Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1
Why is Ruari Quinn so anti-Catholic?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Ok, a lot happened in the few hours I was away, but it seems to me that people are getting athiesm and secularism mixed up.
Bascially, as far as I know, the idea is to being religion out of schools. All public schools. This is a complete break between education and church, i.e. secularism.
No one is arguing that schools denounce religion, i.e. promote the belief that God does not exisst. Not even Deputy Quinn. Those of you who think he is, need to do some research and come back with a definite link to a statement he made promoting such a belief.
TO the indivisual points.Did the RCC excommunicate him during the war?
No, he died a catholic. I'm not sure he was all that bothered. Anyway, point is irrelvant as we're not talking about catholics v athiests in history.lol, the church has done a tremendous job of educating Irish people through the years, the cheek of you.
Remember when this state was first founded and it couldn't afford to run the schools, the church took up the role.
They are still doing a great job.
your saying that our great and good politicians via the Irish civil service (that wouldn't organize a piss up in a brewery) can provide a better system than what we have now????
Because make no mistake those politicians and esteemed civil servants will have to get involved in any fundamental changes in the system, such as the one mentioned in this thread.
Going by your post, answer that.
better the devil you know
The state is doing a good job now from what I know. As I said to you earlier, the state sets the syallabus, exams and trains teachers.
What is the RCC's stance on education and what are the specific benefits of it rather than a secular system?I don't know whether the fact that Quinn Bacik and Gilmore and De Rossa as well I think are atheist have anything to do with it. But Quinn is arguing that the church should lose 50 per cent of Schools for starters. The Church agrees that 98 per cent is too high but I think vacating half of them is a bit much. But the real question is whether Labnour want to remove all funding for all ethos schools and the 50 per cent target ios justy a nominal stopping point.
I would hope so. Certainly, they should not be allowed to discriminate entry to non-catholics. I don't know if the practice of requesting a baptism cert is still in opperation, but if it is, then all statefunding should be withdrawn from any school practicing.
Also, all parents should be allowed to pull their children out of religious classes and sacraments. Regarding the later, that should most certainly be done outside of school.Ruari a confessed non believer first minister out of the blocks with anti-Catholic agenda.Look at the mess of state schools in the U.K. people move house in order to be near Catholic schools
emphasies my two points:
1) Where does Deptury Quinn's faith or lack thereof come into play?
2) What specifically are the reaons for promoting Catholic-run education?Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I would hope so. Certainly, they should not be allowed to discriminate entry to non-catholics. I don't know if the practice of requesting a baptism cert is still in opperation, but if it is, then all statefunding should be withdrawn from any school practicing.
Schools are allowed have a list and fill the list according to their priorities. If you are not of their ethos you go down the list. If the place is there when they get to a non faith child that child will get the place. But the children of people who are religious are entitled to jump above those who don't in applying for schools. Just as those with siblings or parents going to the school might get preference. Like Rauri Quinn's kids if they go to Blackrock
Also, all parents should be allowed to pull their children out of religious classes and sacraments. Regarding the later, that should most certainly be done outside of school.
That is allowed and actually is a right. I know of an Opus Dei run school with Muslim kids n it and they have the option to not be there for religion classes or even to attend and not to participate.
1) Where does Deptury Quinn's faith or lack thereof come into play?
2) What specifically are the reaons for promoting Catholic-run education?
1) where Labour politicians have stated there is an atheist agenda which they support? Where Labour say they believe in "secular" meaning "no State money for religious schools"
2) Catholics want it. What is the reason for supporting a Muslim or atheist education - Muslims want it or atheists want a "no God" school. We can also support an "Educate together" school which may be atheist or may have classes on several religions if the people want that.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Schools are allowed have a list and fill the list according to their priorities. If you are not of their ethos you go down the list. If the place is there when they get to a non faith child that child will get the place. But the children of people who are religious are entitled to jump above those who don't in applying for schools. Just as those with siblings or parents going to the school might get preference. Like Rauri Quinn's kids if they go to Blackrock
Which is apractice that needs to be scrapped if the school wnats to contineue accepting tax funding.That is allowed and actually is a right. I know of an Opus Dei run school with Muslim kids n it and they have the option to not be there for religion classes or even to attend and not to participate.
Which is different, unless the kids were accepted on a first come first served basis.
I'd be okay with this, as long as any parent has a right to pull their kids from religious clasees.
Finally, Ruari Quinn's affliation is, again, irrelevant.
1) where Labour politicians have stated there is an atheist agenda which they support? Where Labour say they believe in "secular" meaning "no State money for religious schools"
2) Catholics want it. What is the reason for supporting a Muslim or atheist education - Muslims want it or atheists want a "no God" school. We can also support an "Educate together" school which may be atheist or may have classes on several religions if the people want that.[/QUOTE]Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
http://www.atheist.ie/2011/02/canvass-for-ivana-bacik-and-ruairi-quinn-saturday-19-february/
http://www.atheist.ie/2010/03/ivana-bacik-at-ucc-atheists/
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0719/1224275018710.html
Ms Bacik, herself an atheist, said there was a good deal of support among members of the Oireachtas to separate the church from the State and that, even though many might not publicly admit it, there were a number of atheists among the parliamentary ranks
Figured you'd highlight this, because that would be the intellectually dishonest thing to do.
That's Atheist Ireland campaigning for Labour, not the other way around. Given that Labour have the most secular agenda of the major parties, of course a secular lobby group is going to support them
So basically as I said, the Minister wants to move schools out of Catholic Church patronage, but has no radical atheist agenda beyond that. Great. So you can drop all the crap about Mao and Pol Pot.Ireland IS a secular country. In the US securality is interpreted as "no tax funding for Schools who have religion in them" In Ireland it isn't! Ireland and Australia are still secular countries with good education systems but also with religion in schools and tax money going to those schools.
If Labour want to withdraw all State funding to all fee paying schools let them say so! I'll bet they won't because their smoked salmon socialism would mitigate against it because the Middle Classes in Dublin where they have done well in the last election will lynch them
come the next election.
I don't think that Labour have any such plans, but I'd be happy to see that happen myself. The state should provide education for all. There should be no compulsion to provide religious indoctrination too. If parents are so eager for their kids to be versed in Catholic (or other) doctrine, they should do it in their own time.The people don't want atheist schools.
It's really quite simple -- An atheist school would be one that teaches that there is no god, religion is bullshít, etc. A secular school would be one that does not teach or endorse any particular religion.
Is there anybody advocating atheist schools? If not, why are you using 'atheist' and 'secular' interchangeably? Being a bit dishonest?Rauri Quinn is saying he wants 50 per cent of Primary schools to be managed by groups who do not have any religious involvment.
What is the big picture? It is that no school should have state support in tax money if they have a religious ethos. But if that was the Case rauri Quinn or his children would not have get the education they got in the first place. And the Middle Classes of south Dublin are going to hammer Labour if they actually tell the truth and say they want no state support for religious denominations in education.
If that is what you mean by Secular then say it!
Do Labour believe in having no tax money funding any religious involvment in education? Is that what you mean by "secular education"?
No Labour don't intend withholding state funding for religious schools, just transferring patronage away from the Church for a significant number of them.
Their policy document says:Recommendations of the Forum will form the basis of a White
Paper for consideration and implementation by the Government to
ensure that our education system can provide a sufficiently diverse
number of schools which cater for all religions and none. As part of this
process, parents and the local community should also have a say in
the patronage of existing and future schools, for example by direct
ballot.
Seems like a reasonable objective to me. My guess is that there won't be riots in the streets if the number of Catholic schools is reduced to 50%, because nominally religious people in Ireland don't give enough of a shít about their religion. They barely believe most of the doctrine.0 -
-
The church however won't drop the effort and will be there in six years time to assist whoever they can provide an education to.
As long as they get to indoctrinate children in those schools, yeah? Will the Church help set up secular schools?
I'm sure that Educate Together will be here for the long haul BTW, given that their raison d'etre is setting up and running schools.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Figured you'd highlight this, because that would be the intellectually dishonest thing to do.
That's Atheist Ireland campaigning for Labour, not the other way around. Given that Labour have the most secular agenda of the major parties, of course a secular lobby group is going to support them
I supplied a quote from Bacik saying that ther are politicians who support the atheist agenda but dont want to come out an say it. Don't attribute dishonesty or lack of transparency to me.So basically as I said, the Minister wants to move schools out of Catholic Church patronage, but has no radical atheist agenda beyond that. Great. So you can drop all the crap about Mao and Pol Pot.
So you are saying that the minister and no one in Labour believe that ther should be no state funding for religious schools? They do not believe in "secular" in the US sense? What then is this discussion all about? What is the long term goal?I don't think that Labour have any such plans, but I'd be happy to see that happen myself.
I.e. you don't know. When Quinn says he is totally for state support for ethos schools and he agrees with the principle of tax money being spent in Religious schools I will believe it.The state should provide education for all.
No it should not! People should be free to educate their children at home if they wish.There should be no compulsion to provide religious indoctrination too.
there isn't! In fact the constitution supports the right not to attend religious classes even in religious ethos schools!If parents are so eager for their kids to be versed in Catholic (or other) doctrine, they should do it in their own time.
LOL. If parents want a "no God" schools the state should pay for it and they should not have to have an atheistic education at home but if parents support God they should pay for it themselves at home.It's really quite simple -- An atheist school would be one that teaches that there is no god, religion is bullshít, etc. A secular school would be one that does not teach or endorse any particular religion.
No an ANTIRELIGIOUS school would be one against religion. Yo uare basically saying atheism is against religion when atheists are always saying that it is just an absence of religion.
Which is it? Is atheism anti religion or is it just the absence of endorsing any religion?
Not so simple as you made out eh?Is there anybody advocating atheist schools? If not, why are you using 'atheist' and 'secular' interchangeably? Being a bit dishonest?
I provided earlier theproblem of using "secular". The US definition of "no god in schools and no state funding for schools with God" is what you mean by secular isn't it?No Labour don't intend withholding state funding for religious schools, just transferring patronage away from the Church for a significant number of them.
So the Minister (and members of his party) is an atheist and does not believe in God but also believes that the Church are a great organisation and religion should be funded by the State? Ho Chi Quinn apoparently also believes in socialism but international oil companies and banks and capitalist moguls (like the brother Lochlann) are also good and should be funded by society. The problem I have is until he says "I believe Religious ethos schools in principle should be allowed some state funding" I don't know what his (or the other atheist politicians) principles are.Seems like a reasonable objective to me. My guess is that there won't be riots in the streets if the number of Catholic schools is reduced to 50%, because nominally religious people in Ireland don't give enough of a shít about their religion. They barely believe most of the doctrine.
Oh so you represent the opinion of most Catholics now do you? 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement