clearly is a lot here, the greatly divisive Preamble from Bunreacht na hEireann , which is reeked in Catholicism, was used by the Irish Courts in the late 1960-1970s to recongise the right to bodily integrity (FAMILY PLANNING , baby :eek:)
From an Irish context,
Gerard Hogan as he was then, wrote several excellent articles on the Constitution addressing the issues people have with such a so called Catholic Constitution. Pretty good, exposed some spoofers too, especially Tim Pat Coogan. Hard to find the online articles as they are subscription. I will see what I can do.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Rather than fling petty insults
No insults here. I am addressing the what was said. If someone comes on here like a jumped up prat (not you) but forgets to bring facts, they must and will be put in their place. The tone of the OP was severely sectarian. Don't be a feigning feeling insulted. It will not shut down this debatenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »at people from some pedestal of supreme knowledge that you are imagining for yourself,
I am right, and you are wrong, on this issue ie the source of our laws
The OP is talking absolute rubbish and this thread is sectarian and rife with bigotry, and you will not win the argument that you are trying to make. (not once have you tried to rebut what was said)nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »you might instead move to make it a two way conversation rather than an abuse fest.
What abuse?
You reek with dishonesty, you are an utter disgrace, contemptible
The OP made a number of statements. I respond. That IS a two way conversation. His problem, he won't be able to rebut the point made
It is not my fault that some of the statements of the OP were horrendously thought out.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Start by explaining what YOU think "abuse" means, what you think the other user thinks it means, and what the differences are.
Sectarianism and bigotry , it is rife on this thread
You seriously going to insult the intelligence of people by supporting the deluded claim of the OP that children who were taught to love one another and all the bland guff about everyone being special and equal ,that by the way is essentially Catholic lessons in school since 1992, is some how psychological violence, emotional abuse, or mental abuse?
In fairness to me, I offered a solution in that two way "conversation" (The op had a rant, he had/has no intention of having a discussion)
Pleasenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Do you? I would say if you want to know what the user means you might consider the context. We are talking about religious indoctrination on this thread. So I would say it would be a very safe guess to assume that is what the user is talking about.
You have proven to be neither qualified or capable of addressing me on this. The very fact that the legal history of this part of the world (not just Ireland) had to be briefly explained to you destroys anything that you have to say going forward with regard to the points I made .
I haven't addressed the rights and wrong of what we should do in the Future, by the way, that is a discussion worth having, I addressed the rubbish about the past and the muck about children being emotionally and psychologically abuse, an accusation that the OP never experienced.
I have also asked the OP , which you ignored, to cite the numbers for children who were refused entry to schools where they were from
I have also asked the OP, which you ignored, to explain how the State should deal with the fact that the Church may still own the land and buildings and how he believes that they can be legally obtained if the Church refused to sell (and they will, realistically, as their disgraceful history in this State, which by the way was ignored by the State Laity, must rightly, compensate the victims
It has being pointed out by me and many others that there is absolutely no way that this 25 year old child experienced anything like indoctrination of Catholicism while he was in school. Child, by the way, is not a dig, he was in only finishing up Primary School about 12 or so years ago. There is no way that he had that kind of schooling. None, and it was pointed out to him by people who had left school years before himnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Let us help you along with your linguistic issues and look at a couple of definitions of indoctrination. One dictionary describes it as "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." while another says "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view."
Don't embarrass yourself.
Every one is equal, love one another as I have loved you (or love you) , God loves everyone, even sinners, though shall not kill or steal, be compassionate and kind
That is essentially the indoctrination of school teachings for well over 30 or so years. Nice, safe and bland.
You think that is a bad thing
:D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Even the atheists teach their kids that
Oh, but you disagree. Come then, cite the books used by Primary and Secondary School that have and are being used during that period that rebut what I said
As for Church teachings on the nitty gritty about sacraments eg 3 in 1, body and blood of Christ, Mary being a virgin..............wow ..............that is some emotional and psychological abuse, ring Tusla quicknozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I would suggest that the negative connotations of the word are based around using schools and parental authority to inculcate a set of beliefs for which there is no supporting arguments, evidence, data, reasoning or other substantiation.
Best you do not offer any suggestions.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Make us. If you have issues with our issues with it YOU can move on if you wish. However there is absolutely ZERO onus on us to do so in a discourse based democracy. Rather there is every right for us to express our issues, educate, debate, campaign, vote, protest and more.
Make us? Don't be childish, majority rules always.
Unfortunately for you, there are laws to protect the rights of those who hold religious views, there is also the blasphemy laws. So, be careful with what you say and how you say it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You are more than welcome to "move on" but you will not find us trying to silence you.
Until you and others run to the mods with the laughable allegation of "abuse" and being uncivil , that isnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Perhaps you might consider offering the same level of decorum in return.
I am dealing with sectarian posters and bigots, they shall be addressed accordinglynozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Do they? How many of them do? Where are you getting your data of their opinions from? I am not seeing a source cited by you at all.
Annual numbers of children making their Holy Communion, Confirmation and First Confession is a start.
Ruairi Quinn's noble but failed attempt to start the consultations with parents regarding State schools, is another.
I hear the likes of Clongowes are still filling up every year
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/churchrun-schools-far-more-popular-than-their-critics-say-31433640.html
Now doubt you will want to attack the author of this piece, (Little time for him, myself) but address this
"There are about 200 schools in the 43 areas. On average, only about 8pc of parents surveyed want an alternative to a Catholic school. On the basis of this, it was decided that about two dozen of the 200 schools in those 43 areas should change hands - a little over 10pc, in other words.
Mr Quinn is right that the divesting of the nominated schools is happening very slowly. The church is getting all the blame for this. It should attract some of the blame, no doubt, though in the case of most of the bishops, the slowness of divesting probably arises more from inertia than anything else.
If I were a bishop I would be eager to rid myself of a few schools so as to make the concept of parental choice meaningful and the remaining schools more truly Catholic.
But Archbishop Diarmuid Martin pointed to another reason why divesting is happening so slowly - local resistance.
A media worth its salt would look into this properly instead of eagerly hunting down and giving the microphone to parents who do not want to have their children baptised for the sake of enrolling them in the local Catholic school.
Our media ought to find out where there is local opposition and give proper coverage to the parents, and politicians, behind the opposition. Purely in journalistic terms, that would be a good story, but in Ireland all too often ideology trumps good reportage.
Mr Quinn is right to express frustration at the slowness of the divestment process, but he should acknowledge that there are various factors behind it, not simply ecclesiastical intransigence or inertia.
He should also acknowledge that church-run schools are far more popular here and elsewhere than we are often led to believe."
How has school divestment gone so far?0 -
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.You can not be serious!
I very much can and I need neither your permission nor approval thanks. That you have contrived not to be, puts no onus on me to act in kind.If you are devoid of the understanding of history, this ain't the time and place to offer you free legal history lessons.
So rather than answer a direct question you cop out of it by simply flinging insults and denigration. We get that around here a LOT from people who can not back up their claims. You are not the first by far.
YOU claimed that "every" basic human right was first recognized by religion. When challenged on that however you can neither list what rights you mean, nor evidence the claim they were first recognized by religion. Nice.
The "oh go read about it yourself" line is a cop out that this site sees a lot. Often enough that I doubt you will fool anyone with it, except perhaps yourself.
But I will repeat the question, so you can dodge it again. Could you start by listing "every" basic human right. Then show how they were "recognized first" by religion.Right to life - Earliest Religious source, the Ten Commandments , would be a start
Do keep up. I never asked you for the earliest religious source of a particular right. I asked you for evidence that the religious source was the FIRST to recognize it. You have moved to answer an entirely different question to the one actually asked.
Also you did not say "some" or "many" rights. You said EVERY. You have offered but a hand full of them here. I wonder why (no, I actually don't, your hyperbole was obvious from the start).
Further the 10 commandments do not even contain a right to life. What they contain is an admonishment on your right to take the life of another. Which is a different concept. Further in many translations the admonisment is not "Thou shalt not kill" but "Thou shalt not murder" which is also very different. The latter being less an admonishment never to kill, and more an admonishment on the circumstances under which you should not do it. The same Biblical text was also very happy about giving orders to kill to genocidal levels.
So no, your answer here is a fail on multiple levels really.No insults here.
Except the ones I quoted which remain there in black and white despite your denials. That you now compound the insults you deny making by calling people "a prat" just ramifies my point for me. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.I am right, and you are wrong
Not that I can see. But maybe rather than simply declaring yourself to be right, you might instead actually present the arguments and evidence that show you to be right. This you have not yet done. I await it agog.What abuse? You reek with dishonesty, you are an utter disgrace, contemptible
You ask what abuse and then fling more. You are clearly not even attempting to be honest at this point. The abuse you fling is there in black and white, yet you deny it's existence.
So not only can I CALL you dishonest, I can explain where and how. You however have just DECLARED me to "reek with dishonesty" yet you have not yet actually shown one point where I was.
Hell of a difference.The OP made a number of statements. I respond. That IS a two way conversation.
Yet I notice you ignored what I said. So again i will repeat it. Rather than simply shout at people "you clearly do not know what abuse means" start by explaining what YOU think "abuse" means, what you think the other user thinks it means, and what the differences are.
That is what I asked you to do, but rather than do it you just went on a rant about the OP. So I can just repeat the question really.You seriously going to insult the intelligence of people by supporting the deluded claim of the OP that children who were taught to love one another and all the bland guff about everyone being special and equal ,that by the way is essentially Catholic lessons in school since 1992, is some how psychological violence, emotional abuse, or mental abuse?
I do not tend to support the claims I myself do not make or have not made. Nor can I think of a single reason why I might or should. However I would point out that there is not a SHRED of good teaching in your rant there that requires religion in any way. Mutual love and respect for other humans is a concept we can perfectly well instill in children without having to package it up in unsubstantiated nonsense like gods and after lives.
In fact arguably you could do it better WITHOUT religion because many religions can be divisive and cause rifts and divisions that there is no good reason to have. There are enough things in the real world that cause divisions between people without us creating fantasy ones to compound the problem. But certainly Islam for example is not really in the business of teaching full and equal love and respect between muslims and believers in other religions or no religions at all. Your own pet 10 commandments are also very clear how much an offence to their god the believers in false religions are. Quite the jealous god this character is made out to be in fact.
But yes teaching children to believe things for which we have absolutely no evidence AT ALL for the truth of is indeed a very bad approach in my view. And compounding that by teaching children they are part of some particular denomination of unsubstantiated nonsense, is even worse.You have proven to be neither qualified or capable of addressing me on this.
There is another of those insults you declare but do not back up in any way. Like declaring yourself to be right, without showing you are right, or calling someone dishonest without showing a single example of them being dishonest.......... you are not going to modify reality by dictating it by fiat and narrative.
But pretending such things is a useful cop out methodology for dodging questions and points I guess.I have also asked the OP , which you ignored
Ehhh are you even trying to make sense now? You asked the OP but I ignored it? I am not the OP. If you asked the OP a question, then that has nothing to do with me thanks. Keep track of who you are talking to.Don't embarrass yourself.
Sure. I have not done so yet. I fully intend to keep that up. But thanks for the superfluous advice all the same, filler as it may be.You think that is a bad thing
Maybe it would work better if you allow me to tell you what I think, rather than you telling me what I think. Especially when you are wrong.
The problem is you are shifting the goal posts around a lot here. The part of my post you are replying to, for example, was discussing your lack of knowledge of what the word indoctrination means in the dictionary. However the content of your reply is a moan about WHAT was being indoctrinated.
Keep the goal posts where they are, so everyone knows what game is in play. What indoctrination means, and what was being indoctrinated, are two DIFFERENT topics. I am happy to discuss both, but do not hop to one to cop out dodge a point about the other thanks.
Where the goal posts are also moving however is that you are moving between religious indoctrination AS A WHOLE, and discussion of cherry picked individual snippets of that teaching. These, again, are two different things.
Let us use an analogy. There was a fad nonsense "Cayenne pepper" diet going around for a long time. The diet AS A WHOLE was complete nonsense, especially the claims about the magical effects of cayenne pepper. But INDIVIDUAL PARTS of that diet were wonderful stuff. It had people using fresh rather than processed foods. Taking on a bit more water. Cooking for themselves rather than buying preprepared foods and more.
That religious teachings can (and often do) contain individual good things is not a surprise, a shock, or anything I have once here denied despite the tone and content of your reply. But none of that justifies religious indoctrination as a whole, especially given NONE of the good stuff you are cherry picking requires beleiving any ubsubstantiated nonsense to teach OR learn.Even the atheists teach their kids that
Exactly the point I just made above. So not only is religious indoctrination a bad thing in my opinion, it is also entirely superfluous to requirements.... which you seem more than aware of.Best you do not offer any suggestions.
Only to those that clearly need them. Best you try not to control the content of my posts
Because you will fail. Especially when your own need work first.Make us? Don't be childish, majority rules always.
The childishness was yours, the "make us" is a reflection of it and was fully contrived to be. I am glad you noticed at least partially.Unfortunately for you, there are laws to protect the rights of those who hold religious views, there is also the blasphemy laws. So, be careful with what you say and how you say it.
I am not sure what you think the focus of my misfortune is there as nothing I have said is impacted by the "rights" you imagine here. You appear to think that I have in some way suggested I do not think people have, or should have, the right to hold religious views. I have done no such thing, so the misfortune exists solely and entirely in your imagination.
I also see no reason to be wary of the blasphemy laws, so your threats are pretty empty really. They are an ineffective pile of dangerous nonsense that likely no one will or even CAN be prosecuted under. I was threatened with it quite a few times after I wrote an online blog post once......... but of course it never came to anything but whinging from them.
It seems the days of the religious silencing dissenters with threats of laws and worse are over. Your attempts to silence people like me have failed, and will continue to do so. However if you want to test that, and have some ideas on blasphemous statements or acts (that are otherwise legal) that you wish me to perform..... just let me know and time allowing I will oblige.Annual numbers of children making their Holy Communion, Confirmation and First Confession is a start.
Not really. That parents conform to such practices does not tell us that they think those practices wholly appropriate. Conforming to the status quo and ones opinions on the status quo are two entirely seperate things. That you want to assume one from the other is just agenda and narrative driven, and little more.
So I have asked you for a particular citation supporting a particular statistic, and you have given me (barely) tangential irrelevancies in return.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I very much can and I need neither your permission nor approval thanks. That you have contrived not to be, puts no onus on me to act in kind.
You wish to make foolish and funny comments, go right ahead, I will not stop you, nor can I . You are wrong, but you are free to be wrong.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So rather than answer a direct question you cop out of it by simply flinging insults and denigration. We get that around here a LOT from people who can not back up their claims. You are not the first by far.
Best you read people's comments in the whole, I proceeded to point out, at length why you and the OP are wrong.
The laughable allegation of "insults and denigration" , which I deny, is in response to the self righteous rubbish that has been written. It is hard to read such self righteousness, when it is factually, devoid of basic understanding of what they are saying.
On the contrary, I proceeded to address why the op and you are wrong.
Now you make the allegation of not being able to back up claims?
YOU are the ONLY person doing that . Conveniently , when you cited "If you are devoid of the understanding of history, this ain't the time and place to offer you free legal history lessons." you did not bother to cite the statement in full, which went:
"You can not be serious!
If you are devoid of the understanding of history, this ain't the time and place to offer you free legal history lessons. Read up, start with Constantinople and onto Canon Laws . Compare and contrast what is said , particularly the wording.
You genuinely think concepts like "natural law" or "just laws" came out of thin air?
That many countries Constitutions who refer to the powers coming from"god" was just poetry ? (well, it is really, since it is man that makes the laws)
You going to pretend that European society's moral codes is not embedded with Christianity ? Our law system, adopted from the Brits, reflects the Judaio-Christian background from which our country begin"
That is pure dishonesty . Keep it up, this is fun. Remarkable, anyone else with a serious argument would have, by this point in the response would start rebuttal.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »YOU claimed that "every" basic human right was first recognized by religion. When challenged on that however you can neither list what rights you mean, nor evidence the claim they were first recognized by religion. Nice.
It appears that you don't know what the "basic" human rights are!
Right to life, Right not to be tortured or suffer ill human and degrading treatment , right to a fair trial, right to liberty, right to family life
You focus on the word "every" but ignore "basic".
Can't list the rights? Dishonest rubbish. Worse, you genuinely believe that. Stop lying !
Hard of reading? http://www.dyslexia.ie/information/information-for-parents/learning-supports-available-in-school/nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The "oh go read about it yourself"
I have already listed . It is common knowledge to any one who understand society that European laws and society is fundamentally rooted in Christianity. You are more or less the ONLY person who denies this. Either you are not bright , in denial or just trolling .nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »line is a cop out that this site sees a lot. Often enough that I doubt you will fool anyone with it, except perhaps yourself.
I am not going to provide Legal History lessons for Free. Unless you are willing to pay for my services , you are just going to have to read up on facts THAT EVERY ONE KNOWS ABOUT.
Pay up or shut up.
You are wrong, and I am right on this point.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But I will repeat the question, so you can dodge it again. Could you start by listing "every" basic human right. Then show how they were "recognized first" by religion.
I would wager a lot of money that you do not actually know what BASIC human rights are.
Which nation's legal history do you want to ?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Do keep up. I never asked you for the earliest religious source of a particular right. I asked you for evidence that the religious source was the FIRST to recognize it. You have moved to answer an entirely different question to the one actually asked.
What? Thou shall not kill? The first religion to recongise the 10 commandments? The Biblical principles that play a fundamental role in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? The Ten Commandments appear twice in the Hebrew Bible, in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy.Modern scholarship has found likely influences in Hittite and Mesopotamian laws and treaties, but is divided over exactly when the Ten Commandments were written and who wrote them
The theologians here can provide further expertise, no doubt at a price,
Theologian Thomas Aquinas (you going to ask when he was around?) explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature
As for the good auld Catholic Church, suppose we look at the Council of Trent, after Reformation?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Also you did not say "some" or "many" rights. You said EVERY. You have offered but a hand full of them here. I wonder why (no, I actually don't, your hyperbole was obvious from the start).
Perhaps when you stop ignoring the word "BASIC" that would be a start!nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Further the 10 commandments do not even contain a right to life. [/QUOTE}
THOU SHALL NOT KILL.
Suppose you need an explanation as to what that means? :rolleyes:
Before you go waffling about execution etc, the right to life has also developed from one originally not being absolute, to one, least in Europe as being more or less absolute once they decreed that executions should be illegal, and that was only in recent time.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »What they contain is an admonishment on your right to take the life of another. Which is a different concept. Further in many translations the admonisment is not "Thou shalt not kill" but "Thou shalt not murder" which is also very different.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another, without justificaion
You will struggle to find any principle that remained untouched during the annals of history
Why? WAR, baby, they are all up to their necks in it. These are self serving man made laws after all.
