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

Why is Ruari Quinn so anti-Catholic?

1…89111314…21

Comments

  • #302
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    caseyann wrote: »
    If a school wants to be catholic it has every right to be so,and if it wants to be secularized it can be every right to do so.If someone of a different religion send their child to a catholic school,thats their tuff.Forcing the majority to change for a minority is disgraceful.
    No one has the right to force any school to change.

    If a school wants to be catholic then good luck to them, that isn't the issue. The issue is that a government is obliged to provide a free and inclusive education system which it currently does not.

    If a school refuses to take children in based on their religious upbringing, then they should opt out of the state system and become privately funded.


  • #303
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    caseyann wrote: »
    I am not getting hysterical,i am trying to write a paper and reply at same time.;)

    was not always discriminatory as the majority is and always has been catholic religion.Non catholic have their own schools.Catholic schools accept all faiths in their doors regardless.Show me all these schools that are proven to discriminate against someone because of their religion?
    If i was a catholic applying to a Jewish school i wouldn't get in,i would even be allowed in their synagogue.
    Catholic church,are you catholic no i have no faith,you are welcome.:)

    If they have to its because 90% are catholic. And they are not private they are STATE schools.

    Non catholics have their own schools because they have to, and they have to fund them themselves in addition to paying taxes for catholic run ones. the fairest way of doing it is to take religion out of the equation

    Your weird jewish analogy seems to be based on your own prejudice as i have been in a synagogue more than once despite not being jewish. first the muslims, now the jews, who are you going to have a go at next?


  • #304
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    No state money should be spent on religion. End of.
    This should be enforced in schools and hospitals especially.

    ALL schools/hospitals should be stripped of religious momentos.
    Schools should be made to comply with equality legislation 100%.

    No clergy should be allowed into the schools during school hours.
    If the parents so wish, rabbi and witchdoctors could be allowed in after school to teach their untruths.
    Although the guitar classes in room 4 would be more beneficial.
    No teachers would be allowed to "teach" these after school religious indoctrination sessions.

    I voted Labour this time specifically to make a start on this road to clean up this state/church coalition.
    I'm delighted that the Minister is looking after this area immediately.

    Don't trust the RCC bishops though. They won't give up ANY schools without a fight over religious "education" and how it's run in the future.

    Get rid of them all!!!
    Rapists and rapists sympathisers the lot of them.
    And in my opinion anyone who is pro any RCC involvement with children, is a rapist sympathiser too.


  • #305
    TheRevolution
    Closed Accounts Posts: 452 ✭✭TheRevolution


    caseyann wrote: »
    It is not discriminating,it has always been there and was there before anyone came from another religion in more to Ireland.

    I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
    If it was discrimination this practice would have only been made in he years since their arrival.

    I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
    If it wasnt for catholicism majority of these schools would never have existed.

    The catholic schools set up for the poor did a lot more harm than good for the majority of people who went through them and led to huge incidents of sexual abuse. The catholic schools set up for the wealthy would have been set up by other secular people to make a profit anyway as demand would have created an economic opportunity.
    Also the less of faith the more of crime.

    Pretty sure Sweden has a much lower crime rate than we do where only 1% of people actually go to church.


  • #306
    Red Alert
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,486 ✭✭✭Red Alert


    eyescreamcone wrote: »
    ALL schools/hospitals should be stripped of religious momentos.
    Schools should be made to comply with equality legislation 100%.

    No clergy should be allowed into the schools during school hours.
    If the parents so wish, rabbi and witchdoctors could be allowed in after school to teach their untruths.
    Although the guitar classes in room 4 would be more beneficial.
    No teachers would be allowed to "teach" these after school religious indoctrination sessions.

    What about where a school was built by a local parish, perhaps on land that was purchased with collections from the local people? Are you saying that Catholic (and Protestant, Muslim) schools shouldn't be allowed to continue even if the local Catholic (or other) community built it?


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    caseyann wrote: »
    Give them math classes? Or painting or something.

    The major.
    Never ever heard of a Teacher teaching a child religion who wasnt of that religion themselves.And if they arent then the teacher who is takes over.

    http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm
    2006 stats for religion in Ireland.

    And it is only like 30 mins three times a week.

    I have to say that I'm getting rather tired of that census being hauled out as proof of views on education. Persons have indicated that - to a degree not specified - they adhere to one faith or another. Thats all.

    Here, as kindly linked earlier by another poster, we have an MRBI poll that was featured in the Times that shows 61% of those questioned believed that the Catholic church should relenquish its control over primary schools.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0125/1224263037668.html?via=rel
    If you want to show that theres a majority against doing the same in secondary education, please produce a similar poll for a similar company.
    caseyann wrote: »
    They already pay their taxes why the hell should they have to do anything else,they also make voluntary contributions to the schools..

    Protestants, secular catholics and various other groups are tax payers as well. Why should the state act preferentially towards one group?

    caseyann wrote: »
    It is not discriminating, ..

    Preferential treatment based on race, religion or political allegiance is, by its very nature, discriminatory. As these are institutions funded by the state, the state therefore becomes a party to such practices. Thats just not acceptable in a supposedly modern "western" country.
    caseyann wrote: »
    If i was a catholic applying to a Jewish school i wouldn't get in,i would even be allowed in their synagogue.
    ..

    Which, were it a private school, would be fair enough. Here, we're talking about state funded education, which all citizens contribute to via tax.


  • #308
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,610 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    ISAW wrote: »
    Parents are responsible for their children. If you want a kibbutz or hippi society then I suggest you try somewhere wher they have one. Ireland isn't one of those places. children also cant have bank accounts or vote but the people who do vote decide on what system will govern and run the country. What is your problem with having courts bank laws and police where the children dont decide what is being done to their rights or money? If you don't have a problem with that then why do you have a problem only with schools which parents decide on?
    Um, I responded to your assertion that:
    ISAW wrote:
    we live in a country were 95 per cent plus of the occupants are religious believers
    ...with a point that up to 10% of our population are in nappies, so isn't really sound to label them.

    We don't let parents of two children under 18 have four votes in general elections, do we?
    ISAW wrote: »
    you just can't say a parents choice for their child is unfair because the children haven't the choice for themselves. In fact if you apply this principle to the "rights of the unborn" you would be in a problem with respect to the pro abortion lobby.
    I have no idea why you are even equating the two except to add the element of hysteria to the debate.
    ISAW wrote: »
    It is a representation of some peoples actual views. But your intolerance of others is showing. apparently you think a minority should be able to inflict their beliefs on others. this is something even the vast majority Church don't do!
    You what?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You just validateds the "... few percent should be telling the rest of the people how to think." above when you stated:

    Boards is a representation of young peoples' actual views, ...and paints a completely different picture.

    why should a minority opinion of atheists or young people be binding on the whole of the education system?
    I said absolutely nothing about anything being binding on the education system. Why do you keep bringing it up?


  • #309
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    caseyann wrote: »
    I am not getting hysterical,i am trying to write a paper and reply at same time.;)

    was not always discriminatory as the majority is and always has been catholic religion.Non catholic have their own schools.Catholic schools accept all faiths in their doors regardless.Show me all these schools that are proven to discriminate against someone because of their religion?
    If i was a catholic applying to a Jewish school i wouldn't get in,i would even be allowed in their synagogue.
    Catholic church,are you catholic no i have no faith,you are welcome.:)

    Did it some time ago:
    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    Source

    And you did sound hysterical in the last post I responded to. Especially the last line which, if you'll pardon my French Ma'am, you plucked out of your arse.
    NTMK wrote: »
    she is quite possibly one of the most racist poster ive ever come across
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64699162

    ..... and yet she tires to lecture us on what is and is not discriminatory? Pot, kettle, black. If that little taxi rant is the product of a catholic school education, then she can keep it, thank you very much.
    NTMK wrote: »
    you clearly havent read caseyanns comments before this isnt something new

    Well, she doesn't appear to be reading some of mine and so the circus rolls on.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #310
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Nodin wrote: »
    I have to say that I'm getting rather tired of that census being hauled out as proof of views on education. Persons have indicated that - to a degree not specified - they adhere to one faith or another. Thats all.

    Oh so you think that if 90 per cent of people beliven in God that they also want no mention of God in school?

    [quote}
    Here, as kindly linked earlier by another poster, we have an MRBI poll that was featured in the Times that shows 61% of those questioned believed that the Catholic church should relenquish its control over primary schools.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0125/1224263037668.html?via=rel
    [/quyote]

    That is a secondary source!

    and it claims
    61 per cent of people said the church should give up control of the school system,

    In reference to the RC Church having 97 per cent of Primary school boards. Even the RCC have said they want to change that!
    If you want to show that theres a majority against doing the same in secondary education, please produce a similar poll for a similar company.

    That's called "shifting the burden" . YOU are the one claiming that the church should be removed! It is for YOU to produce evidence showing most Irish people want no mention of God in schools.
    Protestants, secular catholics and various other groups are tax payers as well. Why should the state act preferentially towards one group?

    They shouldnt! If people want t Protestant , secular , muslim or other school and ther is enough of them they should be catered for by the state. Including atheists.
    Preferential treatment based on race, religion or political allegiance is, by its very nature, discriminatory.
    [/quote[

    Indeed it is1 and it is protected by law. If the roman Catholic church appoint a Bishop they can insist the Bishop be a Catholic. Just as the Provost of Trinity has to be church of Ireland. I don't see Bacik complaining about that!
    As these are institutions funded by the state, the state therefore becomes a party to such practices. Thats just not acceptable in a supposedly modern "western" country.

    Actually it IS! just as it is acceptable in the "modern" UK where the Church is linked to the State.
    Which, were it a private school, would be fair enough. Here, we're talking about state funded education, which all citizens contribute to via tax.

    Yes. so what? Tax also funds hospitals and police which you may never need or use. Are you some sort of neoconservative who believes there should be no tax and people free to spend their own money on whatever they want?


  • #311
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Dades wrote: »
    Um, I responded to your assertion that:
    ...with a point that up to 10% of our population are in nappies, so isn't really sound to label them.

    95 per cent plus of people over 18 are believers. It is totally acceptable for parents to make decisions for their children.
    We don't let parents of two children under 18 have four votes in general elections, do we?

    No but we do accept that the choice they make for their children are legally binding and their own decision and supported by the State. We also accept those under 18 are not entitled to decide some things like what is right or wrong. Do ytou really think someone under age can say sex is okay for them and therefore based on their opinion rape can be dismissed? Or do you believe in statutory Rape? apparently you do not believe in it.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    ISAW wrote: »
    Indeed it is1 and it is protected by law. If the roman Catholic church appoint a Bishop they can insist the Bishop be a Catholic. Just as the Provost of Trinity has to be church of Ireland. I don't see Bacik complaining about that!


    eh

    http://www.tcd.ie/provost/role/


  • #313
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    eyescreamcone wrote: »
    No state money should be spent on religion. End of.
    This should be enforced in schools and hospitals especially.

    ALL schools/hospitals should be stripped of religious momentos.
    Schools should be made to comply with equality legislation 100%.

    Why stop there. why fund hospitals with State money at all?
    I voted Labour this time specifically to make a start on this road to clean up this state/church coalition.
    I'm delighted that the Minister is looking after this area immediately.

    So you agree Labour is promoting an atheist agenda.
    [quote[
    Don't trust the RCC bishops though. They won't give up ANY schools without a fight over religious "education" and how it's run in the future.
    [/quote]


    You are out of touch with the contradictory facts which Bishops produced befopre Quinn got elected.
    Get rid of them all!!!
    Rapists and rapists sympathisers the lot of them.
    And in my opinion anyone who is pro any RCC involvement with children, is a rapist sympathiser too.

    QUICK! Your anti theist mask is slipping. :)

    Clearly you are an anticlerical bigot.


  • #314
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    sensibleken wrote: »
    eh

    http://www.tcd.ie/provost/role/

    http://www.tcd.ie/registrar/assets/documents/statutes/64-Appendices_Divinity_School_CouncilPDF%5B67.2KB%5D.pdf

    Chapter VII
    Section 7
    Should the Provost at any time not be, or cease to be, a member of the Church of Ireland, his place on the Divinity School Council shall be taken by the Vice-Provost, if and so long as he shall be a member of the said Church.
    In this event he shall be Chairman of the Divinity School Council, and have a second or casting vote, and shall not be entitled to take part in the nomination by the Board of the five members of the Divinity School Council to be nominated by the Board.


    The Provost has to be CofI and failing that the vice Provost has to be since the Divinity school head has to be. For this reason the last two Vice Provosts have been C of I. In the fiorst case the Provost was a Catholic and in the second the Provost was an atheist.

    The Current Provost elect was a Prior vice Provost in that period I believe which suggests to me he is certainly C of I.

    The Statute was not repealed


  • #315
    Kevo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 427 ✭✭Kevo


    ISAW wrote: »
    China and Russia were atheistic regimes and a hundred million at least were killed.

    That does not prove that atheism was the cause. This is a logical fallacy and a very poor argument.

    Correlation does not imply causation


  • #316
    wee truck big driver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 472 ✭✭wee truck big driver


    time and again its proven in ireland the only people who no matter what you do on them it can not be considered racist , sexist or bigoted is the white catholic irish male


  • #317
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    wee truck big driver wrote: »
    time and again its proven in ireland the only people who no matter what you do on them it can not be considered racist , sexist or bigoted is the white catholic irish male

    If I could understand that, I think I would disagree with it.


  • #318
    Colm!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭Colm!


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Its more than just religious instruction its also the ethos.

    You didn't address the issues of divisiveness that these changes will cause. This could potentially split communities where I feel old wealth conservatism will stay on one side and the working poor on the other. It has happened in the UK, it will happen here too.

    This type of argument very much confuses me.
    This is a thread about secularising schools. You're claiming it'll split by wealth margins, as if to say that there's no such thing as a wealthy atheist or a poor Catholic.
    So, yeah. What the ****? The Catholic-run schools in this country are really no different from the ones run by secular bodies in terms of class division.
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Last Census, I thought the majority of the people said they were Catholic?

    That doesn't imply "this is a catholic country". I'm an Irishman by birth and an agnostic, and this does nothing to effect my status as a citizen, nor is the Catholic Church outright declared as the official state religion.

    It's not a catholic country, it's a secular country inhabited mainly by catholics.

    ISAW wrote: »
    China and Russia were atheistic regimes and a hundred million at least were killed.
    Guilt by association...
    "Atheist governments have killed before, so atheists will kill again" is like saying "Hitler was a Catholic, Catholic leaders will kill". (...godwin's law)
    Until you can prove that secularism CAUSED murder, stating this nonsense won't get you any further. I believe that an atheist government won't massacre millions in the same way as I believe that Catholics don't want to massacre millions.




    ugh, why do I bother?


  • #319
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    ISAW wrote: »
    http://www.tcd.ie/registrar/assets/documents/statutes/64-Appendices_Divinity_School_CouncilPDF%5B67.2KB%5D.pdf

    Chapter VII
    Section 7
    Should the Provost at any time not be, or cease to be, a member of the Church of Ireland, his place on the Divinity School Council shall be taken by the Vice-Provost, if and so long as he shall be a member of the said Church.
    In this event he shall be Chairman of the Divinity School Council, and have a second or casting vote, and shall not be entitled to take part in the nomination by the Board of the five members of the Divinity School Council to be nominated by the Board.


    The Provost has to be CofI and failing that the vice Provost has to be since the Divinity school head has to be. For this reason the last two Vice Provosts have been C of I. In the fiorst case the Provost was a Catholic and in the second the Provost was an atheist.

    The Current Provost elect was a Prior vice Provost in that period I believe which suggests to me he is certainly C of I.

    The Statute was not repealed

    seems to be contradicted by the fact that the guy in 1991 was a catholic, and by the fact that the first page of that document says that that council has ceased to exist.

    honestly if youre going to quote something to back up your statement at least make sure it doesnt prove the opposite


  • #320
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    ISAW wrote: »
    Oh so you think that if 90 per cent of people beliven in God that they also want no mention of God in school?
    Do you assume that all 90% want religious dogma taught in school for their kids?
    because that's what it is, an assumption of yours presented as fact.


  • #321
    alejandro1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭alejandro1977


    gman2k wrote: »
    All this talk about Catholic Run schools being better because of their 'ethos'.
    Can someone explain to me what this 'ethos' actually translates into?

    Last time I looked, Irish literacy levels had slipped way down the league table, and there was no major change in 'ethos' in the same timespan.

    The only thing that influences the quality of education is funding. The reason why Catholic Schools were/are so popular in the US is down to funding - rich benefactors etc.

    Nonsense. Teachers in Catholic schools are generally paid less, the reason they put up with it is that the quality of students is higher - the parents have more interest. They are popular because of the quality of education and the discipline and because many parents even if not Catholic themselves see religious influence as a good thing

    There are far too many schools for them to all have rich benefactors.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Kevo wrote: »
    That does not prove that atheism was the cause. This is a logical fallacy and a very poor argument.

    Correlation does not imply causation

    You didn't read what I wrote. I dint just write

    "Atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions."

    I also pointed out that
    Not all communist systems slaughtered millions
    Communist systems run by believers didn't!
    Communist systems tolerant of belief didn't!
    Only the atheistic (state atheism) regimes did.

    Where are the great atheist civilizations? What did they contribute to the world short of slaughter?

    What State that was atheistic didn't slaughter millions?

    so as regards correlation and causality whenever atheists were ion charge enough to push for removal of religion they caused hundreds of millions to be slaughtered. They didnt just happen to be atheists as well. Atheism was announced as a central part of their plan for society. It was policy. Read what I wrote from Lenin etc.

    So what I am for is tolerance. tolerance of religion and tolerance of atheism. support from the State even if enough of any religion or if enough atheists band together to set up a school.

    But saying we need to get rid of religion is just harking back to state atheism.


  • #323
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    clown bag wrote: »
    Do you assume that all 90% want religious dogma taught in school for their kids?

    Mainstream christians and Mainstream Muslims and Jews are dogmatic!

    They believe in a single God and want that taught yes!
    Mainstream Christians are Trinitarian and want that taught yes.
    because that's what it is, an assumption of yours presented as fact.

    LOL! You seem to think that mainstream Christians want no religion in schools. Other than "shifting the burden" onto me to prove they do, where is your evidence that they don't or that they want atheism in schools or schools with no mention of God?

    You don't represent the opinion of Christians!


  • #324
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Colm! wrote: »

    Until you can prove that secularism CAUSED murder, stating this nonsense won't get you any further. I believe that an atheist government won't massacre millions in the same way as I believe that Catholics don't want to massacre millions.

    What atheistic government which brought in state atheism did not slaughter people?
    Name one!

    Catholics have a dogma a central belief system part of which is "do not kill people"
    State atheism wherever it took over a state slaughtered people!


  • #325
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭caseyann


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    If a school wants to be catholic then good luck to them, that isn't the issue. The issue is that a government is obliged to provide a free and inclusive education system which it currently does not.

    If a school refuses to take children in based on their religious upbringing, then they should opt out of the state system and become privately funded.


    If they wouldnt allow a child in based on their religion or colour or nationality then yes they should get no state help what so ever.That is agreed.


  • #326
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    sensibleken wrote: »
    seems to be contradicted by the fact that the guy in 1991 was a catholic, and by the fact that the first page of that document says that that council has ceased to exist.

    As I pointed out
    The guy in 1991 was a catholic but who was his Vice Provost? ALL of them were C of I for ten years. Same for the current atheist!
    honestly if youre going to quote something to back up your statement at least make sure it doesnt prove the opposite

    It does not prove the opposite. I pointed it out because it is the actual statute which covers the case of the Provost not being Anglican. the Provost has to be anglican because he is head of the Theological college. If he is not Anglican the vice Provost has to be Anglican. As the Current Provost elect was apparently a vice Provost ( I believe) for an atheist Provost he must be Anglican.

    Got it?


  • #327
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ISAW wrote: »
    Oh so you think that if 90 per cent of people beliven in God that they also want no mention of God in school?

    It does not indicate either way, as I said earlier.
    ISAW wrote: »
    That is a secondary source!?

    Do please explain what you mean by "secondary source" and why that would be invalid.
    ISAW wrote: »
    and it claims!

    I know what it claims, having read it.

    ISAW wrote: »
    That's called "shifting the burden" . YOU are the one claiming that the church should be removed! It is for YOU to produce evidence showing most Irish people want no mention of God in schools.

    ....I already have, at least in reference to primary education.
    ISAW wrote: »
    They shouldnt! If people want t Protestant , secular , muslim or other school and ther is enough of them they should be catered for by the state. Including atheists.

    ....thus seperating the population further along the lines that led to no small amount of sectarianism and strife over the last few hundred years of the countrys history.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Indeed it is1 and it is protected by law. If the roman Catholic church appoint a Bishop they can insist the Bishop be a Catholic. Just as the Provost of Trinity has to be church of Ireland. I don't see Bacik complaining about that!

    Please don't repeat that kind of nonsense. We're not in the 19th century.
    The first catholic Provost was appointed in 1991.
    http://www.tcd.ie/provost/role/

    ISAW wrote: »
    So you agree Labour is promoting an atheist agenda.

    You've provided no proof of that.
    ISAW wrote: »
    As I pointed out
    The guy in 1991 was a catholic but who was his Vice Provost? ALL of them were C of I for ten years. Same for the current atheist!

    You stated - "Just as the Provost of Trinity has to be church of Ireland"

    This has been shown to be untrue.


  • #328
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    ISAW wrote: »
    Mainstream christians and Mainstream Muslims and Jews are dogmatic!

    They believe in a single God and want that taught yes! (in schools? ) please show me where 90% said this.

    Mainstream Christians are Trinitarian and want that taught yes. ( in schools) please show me where 90% said this.



    LOL! You seem to think that mainstream Christians want no religion in schools. Other than "shifting the burden" onto me to prove they do, where is your evidence that they don't or that they want atheism in schools or schools with no mention of God?

    You don't represent the opinion of Christians!
    You talk about me shifting the burden? lol. That's all you do on here, that and guilt by association, presenting strawmen, projecting and altering the parameters and limitations of debate to suit your own agenda, which I assume is simply to derail threads for your own amusement?

    but you represent the opinion of your infamous 90%? No religion in schools does not equal no religion period.

    In any case, the percentages are irrelevant in my opinion,(even though your claim that 90% want religious school is completly unsupported) I'm just enjoying watching you digging that big hole with your jcb. The reason I think percentages are irrelevant is because I don't favour the tyranny of the majority. Not exposing children to religious teaching in schools is a human rights issue, one which is and has been violated in this country. If 90% of people in the country wanted children to be punched and kicked by teachers for not having their homework done would you still favour punch and kick schools and tell parents of children who do not wish to have their kids punched and kicked to either find 100 similar kids and build their own school or else lump it?


  • #329
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    To borrow a phrase from David Mc Williams - I am one of the Popes Children - That's where it ends! I do not want the RC church anywhere near me or my family. Most people I know would form the same opinion - they have no time for 'organised religion.'

    At the end of the day it boils down to freedom of thought and expression.

    It irritates the hell out of me that one religious group or another is consulted in any way when the govt. is framing legislation etc etc. If such interest groups want to influence policy they can bloody well get elected!

    The sooner this country is run on impartial secular lines the better.

    SD


  • #330
    wee truck big driver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 472 ✭✭wee truck big driver


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    If I could understand that, I think I would disagree with it.
    you would disagree with something which you cant understand. i thought it was fairly simple but seemingly not enough for some.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Colm!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭Colm!


    ISAW wrote: »
    What atheistic government which brought in state atheism did not slaughter people?
    Name one!
    Most modern western governments are secular. They are not athiest... but in fact, there was only one officially athiest government. Albania shut down all religious institutions in the 1960s, and is the only country to ever have done so. And they reversed their laws in 1991.

    In Soviet law, the "freedom to hold religious services" was constitutionally guaranteed. The law also allowed that citizens may teach and may be taught religion privately. It is true that religion was discouraged under early Soviet rule, but not outlawed outright.
    I can't say the same for China, but religion is practised there. Freedom is limited, but still exists.
    Catholics have a dogma a central belief system part of which is "do not kill people"
    Catholics have also murdered, lied and stolen whilst claiming to follow their belief system. If you asked any athiest what their moral standing was, the majority of answers you'd get would tell you that they have humanist views, part of which is "do not kill people".

    Don't assume that because we simply don't believe in God that we are immoral beings intent on destroying all those who do believe in God. What separates me from you is belief. I don't want to kill you, and if I, or most other atheists were in government and argued for a secular education system, we wouldn't want to kill you or persecute you for your beliefs.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement