Tolerating the intolerant

old_aussie · 28-02-2010 05:17AM

Zillah wrote: »

Even while making a list of tyrants I managed to not Godwin the thread, and then you wander in.

Anyway, no one used Hitler's own tactics against him. He was defeated by a dozen democracies and one communist state. I don't recall the British having the Gestapo raiding people's homes for saying something against the government. Pretty sure there were no death camps for people of German or Austrian descent in the US. Granted, the USSR was pretty horrible but they didn't need to be to defeat the Third Reich.

In fact, what you just said made no sense whatsoever.

I just meant that hitler was using brute force(the war machine) to take over other countries, the other countries got jack of it and used greater brute force to defeat hitler.

Hitler brutally slaughtered many Russian women and children, he considered them sub-human. Russians could not tollerate this and decided to try and wipe out german soldiers to the last man.

Memnoch · 28-02-2010 09:18AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can't claim the free-choice card and then say it only applies to secularists...it works both ways. Free-choice gives parents the right to share their faith with their children as it gives their children the choice to declare themselves atheists.

That's paradoxical. If parents brain-wash children, then they effectively don't really have a choice in the matter. It's like girls being brought up in Muslim countries. Sure they have a "choice" not to wear a burqa when they more to Europe after being brainwashed the first xxx years of their life. I believe that the freedom of an individual to chose is greater than the freedom of another to impose their opinion upon them.

Also you conveniently skipped over my arguements regarding the likes of Sarah Palin and Bush and the fact that it is the religious right who keeps them in power. These people then enact policies that interfere with the rights of people all over the world to be free.

Most stats suggest religion is very much on the decline, I don't think religion is ever going to have the degree of control it once had. Many aspects of what we would consider outward proclamations of faith, both in Ireland & Saudi, are as much cultural as religious, at this stage.

Perhaps in Europe, but it's quite flagrant in many parts of the world still. And it seems to be on the rise in the U.S. again if you consider the backlash against evolution etc. that seems to be (albeit observationally) more frequent. There is nothing to say it won't dominate the landscape again, at least if religious institutions have anything to do about it, and they fight for this very goal daily.

If you really feel so strongly about human rights and the right-to choose, you'd be serving your cause much better concentrating on Sierra Leone, Algeria, Libya, Burundi &/or DR of Congo than arguing for the emancipation of children from their well meaning parents.

So Guantanamo bay, torture, the wars in iraq and afghanasthan are beacons of human rights. If we want to spread human rights across the world we need to clean up our back yards first.

Also the whole arguement of, these other terrible things are happening there so lets not bother with this other wrong stuff here doesn't wash with me.

Well meaning people burnt heretics at the stake and believed in slavery. Well meaning people eleceted Bush.

Memnoch · 28-02-2010 09:20AM

eoin5 wrote: »

You either believe in god or you dont, the "could he exist" question is different.

Says who?

I don't know if god exists or not. How can I believe or disbelieve something I'm unsure of?

I don't believe in the god as described by humanity. But I accept the possibilty of a super natural being/ entity.

Ickle Magoo · 28-02-2010 11:52AM

If children are free to walk away from religion then they have free-choice, their parents have the free-choice to pass on their faith, any faith, or no faith - you may not agree with them doing so but you cannot rescind their right to do so without also removing free-will, in the name of free-will? Doesn't make sense.

You don't seem to understand what free-will is despite claiming that's what you are fighting for. Free will is being able to have any religion you want and free will is voting for whom you want. Laying down a blanket ban or demanding some kind of mandatory atheistic politicians & policies - not sure how you intend on policing that - has to be the worst way to deal with religion or quash religious power, I'm not sure why you can't see that. The only way to get a truly secular society is to have people voluntarily want a secular society.

You seem to see the world in two shades, black and white & are wilfully ignoring the myriad of greys. You are simplifying to the ridiculous nth degree hugely complex issues that different countries and cultures have both in themselves and with others (which would be the case with or without religion) to give you some kind of basis for an anti-theist stance, unfortunately it's every bit as irrational (Bush=Christian=war for instance) as the views you seem to find so distasteful.

Dades · 28-02-2010 01:43PM

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't believe in the god as described by humanity. But I accept the possibilty of a super natural being/ entity.

That makes you as atheist as most of the people here.

Atheism isn't about absolutes, or knowing either way. It and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One has to accept the possibility of something we don't know about - which means we're all agnostic to a degree.

antiskeptic · 28-02-2010 03:17PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Tolerance, the most fundamental precept of the liberal, and I consider myself to be one. Let everyone have their say, let opposing views be heard. Consider all arguements equally and fairly. That's what's ultimately led to my belief in Agnosticism (as opposed to Aethism).

But is tolerance also our greatest weakness? How do we stop tolerating the intolerant without turning into that which we despise?

You ask yourself a good question here...

SECULAR STATE education should be MANDATED. Religious teaching apart from an exploration of religion as a philosophy and practise (and that of all religions) should be forbidden. Home schooling should be illegal. I would go so far as to say that ALL CHILDREN should be taught about the dangers of religious fundamentalism and the actions of religious fanatics throughout history.

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds. It's more cancerious to society than smoking.

It's time to stop tolerating the intolerant.

..and fail to answer it in spectacular fashion here. You simply leapfrog from that which is to be despised by you (a supposed liberal) to doing the very thing you must, as a liberal, despise.

Methinks you've an identity crisis brewing here: you'd like to be liberal - but only with involving that which suits your own book. Which makes you (and you certainly sound this way) as fanatical as any other you seek to suppress.

antiskeptic · 28-02-2010 03:56PM

Dades wrote: »

One has to accept the possibility of something we don't know about - which means we're all agnostic to a degree.

Unless you're a Dawkinsian 7 of course (of whom there are surprisingly many. Perhaps they suppose free thinking to permit just about anything at all)

Memnoch · 28-02-2010 10:16PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If children are free to walk away from religion then they have free-choice, their parents have the free-choice to pass on their faith, any faith, or no faith - you may not agree with them doing so but you cannot rescind their right to do so without also removing free-will, in the name of free-will? Doesn't make sense.

Okay, I'm just repeating myself now, and usually when you reach that point in the discussion there's no use carrying on.. but here goes. Children who are brainwashed don't have a free-choice. The free choice to later walk away from religion is only there in THEORY. Not in reality. The reason IRISH children can walk away easier is because right now, there isn't a lot of brainwashing that actually goes on, because of the current state of dissillusionment with religion in this country. Examples of brainwashing of children would be countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of the U.S. (red states) etc... Notice how religion has a much stronger hold in these places? It's not a coincidence.

You don't seem to understand what free-will is despite claiming that's what you are fighting for. Free will is being able to have any religion you want and free will is voting for whom you want.

I'd submit that it is you who don't understand the real meaning of free will. People who are brainwashed and indoctrinated into a given ideology don't really have free will and have been deprived of it. That's why things like freedom of the press are important. Take a look at battered/abused spouses or children. In theory they are free to walk out and escape any time. They just have to seek help. The reality for many is that they don't even fathom that the have this freedom, because of fear and the psychological programming they are subjected to by their abusers.

Laying down a blanket ban or demanding some kind of mandatory atheistic politicians & policies - not sure how you intend on policing that - has to be the worst way to deal with religion or quash religious power, I'm not sure why you can't see that. The only way to get a truly secular society is to have people voluntarily want a secular society.

So the idea of separation of relgion from state is now redundant? This seems to be an idea enshrined in many constitutions and a declarations of many democracies. Yet the reality sees religion interfere at every step. So why is it wrong to ask that we take steps to ensure it does not.

You seem to see the world in two shades, black and white & are wilfully ignoring the myriad of greys. You are simplifying to the ridiculous nth degree hugely complex issues that different countries and cultures have both in themselves and with others (which would be the case with or without religion) to give you some kind of basis for an anti-theist stance, unfortunately it's every bit as irrational (Bush=Christian=war for instance) as the views you seem to find so distasteful.

When did I ever say Bush = Christian = war? You're drawing that conclusion all on your on. What I DID say was that someone like BUSH was only able to get elected because of the support of the extreme religious right. That he did so by pandering (or maybe he really believes in it) to their extremist ideology and effectively promising to continue discrimination against homosexuals; and to continue to blur or sabotage the American constitution's promise to separate church from state. Is it a co-incidence that someone like Bush who is ignorant about issues like discrimination and the validity of evolutionary theory also happens to be ignorant about issues like human rights, torture and wars of aggression? I don't know. I don't think that religion caused Bush to go around and start idiotic wars. But I do think that a certain willfull ignorance is required in order to accept the faith of religion, and I'm sure that same kind of willfull ignorance comes in real handy when you are trying to redefine pretending to drown another human being as a "harsh interrogation technique" and not torture.

Black and white is saying that because people are theoretically free to walk away from religion when they grow up they have "Free will." The grey truth is that people who are brainwashed don't really have a choice. I understand the complexities, that I don't agree with your point of view isn't a litmus test of whether I do or do not. But I'm sure condescending to me about it is conventient and helpful in avoiding really thinking with an open mind about what I'm trying to say.

Ickle Magoo · 28-02-2010 10:43PM

Memnoch wrote: »

But I'm sure condescending to me about it is conventient and helpful in avoiding really thinking with an open mind about what I'm trying to say.

No, what's stopping me is how ludicrous your point is. You think you can implement a ban on the under 18's being introduced or indoctrinated into religion - grand. I await with baited breath how you intend on doing that and what net result you expect...

Memnoch · 28-02-2010 10:55PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, what's stopping me is how ludicrous your point is. You think you can implement a ban on the under 18's being introduced or indoctrinated into religion - grand. I await with baited breath how you intend on doing that and what net result you expect...

You're right, it is ludicrous. I threw it out there as an idea. It's completely impractical and unenforcable, not without doing crazy stuff that would defeat the purpose of the exercise to begin with. I get that, and admitted as much in a previous post.

TBH I regret even suggesting it at all and it was more an exhalation of my frustration on the issue than a realisitic proposotion of how we should move forward. The POINT of starting this thread was to seek solutions of what we can do, and sadly that(admittiedly idiotic) suggestion has completely derailed what I was trying to accomplish and lead people to even misread what I've been trying to say in most of the posts because they seem to be focussing on this one aspect...

So back to the point... what CAN we do?

I think there are a few things we can do that are practically enforcable.

1. Any form of religion or religious theory should only be taught in religious class. And this should include a discussion on ALL religions and what they mean.

2. We should also teach children about the influence of religion throughout history, god or bad and debunk the various myths associated with religion. We should actively encourage children to not simply accept what they are told but to seek out the truth through research and exploration. (i.e. just cause your parents tell you to believe in god, that doesn't mean you should). If religious parents don't like it... tough, they have their chance to sell their version. Of course no home schooling should be allowed, to prevent one-sided brainwashing.

3. Religion should strictly be barred from science. This is basically the same as point 1 above. You wanna talk about creationism? Do it in religion class, not in biology.

We also need to think about how we can further enforce the seperation of chruch and state in government. I'm not sure where to begin on this. A Tax on religious institutions as on any other business and a dissolution of their current status as charities (as suggested in another thread) is probably a good starting point.

strobe · 01-03-2010 05:51PM

Memnoch wrote: »

You're right, it is ludicrous. I threw it out there as an idea. It's completely impractical and unenforcable, not without doing crazy stuff that would defeat the purpose of the exercise to begin with. I get that, and admitted as much in a previous post.

TBH I regret even suggesting it at all and it was more an exhalation of my frustration on the issue than a realisitic proposotion of how we should move forward. The POINT of starting this thread was to seek solutions of what we can do, and sadly that(admittiedly idiotic) suggestion has completely derailed what I was trying to accomplish and lead people to even misread what I've been trying to say in most of the posts because they seem to be focussing on this one aspect...

So back to the point... what CAN we do?

I think there are a few things we can do that are practically enforcable.

1. Any form of religion or religious theory should only be taught in religious class. And this should include a discussion on ALL religions and what they mean.

2. We should also teach children about the influence of religion throughout history, god or bad and debunk the various myths associated with religion. We should actively encourage children to not simply accept what they are told but to seek out the truth through research and exploration. (i.e. just cause your parents tell you to believe in god, that doesn't mean you should). If religious parents don't like it... tough, they have their chance to sell their version. Of course no home schooling should be allowed, to prevent one-sided brainwashing.

3. Religion should strictly be barred from science. This is basically the same as point 1 above. You wanna talk about creationism? Do it in religion class, not in biology.

We also need to think about how we can further enforce the seperation of chruch and state in government. I'm not sure where to begin on this. A Tax on religious institutions as on any other business and a dissolution of their current status as charities (as suggested in another thread) is probably a good starting point.

Well that's a lot less extreme sounding than your earlier posts. Teach religion in religion class? Fine. Make sure science and religion are seperated? Perfect. Outlaw homeschooling? Not in my home buddy. If I choose to educate my kids at home, as long as I can show they are getting as good an education as kids in the public school system then the state should stay out of my business. As long as I am not harming anyone, as far as I am concerned, the state have no authority in my home or over my person. That's the essence of libertarianism. You're not a liberal dude...

Erren Music · 01-03-2010 06:03PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, what's stopping me is how ludicrous your point is. You think you can implement a ban on the under 18's being introduced or indoctrinated into religion - grand. I await with baited breath how you intend on doing that and what net result you expect...

Whats get me is how ludicrous your point is.

You think you can implement brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

I would like more education for the religious, show them the facts everyday. The front page of the national papers, the TV shows they watch.

The Irish Times and the Independent should both spend a week exploring religious origins and practises in detail, highlighting all the bits that don't make any sense.

strobe · 01-03-2010 06:36PM

Erren Music wrote: »

Whats get me is how ludicrous your point is.

You think you can implement brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

I would like more education for the religious, show them the facts everyday. The front page of the national papers, the TV shows they watch.

The Irish Times and the Independent should both spend a week exploring religious origins and practises in detail, highlighting all the bits that don't make any sense.

I think you missed her point entirely. Passing into law a ban on anyone under 18 being thought a religious belief is unworkable and wouldn't mean children of religious people wouldn't grow up religious.

Ickle Magoo · 01-03-2010 07:21PM

Memnoch wrote: »

You're right, it is ludicrous. I threw it out there as an idea. It's completely impractical and unenforcable, not without doing crazy stuff that would defeat the purpose of the exercise to begin with. I get that, and admitted as much in a previous post.

TBH I regret even suggesting it at all and it was more an exhalation of my frustration on the issue than a realisitic proposotion of how we should move forward. The POINT of starting this thread was to seek solutions of what we can do, and sadly that(admittiedly idiotic) suggestion has completely derailed what I was trying to accomplish and lead people to even misread what I've been trying to say in most of the posts because they seem to be focussing on this one aspect...

So back to the point... what CAN we do?

I think there are a few things we can do that are practically enforcable.

1. Any form of religion or religious theory should only be taught in religious class. And this should include a discussion on ALL religions and what they mean.

2. We should also teach children about the influence of religion throughout history, god or bad and debunk the various myths associated with religion. We should actively encourage children to not simply accept what they are told but to seek out the truth through research and exploration. (i.e. just cause your parents tell you to believe in god, that doesn't mean you should). If religious parents don't like it... tough, they have their chance to sell their version. Of course no home schooling should be allowed, to prevent one-sided brainwashing.

3. Religion should strictly be barred from science. This is basically the same as point 1 above. You wanna talk about creationism? Do it in religion class, not in biology.

We also need to think about how we can further enforce the seperation of chruch and state in government. I'm not sure where to begin on this. A Tax on religious institutions as on any other business and a dissolution of their current status as charities (as suggested in another thread) is probably a good starting point.

See, now, bar the home schooling ban - I agree whole-heartedly with that post. The main issue, here at least, is getting a separation from church and state because it's impossible to implement most of your suggestions when 95% of the schools are faith schools. :mad:

Erren Music wrote: »

Whats get me is how ludicrous your point is.

You think you can implement brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

Huh? I think I can wha?!

Erren Music wrote: »

I would like more education for the religious, show them the facts everyday. The front page of the national papers, the TV shows they watch.

The Irish Times and the Independent should both spend a week exploring religious origins and practises in detail, highlighting all the bits that don't make any sense.

And that was my point, just in case you missed it. The best way to fight religion is with facts, education, information - if you look at religion and the irreligious today Vs 100yrs ago, much progress has been made, it's slowing going I'll grant you but the balance has definitely shifted. What was once deemed the norm has become "extreme" or "conservative" and the centre has slowly shifted to the left.

Banning anything that is considered part of a cultural or national identity is just going to make people hold on all the tighter & is essentially self-defeating.

Erren Music · 02-03-2010 12:23PM

strobe wrote: »

I think you missed her point entirely. Passing into law a ban on anyone under 18 being thought a religious belief is unworkable and wouldn't mean children of religious people wouldn't grow up religious.

My point was meant to be tongue in cheek.
I just quoted what she said and inserted the words in bold.

Picture if we were all atheist and the government tried to implement religion on us

"brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

Erren Music · 02-03-2010 12:32PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Banning anything that is considered part of a cultural or national identity is just going to make people hold on all the tighter & is essentially self-defeating.

I agree with you, banning is not necessary. All it takes is for the vocalisation of the half million + atheists that live here.

I have a problem with traditions and cultural or national identity issues. Just because some say its so does not make it true. We have no cultural identity left in this country.

Our national identity is that we let delusional religious practices control this country, then we let them rape and kill children. Then we paid for their mess and left them in control of our schools. What does that say about us?

We tolerated 3rd class service and corruption from our politicians, health service, etc. We are a joke.

Ickle Magoo · 02-03-2010 01:31PM

That's a bit harsh tbh...

Genghiz Cohen · 02-03-2010 01:40PM

Erren Music wrote: »

We are a joke.

Jokes are funny.

antiskeptic · 02-03-2010 02:03PM

Erren Music wrote: »

I agree with you, banning is not necessary. All it takes is for the vocalisation of the half million + atheists that live here.

According to 2006 CSO figures, those stating themselves as of "No Religion" total but 175,000. Atheists can be assumed to form but some fraction of that amount.

Voice insufficient to insist on radical change

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm

We tolerated 3rd class service and corruption from our politicians, health service, etc. We are a joke.

We're coming from a long way back: a relatively young, post-colonial country, without much by way of visible means of self-support shouldn't have too much expected from it. I wouldn't let a blip called "The Celtic Tiger" divert you from those facts.

Ickle Magoo · 02-03-2010 02:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Voice insufficient to insist on radical change

I would argue that taking EU grant and subsidies with one hand while willfully enshrining an education system in direct contravention of EU human rights legislation with the other, should be though...

antiskeptic · 02-03-2010 02:23PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would argue that taking EU grant and subsidies with one hand while willfully enshrining an education system in direct contravention of EU human rights legislation with the other, should be though...

Taking whats available, whilst being permitted to take whats available doesn't strike me as problematic. If you're arguing that the world should operate in such a way that doesn't involve loopholes, contradictions.. and all the rest of it then I'd agree with you. But it doesn't and so all sorts is the norm.

The point was narrow. Irish atheism isn't that big of a voice to demand what the rest of the population clearly aren't demanding.

Ickle Magoo · 02-03-2010 02:27PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Taking whats available, whilst being permitted to take whats available doesn't strike me as problematic. If you're arguing that the world should operate in such a way that doesn't involve loopholes, contradictions.. and all the rest of it then I'd agree with you.

I'm arguing that schools paid for by ALL tax payers shouldn't be legally allowed to discriminate against children of minorities, whether those minorities be race, religion or disability - do you agree with that?

antiskeptic · 02-03-2010 02:40PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm arguing that schools paid for by ALL tax payers shouldn't be legally allowed to discriminate against children of minorities, whether those minorities be race, religion or disability - do you agree with that?

Which is a different point from the one which involves taking money that someone is prepared to give you - despite apparent contradictions. I've no problem taking money offered me. Few have had.

As to eg: Catholic schools giving preference to Catholic children? I see no particular problem in that (or in an atheist school giving preference to atheist children - it seems reasonable to me that parents should have the choice as to which philosophy their children will be exposed during their education. Let's agree that it can't be none.). So long as the funds are doled out proportionately.

That we have a historical situation which sees so many schools headed up by religious organisations leads me to suppose that the State should be thankful for that past contribution.

But if now desiring to separate itself further, then it should by all means do so. That that's easier said than done (given that the schooling infrastructure is largely religious and can't be replaced overnight) isn't the problem for the religious involved.

Ickle Magoo · 02-03-2010 02:43PM

No, you suggested the percentage of atheists aren't enough to change the status quo - I'm pointing out the embarrassment of being in contravention of human rights legislation while still sidling in for EU cash should do it/is already doing it.

Legally discriminating against small children based on their parents religion or lack of isn't the problem of the religious involved? How very christian of you. :pac:

antiskeptic · 02-03-2010 02:52PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Legally discriminating against small children based on their parents religion or lack of isn't the problem of the religious involved? How typically christian of you. :pac:

If there's ten places in a particular school and eleven children desiring a place then someone's going to be dissappointed. It seems unreasonable to me that those who don't hold to the value system overarching the schools approach should be given preference over someone who does.

In this case, the discrimination isn't against the child as it isn't criteria involving any of the children themselves that is being evaluated. Rather, it is the decision/viewpoint of their guardians (who make decisions on their behalf) that are being evaluated. And it is the decision/viewpoint of the guardian that is being discriminated against.

antiskeptic · 02-03-2010 03:01PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, you suggested the percentage of atheists aren't enough to change the status quo - I'm pointing out the embarrassment of being in contravention of human rights legislation while still sidling in for EU cash should do it/is already doing it.

As I say, I've no problem with the government increasing separation between church and state. By all means let government establish more secular schools where religion is but a.n.other subject.

But when it comes to so-called 'faith schools', I see no reason for such a school to accomodate the (somewhat curiously contradictory) desires of parents not of that faith to have their children schooled there.

I can't see this government letting embarrassment overcome pragmatism. Indeed, I can't see this government coming within nodding distance of the notion of embarrassment.

Ickle Magoo · 02-03-2010 03:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

If there's ten places in a particular school and eleven children desiring a place then someone's going to be dissappointed. It seems unreasonable to me that those who don't hold to the value system overarching the schools approach should be given preference over someone who does.

Me neither, what's unreasonable is expecting me to pay for it. If schools want the right to pick and choose their pupils, they should be private schools funded solely by people who agree with that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In this case, the discrimination isn't against the child as it isn't criteria involving any of the children themselves that is being evaluated. Rather, it is the decision/viewpoint of their guardians (who make decisions on their behalf) that are being evaluated. And it is the decision/viewpoint of the guardian that is being discriminated against.

:pac:

Bullshít! I'm not the one going to school, they are not discriminating against me! I tried to enroll my child at several schools and was told not to bother with some, they had plenty of RC kids to full the places and weren't going to spend the extra resources making alternative arrangements for HIM. You can keep telling yourself that in some warped way it's my fault that the child can't get into the state schools nearest to us or you can admit the system is terrible, outdated and the fact that it contravenes human rights legislation, frankly, shameful.

Ickle Magoo · 02-03-2010 03:09PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

....the discrimination isn't against the child as it isn't criteria involving any of the children themselves that is being evaluated...

What? Like the child's baptism cert, you mean?

robindch · 02-03-2010 03:15PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would argue that taking EU grant and subsidies with one hand while willfully enshrining an education system in direct contravention of EU human rights legislation with the other, should be though...

The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution, though a lot of low-end religious propaganda would have you believe that it is.

In fact, it's a judicial body formed as part of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 and was instituted on a temporary basis initially, then permanently, around ten or twelve years back. AFAIR, Ireland joined up with the first group of countries, so our membership of the ECHR predates the EU by around 20 years or so.

The EU itself does not legislate in the area of education, so any moaning to our brothers and sisters in Strasbourg about the power of the Vatican in Ireland is going to be ignored.

.

Ickle Magoo · 02-03-2010 03:19PM

Oh I know, I just find it so ironic that Ireland is happy to lap up the money Europe throws at her while standing deliberately in contravention of European human rights legislation...I know they are not two branches of the same organisation, unfortunately, or I suspect we wouldn't have this archaic issue to deal with in 2010.

*shakes head in disbelief at the brass neckery*

Tolerating the intolerant

Comments