You will also struggle to find any modern day basic human right that could not find its source from religious teachingsnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The latter being less an admonishment never to kill, and more an admonishment on the circumstances under which you should not do it. The same Biblical text was also very happy about giving orders to kill to genocidal levels.
Different standards of the day.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So no, your answer here is a fail on multiple levels really.
You have failed, GLORIOUSLY to properly actually cite what I actually saidnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except the ones I quoted which remain there in black and white despite your denials. That you now compound the insults you deny making by calling people "a prat" just ramifies my point for me. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.
We will let the rest of the people decide that. No one will pay the remotest heed to dishonest people like you. Your comments are rife with dishonesty
The OP's statements are sectarian and bigoted, so, he has a lot more to worry about than being compared to a jumped up prat.
A few definitions on what "abuse" means. Go lecture the OP before coming here! Pointing to the truth is only hurtful to those who have issues with the truth
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/abusenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not that I can see. But maybe rather than simply declaring yourself to be right, you might instead actually present the arguments and evidence that show you to be right. This you have not yet done. I await it agog. [/QUOPTE]
I did both. Can not see how anyone could or should tolerate sectarian bigots like the OP , and people like you who are defending him.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You ask what abuse and then fling more. You are clearly not even attempting to be honest at this point. The abuse you fling is there in black and white, yet you deny it's existence.
The truth is abuse now , is it?
You and the OP , are in zero position to comment, go and take your vile sectarian bigotry elsewherenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So not only can I CALL you dishonest, I can explain where and how. You however have just DECLARED me to "reek with dishonesty" yet you have not yet actually shown one point where I was.
Wishful thinking dear. You have failed. Hard lucknozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Yet I notice you ignored what I said. So again i will repeat it. Rather than simply shout at people "you clearly do not know what abuse means" start by explaining what YOU think "abuse" means, what you think the other user thinks it means, and what the differences are.
You seriously need to stop lying ! You ignored , conveniently , this.
"is some how psychological violence, emotional abuse, or mental abuse?"
Again, your allegation is liesnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That is what I asked you to do, but rather than do it you just went on a rant about the OP. So I can just repeat the question really.
I, at all times have been addressing the OP's statement. That is the only issue here.
I can not do much about your refusal or inability to actually understand or address what I said, in full. What was said, in full , went over your head. It is your responsibility to understand what is said , in full, before come barging on here with your lecture.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I do not tend to support the claims I myself do not make or have not made. Nor can I think of a single reason why I might or should. However I would point out that there is not a SHRED of good teaching in your rant there that requires religion in any way. Mutual love and respect for other humans is a concept we can perfectly well instill in children without having to package it up in unsubstantiated nonsense like gods and after lives.
That is a separate matter, that is about should religion be around in the future. I never denied that this discussion should not be had (expressly stated that) I am dealing with the lies made by the OP regarding religion's PAST.
What you and the OP are desperately trying to deny is that it was Christianity, whether by fluke or by chance, that was the source of those principals that I cited. This will not all of a sudden be forgotten
What I said, which you ignored, was to rebut the rubbish that came from the OP about Catholic teaching in SCHOOL. I am not the only poster to call him out on that.
But again, you missed the point.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »In fact arguably you could do it better WITHOUT religion
NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT.
MY POINT WAS TO CALL OUT THE RUBBISH ABOUT THE ALLEGED ABUSE THAT CHILDREN SUFFERED DURING THEIR SCHOOL DAYS because of religious lessons. (the actions of the scumbag teachers is a separate matter) For him, no earlier than late 1990's . You will notice I discussed the content of religious teachings in school for the past 30 years.
You went off ranting about something else.
Essentially , you are saying that what IS being taught in schools for the last 30 years, about everyone being equal (now that is a load of rubbish) and love one another is a bad thing. ?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »because many religions can be divisive and cause rifts and divisions that there is no good reason to have. There are enough things in the real world that cause divisions between people without us creating fantasy ones to compound the problem. But certainly Islam for example is not really in the business of teaching full and equal love and respect between muslims and believers in other religions or no religions at all. Your own pet 10 commandments are also very clear how much an offence to their god the believers in false religions are. Quite the jealous god this character is made out to be in fact.
NOTHING to do with my point. For a start, the OP rounded on Catholicism because, well, it was the dominant religion.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
But yes teaching children to believe things for which we have absolutely no evidence AT ALL for the truth of is indeed a very bad approach in my view.
Nothing to do with what I said .
Teaching of a faith
That is a matter for the parents.
Either way, it is not an example of the allegations of abuse raised by the OPnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And compounding that by teaching children they are part of some particular denomination of unsubstantiated nonsense, is even worse.
The OP stated that this was abuse . Nonsense? Maybe? Abuse? Nonozzferrahhtoo wrote: »There is another of those insults you declare but do not back up in any way. Like declaring yourself to be right, without showing you are right,
I am going to put this in bold because, you have proven to completely , whether intentionally or not (says a lot about you) to fail to understand what was said
EUROPEAN LAW AND SOCIETY IS ROOTED IN CHRISTIANITY. THE FOUNDATION OF OUR LAWS, INCLUDING "BASIC" HUMAN RIGHTS COME FROM CHRISTIAN TEACHING.
You have spent all this time trying to deny that.
THE CORE CONTENT OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING IN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS IS NOT ABUSE. I already asked, and you have pointed out, it is hardly any different to other belief systems
You have, you will , FAIL, gloriously , in rebutting thisnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »or calling someone dishonest without showing a single example
You and the OP are dishonest people. The other readers will see for themselves. I can not assume that you are stupid because that would be rude, but, you are doing well so fair in your utter failure to understand what has been put to you. Waffling about matters that have nothing to do with what I said and ignoring what has been said, tends to do that.
Let the others decidenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »of them being dishonest.......... you are not going to modify reality by dictating it by fiat and narrative.
I made a number of straight forward points. You decide that you can't deny those points and try to make arguments that were not made. Yes, dishonestnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But pretending such things is a useful cop out methodology for dodging questions and points I guess.
At no stage was any question dodged. You even have the Gaul to quote my statements, many in a distortive manner, but actually provide the evidence to rebut your allegation. (See above)nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Ehhh are you even trying to make sense now?
You proven from the very first sentence in your first post that what had been said by me, went over your head.
You made an allegation about what I did not or what I should have done. I pointed out that was not true. The discussion is about the criticism of the OP's post, that fact went over your head and continues to do so.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You asked the OP but I ignored it? I am not the OP.
You allegation then, is false and flawed.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »If you asked the OP a question, then that has nothing to do with me thanks.
But that did not stop you from making the untrue allegation.
Moreover, since you took the trouble to defend the OP, why didn't you not answer it , would have saved yourself a lot of troublenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Keep track of who you are talking to.
Don't but into discussions when you are oblivious to what has been said.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Sure. I have not done so yet. I fully intend to keep that up. But thanks for the superfluous advice all the same, filler as it may be.
Sorry to burst your bubble , dear boy, you have and you are. Please, continue.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Maybe it would work better if you allow me to tell you what I think, rather than you telling me what I think. Especially when you are wrong.
Your opinion is irrelevant. You have proven that you can not or wish to understand the points that I made. But, keep on trucking. You wish to continue to deny historical facts, go right ahead, but do not expect anyone to take you seriouslynozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The problem is you are shifting the goal posts around a lot here.
NO goal posts have been shifted by me. Your problem is your complete and utter failure and refusal to understand what was actually said.
Worse, you make false allegations .nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The part of my post you are replying to, for example, was discussing your lack of knowledge of what the word indoctrination means in the dictionary. However the content of your reply is a moan about WHAT was being indoctrinated.
Again, missing the point, because you know that my criticism of the OP is valid.
The OP has stated that Catholic indoctrination in school is a form of abuse.
In response, I called him out on the content of this indoctrination and called him to account for how it was abuse.
You and him have failed and refused to address this, instead , seeking to move the goal post with this utter rubbish
Please, don't get into discussions that you are clueless as to what was said.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Keep the goal posts where they are, so everyone knows what game is in play. What indoctrination means, and what was being indoctrinated, are two DIFFERENT topics.
"What indoctrination" was a hypothetical question ,which proceeded with a list of the content of catholic teachings, to rebut the pathetic allegations by the OP of abuse . If you possessed the ability to comprehend, you would not be making this mistake. You are the one moving the goal posts.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am happy to discuss both, but do not hop to one to cop out dodge a point about the other thanks.
You do not do discussion. You are incapable to comprehending what was said by the other.
The worse thing is, you genuinely believe that you are being clever.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
That religious teachings can (and often do) contain individual good things is not a surprise, a shock, or anything I have once here denied despite the tone and content of your reply. But none of that justifies religious indoctrination as a whole, especially given NONE of the good stuff you are cherry picking requires beleiving any ubsubstantiated nonsense to teach OR learn.
Now we are getting to the core.
The OP has categorically stated that religious teaching is a form of abuse. Justify this. That is the basis of the criticism towards the OP (and his utter lack of acknowledgment of how our society was created - what happens in the future is a separate to what I am talking about)
In the context of schools, outline the harmful and abusive teachings that children have to deal withnozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Exactly the point I just made above. So not only is religious indoctrination a bad thing in my opinion, it is also entirely superfluous to requirements.... which you seem more than aware of.
Is it a form of abuse, as the OP has declared ?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Only to those that clearly need them. Best you try not to control the content of my posts Because you will fail. Especially when your own need work first.
I do not know whether to pity you or laugh at you.
Do yourself a big favour, do not ever enter a discussion where you are clearly incapable of understanding what was said. Your inadequacies will be exposednozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The childishness was yours, the "make us" is a reflection of it and was fully contrived to be. I am glad you noticed at least partially.
More lies. I never said that I was trying to stop anyone or make them do anything.
But, blasphemy laws, you and the OP have to heed them.
Sectarian bigot, that is all you and the OP are.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am not sure what you think the focus of my misfortune is there as nothing I have said is impacted by the "rights" you imagine here.
Your misfortune is to come here and distort , lie and fail to comprehend what was said in the first placenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You appear to think that I have in some way suggested I do not think people have, or should have, the right to hold religious views. I have done no such thing, so the misfortune exists solely and entirely in your imagination.
Religious teachings/Education is part of holding religious views. You wish to stop that in the schools, despite being in a minority .nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I also see no reason to be wary of the blasphemy laws, so your threats are pretty empty really.
No threats from me. Just pointing out that you can not run your mouth off as you wish if you fall foul of the legislation. Sectarianism is also not tolerated.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It seems the days of the religious silencing dissenters with threats of laws and worse are over. Your attempts to silence people like me have failed,
MORE LIES. I offered no threats, I am not seeking to silence you. By all means continue .nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »and will continue to do so.
You go girl!!wwwoooooonozzferrahhtoo wrote: »However if you want to test that, and have some ideas on blasphemous statements or acts (that are otherwise legal) that you wish me to perform..... just let me know and time allowing I will oblige.
Go right ahead, I am sure you can think of some .
Head up to O'Connell Street in plain sight of everyone. Head on over to the Muslim Corner at O'Connell Street or that preacher with the head set on. Find a Catholic Church on a given Sunday and have a big protest, run into the church during mass and scream as if you were at the All Ireland final (like a scene from the Butcher Boy film, always fancied doing that myself)
Do it, record it and publish it
I dare ya! Pints will be on me afternozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not really. That parents conform to such practices does not tell us that they think those practices wholly appropriate.
It tells you that they are not they are not against it or object to it strongly enough to reject the conditions in sending the kids to the school.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Conforming to the status quo and ones opinions on the status quo are two entirely seperate things.
They are, but one's opinion on the Status quo is clearly not strong enough to do anything to change things
Ruairi Quinn, went on a crusade. He failed. You want to deny that. Good luck0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.You wish to make foolish and funny comments, go right ahead, I will not stop you, nor can I . You are wrong, but you are free to be wrong.
Thank you but since I have not offered any such comments, I require no permission from you. Nor would I had I made such comments. So it is unclear why you even bring it up. As I said though, merely asserting people to be wrong is what is "childish" here. You might move to try to show how and where they are wrong instead, rather than empty comments about how ignorant you think they are.Best you read people's comments in the whole, I proceeded to point out, at length why you and the OP are wrong.
Except no you did not. You just made a derogatory comment and then followed it with a rhetorical question about the concept of "natural law". An answer to the question actually asked however, was simply not there.The laughable allegation of "insults and denigration" , which I deny
Which you are more than welcome to do. I leave the judgement up to the other readers, as they can look at your comments like calling people an "utter disgrace" "contemptible" "jumped up prat" and your comments about "wallow in ignorance" (to name but a FEW) and decide for themselves.you did not bother to cite the statement in full,
I am not required to. I responded to the full statement. I am not required to QUOTE the entire statement while doing so. To keep long posts from getting even longer I quote only enough of the post required to point you to where and what I am replying to. This I did. So your dodge will not work here.
But as I said in response to the quote the "go read up on it yourself" approach is one we see around here a lot and I do not think it fools anyone. You can either back up your claims yourself, or you can not. If you cannot then "this is not the time and place to teach you" or "go read it yourself" comments are empty cop out canards. And you know it.That is pure dishonesty . Keep it up, this is fun. Remarkable, anyone else with a serious argument would have, by this point in the response would start rebuttal.
Glad you opened up the paragraph with a description of its content, but I agree, you probably should start offering a rebuttal and response and a serious argument at some point. Because a serious argument is not shouting at people that they are devoid of knowledge, without once backing up your own statements.It appears that you don't know what the "basic" human rights are!
Quite the contrary, which is why I am asking if YOU know them. Because it was you, not I, who asserted out of nowhere that ""every" basic human right was first recognized by religion."
And I have suggested that to back up that statement you might first begin by listening what you think the rights in question even are, before THEN evidencing the core claim you have made.
Blatantly however you have dodged (and continue to dodge) doing EITHER of these things. No surprise there, and your projection of "lying" on to me when you are the only one doing it is surely symptomatic of that failure. And of course true to your usual MO........Hard of reading?
........... you try to cover your own failure with petty insult and deflection. Again no surprise there.It is common knowledge to any one who understand society that European laws and society is fundamentally rooted in Christianity. You are more or less the ONLY person who denies this.
Ah another common move of simply declaring the things you can not substantiate as being "common knowledge". That is a move we normally see with the "go read up on it yourself" move. You are jumping through every linguistic hoop you can to avoid simply answering the challenge to substantiate the claim yourself.
And I am certainly not the only person questioning your baseless assertions here. Perhaps you simply have not reached post #224 yet for example.I am not going to provide Legal History lessons for Free.
Yup, same thing said another way. You will not be substantiating your claims. Simple as that. Whatever the cop out excuse, the effect is the same, you will assert but you will not substantiate. Ever.You are wrong, and I am right on this point.
Still waiting for you to show this to be true, rather than merely repeat the assertion. Thus far you have demonstrably failed to do so, or show any capability to do so. So I guess reassertion of it is all ya got really.I would wager a lot of money that you do not actually know what BASIC human rights are. Which nation's legal history do you want to ?
So answering a question with a question to once again dodge answering the question yourself I see. I will repeat it again then. I will repeat the question, so you can dodge it again (again). Could you start by listing "every" basic human right. Then show how they were "recognized first" by religion. If pretending I do not know them means you will therefore list them and ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, then I am happy to leave your illusions with you!What?
A long paragraph there that makes the same mistake I already corrected you on. You are asserting it to be the first religious reference to the "right" in question. I doubt that assertion BUT it is not what you were asked. I do not want the earliest religious reference to the basic human rights. I want backup for your assertion that it was religion(s) that first recognized those rights.
You are determined to dodge this question by answering a completely different one. Again, no surprises there.The theologians here can provide further expertise, no doubt at a price
It would be good is SOMEONE would show some expertise that lends your wanton and baseless assertions some credibility I agree. Perhaps you can find someone to do what you have failed to?He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature
You are going off on quite a deflection tangent at this point, and making a whole new set of assertions, but I am game to have that discussion too. Have you ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that supports the assertion that morals are "permanent" and are part of some "law" of nature?
It is quite the pretty assertion and narrative of course, and I am sure that makes it appeal to many people. But can you offer ANYTHING to show it is in any way true? Note, I have asked this question of many "experts" and "theologians" in the past and they could not substantiate it. So no expectation you are about to. But I am agog all the same.
The idea morality or moral laws are objective, or somehow exists outside of humanity to be "discovered" by us is one I have heard a LOT. But I have not once seen a person substantiate the claim. Ever. Perhaps you could be the first. I suspect however we as humans create moral laws, we do not discover them.Perhaps when you stop ignoring the word "BASIC" that would be a start!
How can I stop doing something I never started to do? I have quoted you DIRECT many times. I am happy to repeat it once again:
But I will repeat the question, so you can dodge it again. Could you start by listing "every" basic human right. Then show how they were "recognized first" by religion.
See the word "basic" is right there. Has been every time. So your claim I am ignoring it is.... well.... quite simply a straight out lie.THOU SHALL NOT KILL.
THOU SHALL NOT MURDER. It depends on your personal interpretation and translation for a start. I already pointed that out of course, but it seems not to have sunk in.
What I also pointed out, again without it sinking in, is that an admonishment to not kill is not the same as declaring a right to life. It is about your right to TAKE a life, not about the other persons right to HAVE it. Two different things that you are conflating to attempt to float a sunken point.
Again however this is irrelevant to the fact that showing that in the commandments does not support YOUR claim that religion was the FIRST to recognize that right. So.... double fail from you there really.Suppose you need an explanation as to what that means?
Perhaps you have failed to notice in my last post that not only do I have no such requirements, it was me offering YOU explanatory points on what it means. Do keep up.Before you go waffling
I think stick to replying to my points, rather than ones you pre-imagine on my behalf. Not addressing this paragraph from you as it does not refer to any point I myself have made, only that you have invented on my behalf.Murder is the unlawful killing of another, without justificaion
EXACTLY. You are getting there. So there is a CHASM of difference between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not murder". Glad you are catching up now!Different standards of the day.
Incomplete oneliner that does not rebut my point. Point still is that clearly "Thou shalt not kill" was over looked in the admonishments to go out and.... well.... kill.You have failed, GLORIOUSLY to properly actually cite what I actually said
Nope. But you do like discussing the failures of others without once actually showing they have them. Assertion is the name of your game, both when you are making points, and when you are getting personal and charged with invective. Thankfully I can address these discussions without emotion. I recommend it in fact.We will let the rest of the people decide that. No one will pay the remotest heed to dishonest people like you. Your comments are rife with dishonesty
Nope, and despite asserting this you have not found or shown any dishonesty in them. But as I said (and here you agree) I will leave your comments like "utter disgrace" "contemptible" "jumped up prat" and your comments about "wallow in ignorance" there upon which the "people can decide" as to where the invective and abuse is coming from. Clue: It has not been me.I did both.
Nope, you have done neitherCan not see how anyone could or should tolerate sectarian bigots like the OP , and people like you who are defending him.
Please show me what statement by the op was bigotted and where I then defended it? You are now wantonly, without any reservation, simply making stuff up about me. I have SOLELY and ONLY been making my own points with almost no reference to the OP AT ALL. So show me where I have been "defending him" exactly or retract this distortion.You and the OP , are in zero position to comment, go and take your vile sectarian bigotry elsewhere
Show me a statement I have made that is sectarian or bigotted please.Wishful thinking dear. You have failed. Hard luck
I have indeed failed, I admit it. I have failed to get you to substantiate your claims. Failed but not given up. I will continue to try.
But the statement I have made is 100% accurate so I repeat it here for you. You however have just DECLARED me to "reek with dishonesty" yet you have not yet actually shown one point where I was.You seriously need to stop lying ! You ignored , conveniently , this. "is some how psychological violence, emotional abuse, or mental abuse?" Again, your allegation is lies
Not only is it not lies, you have evidenced the truth of it for me. You have quoted yourself USING the word. You have not yet explained what you think it means, or what your issue with the application of it is in the current context. At most all you have done is cherry pick a few individual teachings that you do not think are abuse, but no one here ever suggested were.I, at all times have been addressing the OP's statement. That is the only issue here.
Your discussion with the OP is not my concern. Your discussion with me is.It is your responsibility to understand what is said
Agreed! And the first step in understanding the assertions of another person is to ask them what their basis and substantiation for the assertion actually is. I have done this.... you are not responding with similar decorum. How can I "understand" your points when you wantonly refuse to explain or substantiate them when asked?That is a separate matter
Perhaps it is, maybe not, but YOU brought it up with your comments about what we are teaching the children in school. And I am responding by pointing out that the fact we teach it does not mean A) it comes from religion
that teaching it using religion is good or right or beneficial or C) that your wanton assertion that these things were first recognized in religion is true.
None of those points are going to go away by you dodging behind declaring them a "seperate matter".What you and the OP are desperately trying to deny is that it was Christianity, whether by fluke or by chance, that was the source of those principals that I cited.
Not sure you know what "deny" means. There is a difference between denying a claim, and querying the basis upon which the claim is based. I have been doing the latter. I am happy at a later point to proceed with my points on the former. But until I can move forward with the latter, I am not about to move to the former.
So once again! Have you any evidence that Christianity IS the original source of these principles and they were "first recognized" in religion. I have asked... what.... 10 times now? Still no answer!But again, you missed the point.
You would do well to learn the difference between missing a point and disagreeing with the point. I did the latter. Not the former.NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT.
It has everything to do with the point. We are talking about religious indoctrination. Packaging religion up with otherwise useful and beneficial teachings is one methodology of that indoctrination. And pointing out that the beneficial teachings you have listed can be taught well (better?) without that religion is a central indicator for that point.
That you do not like the point, does not make it an irrelevant one.Essentially , you are saying that what IS being taught in schools for the last 30 years, about everyone being equal (now that is a load of rubbish) and love one another is a bad thing. ?
I have said no such thing anywhere ever. No. But by all means quote me and back up your claim that this is my point.Nothing to do with what I said . Teaching of a faith That is a matter for the parents.
Well at least we do not disagree on everything! I agree that inculcation into a faith is a parental matter. Not a school one.The OP stated that this was abuse . Nonsense? Maybe? Abuse? No
I think it is to a point, just not the OPs point. Teaching a child, before the age of reason or their own decision, that they ARE a particular denomination is pretty abusive. I do not think "abuse" is the BEST word to be used there, but nor do I think it the wrong one.
I ask our readers, should we actually have any remaining (doubtful) to consider schools that permeated through the entire curriculum was a methodology to teach the children they are Green Party Members. Or FF, or FG, or Labour. Not just teaching about politics, but starting from a very young age teaching the kids which political party THEY belong to.
I doubt many of our readers will have trouble seeing what is wrong with that. I would then just ask them why is it any less wrong with a religion or religious denomination?EUROPEAN LAW AND SOCIETY IS ROOTED IN CHRISTIANITY.
Your not knowing the difference between bold and CAPS notwithstanding, your repeating of the assertion above does not mean I did not see it or understand it. I perfectly well understand what it is you are asserting. What I do not know is the evidence upon which you are basing it. And until such time as you actually move to offer such evidence.... my alleged (fabricatied) ignorance on the matter will persist.You have spent all this time trying to deny that.
Again learn the difference between denial and questioning. I am doing the latter.You and the OP are dishonest people.
Again the insult without substantiation attached. But since this paragraph is just a collection of MORE invective and abuse, I will skip it for now and merely refer it to those concerned with that kind of thing.I made a number <snip> to make arguments that were no<snip> You even have the Gaul <snip> very first sentence <snip>about the criticism of the OP's post<snip>flawed.<snip>the untrue allegation.<snip>Moreover, since you took the trouble to defend the OP<snip>hat has been said.<snip>
I repeat, I have neither defended the OP, nor am I the OP. Your multi part rant here therefore is once again nothing to do with me. I repeat what I wrote before: If you asked the OP a question, then that has nothing to do with me thanks. Keep track of who you are talking to.
You seem convinced that I have somehow somewhere been defending the OP, when I have done no such thing. Rather in post #210 I queried some of YOUR assertions. Assertions you are yet to back up in any way. Nothing more. This apparently does not sit well with you and you have been somewhat haughty in response since.Sorry to burst your bubble , dear boy, you have and you are. Please, continue. Your opinion is irrelevant. You have proven that you can not or wish to understand the points that I made. But, keep on trucking.
I can not understand what you can not explain. For example your core assertion seems to be that all the basic rights were first recognized by religion. I understand that 100% perfectly. What is there not to understand? What I am not seeing however is any evidence AT ALL for the claim. Do you have any? Or are you going to continue a multi part dodge of actually offering it?
You wish to continue to assert what you call "historical facts", go right ahead, but do not expect anyone to take you seriously.NO goal posts have been shifted by me. Your problem is your complete and utter failure and refusal to understand what was actually said.
Nope. I pointed to where you shifted them quite clearly. Pretending otherwise does not mean I lack any understanding. For example shifting between the MEANING of indoctrination to discussions ABOUT what is being indoctrinated. That is a huge shift of the goal posts. They are not even close to being the same thing.The OP has stated that Catholic indoctrination in school is a form of abuse.
Take it up with the OP. My own statement is someway different to the OPS if you want to discuss it instead however. I hate to keep reminding you of this, though it is clearly required: I am not the OP.Please, don't get into discussions that you are clueless as to what was said.
More petty invective that you use just as filler. Though feel free to take your own advice here as the lack of knowledge of the subject has only been demonstrated in your corner, from you."What indoctrination" was a hypothetical question ,which proceeded with a list of the content of catholic teachings
A cherry picked list of them that is, and a cherry picked list that happen to also appear, for example, in Humanist teachings too and many of the world views espoused by atheists. So you have not shown they ARE catholic teachings so much as teachings parceled up in the catholic product.You do not do discussion. You are incapable to comprehending what was said by the other.
Again learn the difference between disagreement, and understanding. That I do the former, does not indicate the latter. Much as your need to throw invective and attack the poster rather than the post requires you to pretend otherwise. And the worst thing is while you do that ad hominem, you genuinely believe that you are being clever.Now we are getting to the core. The OP has categorically stated that religious teaching is a form of abuse. Justify this.
AGAIN I am not here to justify the statements made by people who are not me. I however think teaching children they are a particular denomination of a particular religion is a form of abuse, no less than if the school was teaching them they were all members of the Labour Party.
That is the abuse I see. But as for.....In the context of schools, outline the harmful and abusive teachings that children have to deal with
..... the harm. I see harm in teaching children things are true when we have not just little but ZERO arguments, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to suggest the ARE true. Schools, to my mind, should be about teaching children the things we have genuine reason to think are true. I see no utility in describing the teaching of unsubstantiated nonsense as "Abuse" when "harmful" is a better word. But nor do I think it is ENTIRELY the wrong word for it either. Children are sponges for knowledge, much of it they accept uncritically. Using that fact to inculcate ones personal brand of unsubstantiated nonsense is certainly an "abuse" of that faculty.I do not know whether to pity you or laugh at you.
Whichever gets you best through the inability to actually ANSWER me I guess. But I would suggest you do yourself a big favor, do not ever enter a discussion where you are clearly incapable of understanding what was said. Your inadequacies will be exposed.But, blasphemy laws, you and the OP have to heed them.
Nope. I clearly do not. I have already linked you to a blog post I made that I have been threatened with that law, without anyone following through. I also challanged you to give me a statement or action I could do to show you how little care I have for the law in question. You failed to supply one. As expected.Sectarian bigot, that is all you and the OP are.
Again more insults being flung without any attempt to stick them. Show me one statement I have made that is bigoted please. With an explanation of WHY it is a bigoted statement that is. Lets see if you can stick it rather than fling it FOR ONCE.Religious teachings/Education is part of holding religious views. You wish to stop that in the schools, despite being in a minority
Actually no, that is not my position at all. But you do INSIST on inventing positions for me on my behalf for some reason of your own.
Actually if you read back on my posts on this forum, use the search function and search for the words Karate (which I used in the posts in question so it will be a useful key word for you to find the posts in the search utility function) you will find I have suggested school models that very much would keep the religious teaching in question IN schools.
Sorry the real me is so inconveniently difference from your imaginary vision of me. But thems the breaks.No threats from me. Just pointing out that you can not run your mouth off as you wish if you fall foul of the legislation.
So you keep saying, but here I am doing it all the same. Funny that huh? I can tell you that 100% of my behavior has remained unaffected by that law. And it will continue to be unaffected by the law.Go right ahead, I am sure you can think of some .
Clearly not or I would not have asked. I have done many things people have threatened me with that law. Not once have they successfully followed through.Head up to O'Connell Street in plain sight of everyone. Head on over to the Muslim Corner at O'Connell Street or that preacher with the head set on. Find a Catholic Church on a given Sunday and have a big protest, run into the church during mass and scream as if you were at the All Ireland final (like a scene from the Butcher Boy film, always fancied doing that myself)
Are some of your sentences incomplete here? What is blasphemous about "Head up to O'Connell Street in plain sight of everyone." for example? I walk up that street in plain sight all the time???
What is blasphemous about "Head on over to the Muslim Corner at O'Connell Street or that preacher with the head set on."? IS that not why they are there? They want people to "head on over"? You are making NO sense here at all.
As for protests, why do you assume I have never held or partaken in a protest outside a church? I have done. In multiple countries. Ireland included. Protests involving people AND others involving symbols. Go read back for example about the children's shoes "silent protest" where the shoes of children were symbolically deposited in and around churches. I was involved in that.
As for running around screaming my head off in a church, how is that relevant to the blasphemy laws? That is no different that me doing the same thing in a library. Or running into some random school class room and doing it. If the local fishing club was having an AGM and I did that, I would not be welcomed for it and the guards could be called. I genuinely expect to fall foul of the Garda if I do that, but for different reasons and laws than the one we are discussing here! So poor suggestion from you as a way to test the law there.
Your suggestions are pretty petty, irrelevant, and not applicable to the law in question. Do you know the content of the law? Could you describe for me what you think the elements required for a prosecution of the law actually are? Because if you think running around yelling during mass is relevant to the law, you have basically demonstrated VERY clearly you do not know what the law even says / is. Not that I in any way expected you to.
Do try harder though as I am more than willing to do a RELEVANT one if you come up with it.It tells you that they are not they are not against it or object to it strongly enough to reject the conditions in sending the kids to the school.
Ehhhhh thats exactly what I said. There is a difference between conforming to a status quo, and being ok with that status quo. Using one to imply the other is just desperation on your part. But this post has taken me 25 minutes now and 15 is usually my limit for how long I invest in a single post. So I will leave it there.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement