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

Our Religious Freedom is at stake ( Childrens rights referendum )

  • 22-10-2012 09:46PM
    #1
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭


    Changing Article 42.5 gives the state full control to do anything they want and call it ''best interests''. In addition to all of that it will also fully ratify the UNCRC but not immediately. The plan here with this whole thing is to fully ratify the UNCRC and all of it's optional protocols without exceptions. If this is done we can forget about Catholic schools or any kind of Christian schools, Holy Communions, Confirmations, Bar Mitzvah's for the Jewish faith and ANY religious indoctrination.

    So....This is one of the main reasons why the USA did not ratify the UNCRC because the religious right wing objected. Below you will find Article 2 of the UNCRC to read for yourself folks. Stand up and vote NO on November 10th
    Article 2

    1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

    2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
    Article 14

    1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

    2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

    3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.


«134567…13

Comments

  • #2
    burstbuckle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 216 ✭✭burstbuckle


    No,your free to practice your religion how you want in your own private way,the way it should be.


  • #3
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What exactly do you find objectionable in the passages you've quoted? Is the bold of 14.1 yours, in order to highlight that particular sentence? Ah, yes ... I disagree with that statement too, because there's nothing worse than children having freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Such freedoms can only be bad, right? Slavery of thought, conscience and religion are obviously the superior alternatives.


  • #4
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Onesimus, I'm curious as to why you would highlight paragraph 1 of Article 14 and not 2 or 3 given that each paragraph must be qualified by the others? The word "indoctrination" also seems inappropriate, "formation" would be more accurate, certainly I didn't feel as if I was being indoctrinated when I was in school (if I was, they did a very poor job of it!).

    Overall, the proposed change seems to me like a positive development. Of course, nothing will change immediately but it does allow for the State to be held to account (through the Supreme Court) in protecting the best interests of the child.


  • #5
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    The problem with the referendum is in the balance of rights. If it is passed, who has more rights under Irish Law, the child or the parent? It is a really serious point that one.

    In Psychology children are not classified as having an adult intelligence and do not have the ability to reason and make sound decisions.

    Thats why I highlighted that part of the article. Since the parents are merely ''caregivers'' and the state decide the best interests for the child and not the parents, then any child can refuse to take a vaccination on the grounds that his freedom of thought, conscience and his own personal religion to be respected and he can therefore refuse something that the parents know is in his best interest and take it to court where the state will decide. THAT'S where I am coming from. and like I said it's proven that children are not classified as having an adult intelligence and do not have the ability to reason and make sound decisions. It is my duty as a Catholic parent until they reach the age of due reason at 18-21 to bring them up Catholic. Any refusal from my child to come with us all to Church on any given Sunday and be left at home could end up in court and the state making decisions in the best interest of my child.

    And lastly, we have to remember that if the present law is sufficient, then why are the government looking for more power to intervene in families? This sounds like its going to turn out to be a disaster.


  • #6
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    383373_116669758488063_655352800_n.jpg

    scary stuff


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Onesimus wrote: »
    It is my duty as a Catholic parent until they reach the age of due reason at 18-21 to bring them up Catholic. Any refusal from my child to come with us all to Church on any given Sunday and be left at home could end up in court and the state making decisions in the best interest of my child.

    Why not let the child decide what they want to do at the age of due reason and don't force them into anything before then. I was baptised and it was the most horible thing my parents could have done to me, it cant be undone and I have to live with the guilt of it for the rest of my life.


  • #8
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    GarIT wrote: »
    Why not let the child decide what they want to do at the age of due reason and don't force them into anything before then. I was baptised and it was the most horible thing my parents could have done to me, it cant be undone and I have to live with the guilt of it for the rest of my life.

    See what I mean folks? Do you see the atheistic mindset?

    ah yeah I'll just let the child decide whether or not he wants to go to school until the age of due reason, the dentist until the age of due reason. He won't get his jabs as a baby, I'll have to wait until he is of due reason in order to make that decision. I wouldn't want him to be like you Gary and be emotionally scarred for the rest of his/her life :rolleyes:


  • #9
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Onesimus wrote: »
    See what I mean folks? Do you see the atheistic mindset?

    ah yeah I'll just let the child decide whether or not he wants to go to school until the age of due reason, the dentist until the age of due reason. He won't get his jabs as a baby, I'll have to wait until he is of due reason in order to make that decision. I wouldn't want him to be like you Gary and be emotionally scarred for the rest of his/her life :rolleyes:

    I'm not atheist and I'm not Gary.

    The things you listed are necessary, beiefs aren't, a child won't be at any risk by not having a religion, they are possibly even at more risk if they do have a religion.


  • #10
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    GarIT wrote: »
    Why not let the child decide what they want to do at the age of due reason and don't force them into anything before then. I was baptised and it was the most horible thing my parents could have done to me, it cant be undone and I have to live with the guilt of it for the rest of my life.

    If being baptised is the worst thing that happens to you in your life, I'm truly envious.

    On a serious note, this all seems like a lot of scaremongering, something which is grist to the mill of a conspiracy theory freesheet such as the Sovereign Independent. I'd suggest that anyone who is interested in making an informed decision on the referendum should take a look at the Referendum Commission's website. If you read the proposed changes you will see the phrase "as far as practicable" quite a bit. Essentially, this accepts that it will be for the courts to interpret how the constitution should be interpreted in this regard. I find it highly unlikely that a child will take their parents to court because they refuse to allow their parents to force them to be vaccinated. Even if they did, the prospect of the Supreme Court ruling in their favour would seem a bit unlikely. Don't forget that the courts can and do intervene in such cases already - there have been numerous cases where the courts have overruled the wishes of Jehovah's Witnesses parents to refuse a blood transfusion to their children as it would not be "in the best interests of the child. I would assume most people would have no problem with that?


  • #11
    greenpilot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭greenpilot


    Onesimus wrote: »

    See what I mean folks? Do you see the atheistic mindset?

    ah yeah I'll just let the child decide whether or not he wants to go to school until the age of due reason, the dentist until the age of due reason. He won't get his jabs as a baby, I'll have to wait until he is of due reason in order to make that decision. I wouldn't want him to be like you Gary and be emotionally scarred for the rest of his/her life :rolleyes:

    Thanks, Onesimus..it's posts like this that show why so many people think religion is for the crazy people...well done...what great rationale.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Onesimus wrote: »
    See what I mean folks? Do you see the atheistic mindset?

    ah yeah I'll just let the child decide whether or not he wants to go to school until the age of due reason, the dentist until the age of due reason. He won't get his jabs as a baby, I'll have to wait until he is of due reason in order to make that decision. I wouldn't want him to be like you Gary and be emotionally scarred for the rest of his/her life :rolleyes:

    I am quoting this post on the offchance you decide to amend it, because... Wow. Just... Just wow.


  • #13
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    I'm not atheist and I'm not Gary.

    whoops.
    The things you listed are necessary, beiefs aren't, a child won't be at any risk by not having a religion, they are possibly even at more risk if they do have a religion.

    How do you know a child wont be at risk? you don't have a faith its obvious your gonna think that way. What about the baby jabs? my child when he was born had been given the jab wrongly at birth by the nurse and he is now scarred for life. We acted in his best interests, the HSE failed to provide. I find getting the ''neccesary'' jabs to be more risky than simply having Holy water poured over you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Its posts like yours that show how people without a religion live in absolute moral chaos and retain moral chaotic ideas.


  • #14
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Onesimus wrote: »
    See what I mean folks? Do you see the atheistic mindset?

    ah yeah I'll just let the child decide whether or not he wants to go to school until the age of due reason, the dentist until the age of due reason. He won't get his jabs as a baby, I'll have to wait until he is of due reason in order to make that decision. I wouldn't want him to be like you Gary and be emotionally scarred for the rest of his/her life :rolleyes:
    You won't have children going to court over being forced to go to mass... I'll be perfectly honest, I was perfectly capable of reason before the age of 18. It's a sad state of affairs if you feel need to force a fifteen or sixteen year old to go to mass even if they don't consider themselves to be believers. But still this has absolutely nothing to do with the Children's referendum. You're ignoring serious issues of neglect because you're claiming that religion is under threat which it is not.
    Onesimus wrote: »
    383373_116669758488063_655352800_n.jpg

    scary stuff
    Propaganda, great argument. :pac: Feel free to say that i'm in a state of moral chaos.....


  • #15
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    Sarky wrote: »
    I am quoting this post on the offchance you decide to amend it, because... Wow. Just... Just wow.

    Criticism is not an argument sarky. If you have a valid point to make, then make it.


  • #16
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    If being baptised is the worst thing that happens to you in your life, I'm truly envious.

    IMO anyone who is a follower of a particular group of churches where that church has committed crimes is a supporter of that crime, thats why I'm ashamed that I was baptised and because that church refuses to acknowledge that I am no longer a member. I don't think its that extreme to not want to be part of a group that has comitted more crimes than most criminal groups. Many people dislike the IRA for their crimes but the RCC has commited more crimes in Ireland than the IRA has and worldwide the RCC has sanctioned more killings than any other orginisation.


  • #17
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    greenpilot wrote: »
    Thanks, Onesimus..it's posts like this that show why so many people think religion is for the crazy people...well done...what great rationale.

    like I said to sarky I say to you too.


  • #18
    greenpilot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭greenpilot


    Onesimus wrote: »

    whoops.



    How do you know a child wont be at risk? you don't have a faith its obvious your gonna think that way. What about the baby jabs? my child when he was born had been given the jab wrongly at birth by the nurse and he is now scarred for life. We acted in his best interests, the HSE failed to provide. I find getting the ''neccesary'' jabs to be more risky than simply having Holy water poured over you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Its posts like yours that show how people without a religion live in absolute moral chaos and retain moral chaotic ideas.

    Poor Child.......


  • #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Its posts like yours that show how people without a religion live in absolute moral chaos and retain moral chaotic ideas.

    It's broad, sweeping generalisations like this that give broad, sweeping generalisations a bad name.


  • #20
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Onesimus wrote: »
    How do you know a child wont be at risk?

    Its posts like yours that show how people without a religion live in absolute moral chaos and retain moral chaotic ideas.

    Because I've never heard of any children that have been harmed as a result of not being religious, but I have heard of many children that have been harmed by serving a religion.

    I live in moral chaos, please explain?


  • #21
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    GarIT wrote: »
    Because I've never heard of any children that have been harmed as a result of not being religious,

    You're forgetting all those kids that were beaten by the priest for not being religious. Ha! Take THAT, your opinion!


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    Onesimus wrote: »

    In Psychology children are not classified as having an adult intelligence and do not have the ability to reason and make sound decisions.

    .
    This applies to adults too apparently. Lets give the kids a chance to develop those critical thinking skills though.


  • #23
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y0sHd-EpCQ


    An important video and must see here. But I doubt most of the contributors to this thread who are here for an anti religion bashing will watch it. It seems most of you have already made your mind up and are burying your heads in the sand without giving both sides of the argument a good looking over.

    I've had the opportunity to give them both serious thought ( the Yes and NO side ) and I know whose side I'm on now.

    The Very state who wants to protect our children actually shut down hospitals and also ( when the boom was on ) cut payments to the allowances of children with disabilities, and continue to make cuts to child benefit. And these are the people you trust with making decisions about your children with their ''best interests'' at heart? do you really trust a government like this? Pfffttt hahahaha.


  • #24
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    Onesimus wrote: »
    See what I mean folks? Do you see the atheistic mindset?

    ah yeah I'll just let the child decide whether or not he wants to go to school until the age of due reason, the dentist until the age of due reason. He won't get his jabs as a baby, I'll have to wait until he is of due reason in order to make that decision. I wouldn't want him to be like you Gary and be emotionally scarred for the rest of his/her life :rolleyes:

    Are you being serious here Onesimus?

    If a child doesn't go to school they will grow up unable to read and write, if they don't go to the dentist their teeth will fall out and they'll end up with gum disease, if they don't get jabs they'll be at increased risk of illness, but if they don't have water poured on them by a man in a frock.................it'll have no negative effect on their life. See the difference?

    Parents can make decisions in the interest of the child and if the decision they make has a negative effect on the child the state can step in. My parents brought me into the catholic churches statistics and I'd give a whole lot to be able to undo that. Why would you or any parent do something to their child that is only of benefit to the parent and offers nothing of benefit to the child knowing full well that in future years it could make your child very unhappy?


  • #25
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Onesimus wrote: »

    these are the people you trust with making decisions about your children with their ''best interests'' at heart? do you really trust a government like this? Pfffttt hahahaha.

    No, I trust the priests more.


  • #26
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    The States seem to be a bit hairy about the UN at any given time though Onesimus - they have a very insular way of looking at things sometimes, and their child protection policies are not imo always admirable either.

    My headache about it, and to be fair I haven't actually done more than browse over it as yet, is that the whole thing seems rather ambiguous as far as the changing of the wording is concerned - and what that change will mean insofar as how it will effect the family in Ireland and the protection of children. It's something that will only take shape I suppose in the courts over time and precedence is set...


    To be honest, I have no problem with the State taking on the 'actual' responsibility as regards an obligation to legally protect a child from clear danger - especially those in real and imminent danger, and for our laws to protect and support children in these situations. Also to give the child a right to a 'voice' and to be heard with due regard that they are still a minor also, and legally speaking to have a way to express themselves in cases when family law etc. interferes and negotiates between parents.

    The problem so far is that they have failed dismally to actually enforce parts of the very same constitution we're about to amend for so long already...

    It's such a subtle change of wording. I'd have to think about it....research what it could mean, but I'd probably have to be a fortune teller...

    Any 'legal' jargon busters got any opinions on it?


  • #27
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Voting No myself, but for reasons to do with adoption law and also rights of parents to decide on non-life threatening medical procedures - as per threads in the Politics sections.


  • #28
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Onesimus wrote: »

    In Psychology children are not classified as having an adult intelligence and do not have the ability to reason and make sound decisions.

    Oh the irony...

    You have it backwards. This is precisely the reason people don't bring their children up within a religion.


  • #29
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Mod note: If posters wish to discuss the virtue of / evil of Christianity / atheism they can take it to the megathread. Let's keep this thread for discussion regarding the Children's Referendum specifically.


  • #30
    totus tuus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 375 ✭✭totus tuus


    Well I'm voting No.

    http://www.campaignforconscience.org/vote-no-to-the-childrens-referendum-campaign-for-conscience/


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    totus tuus wrote: »
    Well I'm voting No.

    http://www.campaignforconscience.org/vote-no-to-the-childrens-referendum-campaign-for-conscience/

    Did you read the comment below the article. It answers each of the five point logically and factually without using emotive rubbish. Makes a lot more sense than the original article.


Advertisement