Our Religious Freedom is at stake ( Childrens rights referendum )

newmug · 23-10-2012 12:58AM

I wonder, seeing as the govt is thinking about legalising abortion, if they could force a woman to have an abortion seeing as it would be "in the best interests of the child"?

Ridiculous. Nah, governments never do things like that, especially when they have all the law they need to do it legally. No government would do that, its beyond the bounds of realiastic possibility. Anyway, no decent humans would stand for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/world/asia/chinese-family-in-forced-abortion-case-still-under-pressure.html?_r=0

pauldla · 23-10-2012 01:52AM

newmug wrote: »

I wonder, seeing as the govt is thinking about legalising abortion, if they could force a woman to have an abortion seeing as it would be "in the best interests of the child"?

Ridiculous. Nah, governments never do things like that, especially when they have all the law they need to do it legally. No government would do that, its beyond the bounds of realiastic possibility. Anyway, no decent humans would stand for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/world/asia/chinese-family-in-forced-abortion-case-still-under-pressure.html?_r=0

Feng Jianmei wasn't forced to have an abortion 'in the best interests of the child'. To state that she was is incredibly dishonest, and is as good an example of strawman as I can think of.

The Feng Jianmei case was terrible though, and was rightly condemned both inside and outside China. The link below will give you some idea of the Chinese reaction to the case (NB some of the images there are disturbing).

But yes, it seems that Ms Feng was forced to abort. If only she had been given the right to choose for herself, eh?

Here's the link:

http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/7-month-pregnant-woman-forced-into-labor-to-abort-unborn-baby.html

Baggio1 · 23-10-2012 08:33AM

its almost laughable how the "anti religeon brigade" are to a man/woman for this piece of garbage and yet their the veryy same people who bash their poloticians and complaine about the corruption and would neverrr trust these clowns in the dail who are pushing this thing/agenda..
really its almost laughable.... trust this legislation?? i wouldnt trust them with their own breakfast and the abortion thing is just another step towards towards the sneaking in of pure evil and the killing of the innocents.

the crooks in the dail and their little pen pusher in the park who'll sign anything his comazar in the dail asks him to have it sewn up and this country will pay a heavy price in the coming chastisement for letting all this evil be introduced.

you only need to look at the constant cps interfearance of parents and kids in USA to see how corrupt these governmant bodies become and how they will take kids off parents for the slightest reason, its disgusting

Happyman42 · 23-10-2012 09:22AM

Baggio1 wrote: »

its almost laughable how the "anti religeon brigade" are to a man/woman for this piece of garbage and yet their the veryy same people who bash their poloticians and complaine about the corruption and would neverrr trust these clowns in the dail who are pushing this thing/agenda..
really its almost laughable.... trust this legislation?? i wouldnt trust them with their own breakfast and the abortion thing is just another step towards towards the sneaking in of pure evil and the killing of the innocents.

the crooks in the dail and their little pen pusher in the park who'll sign anything his comazar in the dail asks him to have it sewn up and this country will pay a heavy price in the coming chastisement for letting all this evil be introduced.

you only need to look at the constant cps interfearance of parents and kids in USA to see how corrupt these governmant bodies become and how they will take kids off parents for the slightest reason, its disgusting

But I don't believe that there will be a 'chastisement' and I also happen to think that the welfare of children is best vested in a truly secular state and not in some morally selective church body or a state agency populated mostly by those with a hidebound adherence to that morally selective church.

JimiTime · 23-10-2012 09:29AM

Heres the new article:

PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 42A

Children

The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings-
i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

I think we can all agree that we want whats best for our children, and the children of the nation. Unfortunately, I don't trust that this bill will not be misused in the future. At the end of the day, there is already a swell in the opinion that passing on ones faith is child abuse. The propagation of that misguided and quite disgusting view is all thats required in order for the legislation above to directly affect Christian parents etc. Not to mention opinions on sexual matters could also in the future be manipulated by certain lobbyists. It is afterall an issue in the UK in terms of foster parents etc. If its not in the best interests of a child to be with Christian foster parents, then I could see the argument being used against biological parents. No doubt this seems a bit far fetched in the context of the now, and I don't believe we will see any children being taken off parents, or parents being cautioned for such things in our lifetime. The misuse of this legislation, if it occurs, would be generations ahead IMO. I think its a dangerous precedent to have something as open to interpretation as 'in the interests of the welfare of the child'.

I shall be voting no, and also contacting Frances Fitzgerald (Minister for Children) to say why I'm voting No, and seeking that this ambiguity be addressed.

Happyman42 · 23-10-2012 09:40AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Heres the new article:

PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 42A

Children

The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings-
i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

I think we can all agree that we want whats best for our children, and the children of the nation. Unfortunately, I don't trust that this bill will not be misused in the future. At the end of the day, there is already a swell in the opinion that passing on ones faith is child abuse. The propagation of that misguided and quite disgusting view is all thats required in order for the legislation above to directly affect Christian parents etc. Not to mention opinions on sexual matters could also in the future be manipulated by certain lobbyists. It is afterall an issue in the UK in terms of foster parents etc. If its not in the best interests of a child to be with Christian foster parents, then I could see the argument being used against biological parents. No doubt this seems a bit far fetched in the context of the now, and I don't believe we will see any children being taken off parents, or parents being cautioned for such things in our lifetime. The misuse of this legislation, if it occurs, would be generations ahead IMO. I think its a dangerous precedent to have something as open to interpretation as 'in the interests of the welfare of the child'.

I shall be voting no, and also contacting Frances Fitzgerald (Minister for Children) to say why I'm voting No, and seeking that this ambiguity be addressed.

How would you phrase it if your concern is for the ultimate welfare of the child?

pauldla · 23-10-2012 09:49AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I think we can all agree that we want whats best for our children, and the children of the nation. Unfortunately, I don't trust that this bill will not be misused in the future. At the end of the day, there is already a swell in the opinion that passing on ones faith is child abuse. The propagation of that misguided and quite disgusting view is all thats required in order for the legislation above to directly affect Christian parents etc. Not to mention opinions on sexual matters could also in the future be manipulated by certain lobbyists. It is afterall an issue in the UK in terms of foster parents etc. If its not in the best interests of a child to be with Christian foster parents, then I could see the argument being used against biological parents. No doubt this seems a bit far fetched in the context of the now, and I don't believe we will see any children being taken off parents, or parents being cautioned for such things in our lifetime. The misuse of this legislation, if it occurs, would be generations ahead IMO. I think its a dangerous precedent to have something as open to interpretation as 'in the interests of the welfare of the child'.

I shall be voting no, and also contacting Frances Fitzgerald (Minister for Children) to say why I'm voting No, and seeking that this ambiguity be addressed.

Who said that the passing on of faith is child abuse? Is it a commonly held sentiment? How, and in what ways, can this affect Christian parents? Are you suggesting that this law could be used to prevent Christian parents from passing on their faith to their children? How do you see faith as being an issue of 'safety and welfare', 'under exceptional circumstances'?

Sorry for so many questions: I just want to be clear on why you are against this article.

witchgirl26 · 23-10-2012 10:11AM

I don't think that passing on a faith would be considered child abuse by most people. I'm Catholic, passed on from my parents. I don't go to mass & nor did they force me to once I reached confirmation age (which is when you're an adult in the eyes of the church & can make your own decisions so I don't understand the whole forcing them to go till they're 18 but anyway).
I'm voting Yes as I think there does need to be more in place to protect a child where a parent/parents have failed to look after that child. If that includes a child who has been abused by a religious figure while the parents knew in some way but didn't do anything I think that is right.

mdebets · 23-10-2012 10:48AM

Onesimus wrote: »

If this is done we can forget ... and ANY religious indoctrination.

I do think the OP has here actually mentioned the point, why religious people should embrace this new legislation.
Everything that replaces religious indoctrination with proper religious education, including questioning the faith, is a good thing.Indoctrinating your children and making them go to mass every Sunday doesn't make them Christian other than in name. And from a salvation point of view, it doesn't make any difference if they go to mass because they are forced or out of fear, or if they don't believe in Jesus and God at all.
The only proper way to get them to become real Christians, is to teach them your faith, while respecting theirs and response to their questioning, rather than making them following your way, just because your are right and they are wrong.

Lantus · 23-10-2012 11:07AM

Onesimus wrote: »

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.

Most adults dont have the ability to reason or make sound decisions. Your ability to even understand what rational is stems from your belief system which would be totally different from mine.

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.

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.

There is no explicit duty to bring your children up to be catholics. It is a personal belief that it being imposed on the child because the parent wants the child to be like them.

You quite rightly say that children cannot make sound and rational decsions so why try to get them to believe in religion at all at such a young and impressionable age? Why not wait until they are able to make rational and sound decisions at which time IF they decided to embrace such a choice it would be much more sound.

lmaopml · 23-10-2012 11:19AM

Why can't the existing provision 5 of article 42 be used?

5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Is there any need to change the Constitution at all - can't legislation be passed based on the current provision instead of ambiguous changes to the Constitution that are really wide open to interpretation - and an open ended shift in the balance of deciding a child's welfare more towards the State?...... when they are already responsible enough under the current provision?

Where is this provision falling down in the sense of NOT making the State responsible for being the 'guardian of the common good' from the Child's perspective already?

Not that they actually have acted as the 'guardian for the common good' in the past anyways despite what the Constitution says. All the children that died in State care....!!

Hmm, I dunno....I don't know what kind of beast it could turn into iykwim in the years to come, and I don't 'get' the necessity of it when it could probably be dealt with under the current provision if they got up off their bum cheeks a bit more and dealt with it through legislation. Is it really necessary to change it, and why so?

That's what I'd like to know.

Delirium · 23-10-2012 11:30AM

Onesimus wrote: »

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.

That video was a complete waste of time. It actually suggested that if people engage in public protests the government will remove their children :rolleyes: And poor people will also have their kids removed.

The video is 10 minutes long and it has less than a third of the video actually addressing the amendment. It lists Nice, Lisbon and the Bank debt as reasons to vote no as the government can't be trusted to get things right.

I was actually hoping there might be some reasonable stuff in the video so as to have some balance from both sides regarding the amendment.

totus tuus · 23-10-2012 11:53AM

So, does that mean that the State will remove children from Traveller Parents because the caravans are too small and cramped and the winter too harsh?

pauldla · 23-10-2012 12:01PM

totus tuus wrote: »

So, does that mean that the State will remove children from Traveller Parents because the caravans are too small and cramped and the winter too harsh?

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, yes, quite possibly.

JimiTime · 23-10-2012 12:37PM

pauldla wrote: »

Who said that the passing on of faith is child abuse?

Well the person that most famously promoted this opinion was Dawkins. I've also seen the view expressed here on boards quite a bit, Robindch being probably the most prominent member of the A&A forum to hold the view. I've also heard it expressed in conversation the real world.

Is it a commonly held sentiment?

Thankfully, I would think not, but its too common for my liking. However, if you look at the context of my post, this is about the future. There is a desire to paint religion in these types of ways and it will continue to rise generationally.

How, and in what ways, can this affect Christian parents? Are you suggesting that this law could be used to prevent Christian parents from passing on their faith to their children?

Yes, but not for a few generations yet. As I said, if seemingly otherwise intelligent people, can propagate the view that its child abuse to teach ones children about Jesus as factual, then its not as far fetched as it sounds to believe that if this view increases, then the state could intervene on grounds of child welfare. Even one of the big issues of our day, LGBT rights etc, mean that Christianity is by default classed as homophobic, bigotted etc. Its not that far fetched even now to witness something along the lines of:
How long can we continue to turn a blind eye to these mosterous, homophobic organisation who vilify LGBT. What about the children of these Christians who turn out gay. Heres a link to a video of a guy crying about how being told by his parents that homosexual acts were sinful he is now depressed and suicidal. How can we let these monsters get away with this. Its child abuse. Pure evil.

How do you see faith as being an issue of 'safety and welfare', 'under exceptional circumstances'?

All it takes is spin, and a desire to believe the spin.

JimiTime · 23-10-2012 12:39PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Why can't the existing provision 5 of article 42 be used?

5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Is there any need to change the Constitution at all - can't legislation be passed based on the current provision instead of ambiguous changes to the Constitution that are really wide open to interpretation - and an open ended shift in the balance of deciding a child's welfare more towards the State?...... when they are already responsible enough under the current provision?

Where is this provision falling down in the sense of NOT making the State responsible for being the 'guardian of the common good' from the Child's perspective already?

Not that they actually have acted as the 'guardian for the common good' in the past anyways despite what the Constitution says. All the children that died in State care....!!

Hmm, I dunno....I don't know what kind of beast it could turn into iykwim in the years to come, and I don't 'get' the necessity of it when it could probably be dealt with under the current provision if they got up off their bum cheeks a bit more and dealt with it through legislation. Is it really necessary to change it, and why so?

That's what I'd like to know.

Good question.

pauldla · 23-10-2012 12:57PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, but not for a few generations yet. As I said, if seemingly otherwise intelligent people, can propagate the view that its child abuse to teach ones children about Jesus as factual, then its not as far fetched as it sounds to believe that if this view increases, then the state could intervene on grounds of child welfare. Even one of the big issues of our day, LGBT rights etc, mean that Christianity is by default classed as homophobic, bigotted etc. Its not that far fetched even now to witness something along the lines of:
How long can we continue to turn a blind eye to these mosterous, homophobic organisation who vilify LGBT. What about the children of these Christians who turn out gay. Heres a link to a video of a guy crying about how being told by his parents that homosexual acts were sinful he is now depressed and suicidal. How can we let these monsters get away with this. Its child abuse. Pure evil.

Thanks for the answers. So, you believe this article could be used to seperate children from their parents where the religious beliefs of the parents pose enough of a psychological threat to the child that the child is contemplating suicide? Is that what you mean...?

totus tuus · 23-10-2012 12:57PM

In Alberta Canada, parents aren't allowed to teach their children Christian Values in their own home.

http://www.nomblog.com/19715/

mdebets · 23-10-2012 02:04PM

totus tuus wrote: »

In Alberta Canada, parents aren't allowed to teach their children Christian Values in their own home.

http://www.nomblog.com/19715/

Are you actually reading these articles, before you post a link, or do you just go by the headlines?
Alberta is not actually doing such a thing as to don't allow parents to teach their children Christian Values in their own home.
What it does, is regulating, what you can and can't teach in school. One of these things you can't teach in school is that homosexual acts are sinful. These regulations apply to all schools, including homeschools (which by their very nature are normally in the home of the pupil).
The parents are free to teach that homosexual acts are sinful outside of the homeschool setting, they even are (probably) allowed to teach other Christian Values (you remember, the Bible states more than Homosexuality is bad) (I'm just guessing at the second part, as I don't know the actual law, but the site would most likely would have mentioned it, if more Christian things were disallowed).

So the whole thing is really a non-story. The only worrying part is, that some people seem to equate Christian Values with Homosexuality is bad.

Delirium · 23-10-2012 02:05PM

totus tuus wrote: »

In Alberta Canada, parents aren't allowed to teach their children Christian Values in their own home.

http://www.nomblog.com/19715/

That's not accurate. From the open paragraph of the article:

Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.

They can tell the children that homosexual acts are sinful when they are not in teacher/student mode.

doctoremma · 23-10-2012 02:07PM

totus tuus wrote: »

In Alberta Canada, parents aren't allowed to teach their children Christian Values in their own home.

http://www.nomblog.com/19715/

Spin Spin Sugar. Parents who are schooling their children at home are not allowed to teach their children, as part of their formal education programme, that homosexuality is a sin, as determined by State regulations pertaining to home schooling.

What parents choose to tell their children over dinner is a different matter.

mdebets · 23-10-2012 02:08PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Why can't the existing provision 5 of article 42 be used?

5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Because it doesn't cover psychological abuse. It is also very wide open to interpretation of what moral reasons are.

I'm anyhow wondering how our Board.ie Catholics could support such a wording. They are always the first to claim, how atheistic the Irish state is. As the state is the one to interpret the law, wouldn't that mean that going by the above wording, the state could just take away any child from its family, if the parent's don't teach them an atheist moral?

Tea 1000 · 23-10-2012 02:19PM

pauldla wrote: »

Thanks for the answers. So, you believe this article could be used to seperate children from their parents where the religious beliefs of the parents pose enough of a psychological threat to the child that the child is contemplating suicide? Is that what you mean...?

No. He is stating that based on that video people will use it and similar extreme examples to validate the notion that bringing up your child as a Christian is a bad thing and is in itself a form of child abuse.
Based on that, he is afraid that in years/generations to come that notion will have escalated to the point where anyone trying to raise their child as a Christian will have this act inflicted on them and their child taken off them.

Tea 1000 · 23-10-2012 02:21PM

mdebets wrote: »

Because it doesn't cover psychological abuse. It is also very wide open to interpretation of what moral reasons are.

I'm anyhow wondering how our Board.ie Catholics could support such a wording. They are always the first to claim, how atheistic the Irish state is. As the state is the one to interpret the law, wouldn't that mean that going by the above wording, the state could just take away any child from its family, if the parent's don't teach them an atheist moral?

Why do you think it doesn't cover psychological abuse? Surely failing in their duty to their child includes all kinds of abuse?

mdebets · 23-10-2012 02:27PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Why do you think it doesn't cover psychological abuse? Surely failing in their duty to their child includes all kinds of abuse?

Because it clearly states 'for physical or moral reasons'. So that lets psychological reasons out of it.

totus tuus · 23-10-2012 02:35PM

What sort of moral reasons???

Tea 1000 · 23-10-2012 02:36PM

mdebets wrote: »

Because it clearly states 'for physical or moral reasons'. So that lets psychological reasons out of it.

Read it again. It is "where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children". So that part applies to the reasons why the parents fail. The "failing in their duty towards their children" would include everything from the child's point of view.
To be honest, this is the problem with a lot of things. Clearly stating something does not mean that it will be picked up in the correct context.

totus tuus · 23-10-2012 02:38PM

koth wrote: »

That's not accurate. From the open paragraph of the article:

They can tell the children that homosexual acts are sinful when they are not in teacher/student mode.

Then it would be better for Christians to not send their children to state-run schools!

Delirium · 23-10-2012 02:40PM

totus tuus wrote: »

Then it would be better for Christians to not send their children to state-run schools!

but that's what the parents that are the subject of the link are doing, i.e. home-schooling their kids.

totus tuus · 23-10-2012 02:40PM

mdebets wrote: »

Are you actually reading these articles, before you post a link, or do you just go by the headlines?
Alberta is not actually doing such a thing as to don't allow parents to teach their children Christian Values in their own home.
What it does, is regulating, what you can and can't teach in school. One of these things you can't teach in school is that homosexual acts are sinful. These regulations apply to all schools, including homeschools (which by their very nature are normally in the home of the pupil).
The parents are free to teach that homosexual acts are sinful outside of the homeschool setting, they even are (probably) allowed to teach other Christian Values (you remember, the Bible states more than Homosexuality is bad) (I'm just guessing at the second part, as I don't know the actual law, but the site would most likely would have mentioned it, if more Christian things were disallowed).

So the whole thing is really a non-story. The only worrying part is, that some people seem to equate Christian Values with Homosexuality is bad.

Actually the bible doesn't state that homosexuality is bad, just homosexual acts.

Our Religious Freedom is at stake ( Childrens rights referendum )

Comments