nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Our Religious Freedom is at stake ( Childrens rights referendum )

Onesimus

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

totus tuus

YoungIreland wrote: »

See above. They have all been refuted.

Source!

YoungIreland

YoungIreland wrote: »

The title of this thread is, imho, scaremongering. The wording clearly states that children will only be taken away when the parents fail in their duty and when the child is in danger. Somehow, I don't think that religious practice would qualify under that rationale. Indeed, the arguments made by No campaigners have already been refuted:

http://tellingitasitisirl.blogspot.ie/2012/09/kathy-sinnott-wrong-about-referendum.htmlThe source here.
http://tellingitasitisirl.blogspot.ie/2012/10/patrick-mccrystal-and-childrens.html

To be fair, they do have a point about what is going on in Britain, however, I think that the problems there stem from a lack of accountability more than anything else:

http://tellingitasitisirl.blogspot.ie/2012/10/destruction-of-families-in-uk-due-to.html

So that's what I think about the referendum anyway. If anyone has any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Hope that helps.

totus tuus

Are you a parent, would you trust the Government who has lied consistently to the Irish people?

Also your offer to ask questions on more than one occasion seems suspicious, are you spin doctoring on behalf the Government?

Icepick

Onesimus wrote: »

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.

So you don't mind testing it on yourself?

YoungIreland

totus tuus wrote: »

Are you a parent, would you trust the Government who has lied consistently to the Irish people?

Also your offer to ask questions seem suspicious, are you spin doctoring on behalf the Government?

To be honest, I am not a parent. But I am not a spin doctor for the Government either. In fact, I am a practising Catholic who has publicly opposed abortion and other real threats to the family, of which this is not one. We were told by the same NO campaigners that Nice and Lisbon would bring abortion and all sorts of other calamities into Ireland. That was a lie. If abortion is legalised here (and please God it won't), it will not be the doing of the EU or the UN, but of our own Government. Also, I find it interesting that Archbishop Martin and Ronan Mullen are backing this, and that Youth Defence, who usually play a big part in NO campaigns (despite which I still support them, btw ) are staying silent this time round.

totus tuus

YoungIreland wrote: »

To be honest, I am not a parent. But I am not a spin doctor for the Government either. In fact, I am a practising Catholic who has publicly opposed abortion and other real threats to the family, of which this is not one. We were told by the same NO campaigners that Nice and Lisbon would bring abortion and all sorts of other calamities into Ireland. That was a lie. If abortion is legalised here (and please God it won't), it will not be the doing of the EU or the UN, but of our own Government. Also, I find it interesting that Archbishop Martin and Ronan Mullen are backing this, and that Youth Defence, who usually play a big part in NO campaigns (despite which I still support them, btw ) are staying silent this time round.

Might I suggest you read the following article.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-childrens-rights-referendum-part-of-a-global-campaign-against-the-fam

YoungIreland

totus tuus wrote: »

Might I suggest you read the following article.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-childrens-rights-referendum-part-of-a-global-campaign-against-the-fam

I have already read it. John Smeaton is looking at this from a British perspective. Don't get me wrong, the needless taking of children in Britain is to be condemned. What people need to realise however, is that because of the peculiarities of the British legal system and the "sovereignty of Parliament", it is very easy for a group of ideologues to hijack the law-making process for their own ends, in a way that would not be possible here, because of the Constitution. It is very easy to take what is happening in one country and apply it indiscriminately to Ireland, but the context needs to be taken into account as well. Since the wording clearly states that children will only be put into care in exceptional standards where the parents have failed in their duty, the abuse seen in Britain will not be possible here.

Benny_Cake

I'd remind people that this thread isn't simply a dump for random links and Youtube videos. Any more posts of this nature unaccompanied by an explanation or a point will be deleted.

GarIT

I think the OP is an over reaction, "Our Religious Freedom is at stake" isn't a good title because a parent can always be whatever religion they want to be. It would appear that no child will be taken away based on religion unless the religion was going to cause harm to the child.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

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.

The same problem arises if your child decides it doesn't want to go to Tescos (on moral grounds, what with Tescos being Tescos)

I wonder how the court is going to dictate that you provide the child with a babysitter whilst you're away at church/Tescos

If it's the case that your child is old enough not to need a babysitter and you're still intent on dragging him to church against his will then I think the court might best well intervene in your case. Your child certainly needs the help. I mean, a person supposing parenthood to mean they get to call each and every shot right up to the age of 18 is a parenthood bound for all sorts of trouble.

IMO.

pauldla

Tea 1000 wrote: »

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.

So it's a 'slippery slope' argument, then? (cf. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)

In the extreme example given by Jimi, he outlines a conflict between a certain type of Christian parent and their gay child. The conflict has extended to the point where the child is now contemplating suicide. Is this not what Jimi wrote...?

philologos

burstbuckle wrote: »

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

I'm not even sure what I think of this referendum but I thought this had to be responded to.

That doesn't sound like a free society. I don't think any of the people who thanked your post appreciate that either.

Let me phrase it simply:
Freedom of conscience + Freedom of expression = Free expression of conscience.

Christianity to me is not some thing I do in private. It is who I am. If it is who I am, it will be manifest publically. I won't hide it:

Moreover, if any state, jurisdiction, or other rule of man expected me to deny who I am as a Christian, I would disobey them and accept whatever punishment they had in store.

Matthew 5:16-17 wrote:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Mark 8:38 wrote:

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Romans 1:16 wrote:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

I'm not ashamed of the Gospel, I am not ashamed of Jesus, and I will let that be known publically wherever I go in my life.

JimiTime

pauldla wrote: »

So it's a 'slippery slope' argument, then? (cf. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)

In the extreme example given by Jimi, he outlines a conflict between a certain type of Christian parent and their gay child. The conflict has extended to the point where the child is now contemplating suicide. Is this not what Jimi wrote...?

Woooh there! What did I say? Just checked back there, and just to clarify, thats NOT what I said, or was at least trying to say (Forgive me if I wasn't clear). The example I gave was merely to exemplify how easy it would be to manipulate things in terms of psychology etc. All that is required is a baked up correlation between psychological impairment, abuse etc and religion. The suicidal example was to do with an adult looking back and blaming his parents for why he's suicidal now. Then something like that being used to reason that religion is abusive, dangerous etc.

doctoremma

Missed these gems on first read...

Onesimus wrote: »

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

And I'd be (almost) positive that unless the child (what age are we talking?) could give very convincing, very mature, very educated reasons for their refusal, the State will decide to vaccinate, even against their wishes. If it even got that far.

Onesimus wrote: »

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 if the court decides that you have left a child of an inappropriate age home alone, they may well intervene. And rightly so.

I'm not sure that's what you meant though. Are you saying that the State will support your child's refusal to attend church over your right to force them to attend? I can't understand what the problem is with that. Either your child is too young to make that decision, in which case you simply cart them to church regardless, maybe with the promise of sweeties (assuming you won't leave them home alone) or they are old enough to make a mature decision, in which case they are probably old enough to be left unattended for an hour or so.

How do you plan to "force" a 16 year old child (young adult) to attend church?

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Woooh there! What did I say? Just checked back there, and just to clarify, thats NOT what I said, or was at least trying to say (Forgive me if I wasn't clear). The example I gave was merely to exemplify how easy it would be to manipulate things in terms of psychology etc. All that is required is a baked up correlation between psychological impairment, abuse etc and religion. The suicidal example was to do with an adult looking back and blaming his parents for why he's suicidal now. Then something like that being used to reason that religion is abusive, dangerous etc.

A baked-up correlation between psychological abuse..? So, you are worried that, if this article is passed by the people, any resultant legislation might be open to abuse by those with a hidden agenda...?

Still not getting you on the other point. An adult looking back and blaming his parents? Is he looking for retroactive state intervention...?

PopePalpatine

totus tuus wrote: »

Are you a parent, would you trust the Government who has lied consistently to the Irish people?

Also your offer to ask questions on more than one occasion seems suspicious, are you spin doctoring on behalf the Government?

This coming from a guy who trusts a Church that has also lied consistently to Irish people (see: covering up child abuse).

JimiTime

pauldla wrote: »

A baked-up correlation between psychological abuse..? So, you are worried that, if this article is passed by the people, any resultant legislation might be open to abuse by those with a hidden agenda...?

Doesn't have to be hidden. The fact is, that there are seemingly intelligent people who blatantly advocate the view that teaching ones child your faith, in a way other than, 'And some people believe this, and others believe that' is child abuse. Introduce the rather ambiguous and easily manipulated term 'phychological' into the welfare scenario, and its very open to abuse.

Still not getting you on the other point. An adult looking back and blaming his parents? Is he looking for retroactive state intervention...?

No, the example was about such people being presented as evidence by groups that wish to advocate parents imparting religion in childhood is an impairment, dangerous and/or abusive.

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Doesn't have to be hidden. The fact is, that there are seemingly intelligent people who blatantly advocate the view that teaching ones child your faith, in a way other than, 'And some people believe this, and others believe that' is child abuse. Introduce the rather ambiguous and easily manipulated term 'phychological' into the welfare scenario, and its very open to abuse.

So would you advocate the setting up of a watchdog body to ensure this doesn't happen?

JimiTime wrote: »

No, the example was about such people being presented as evidence by groups that wish to advocate parents imparting religion in childhood is an impairment, dangerous and/or abusive.

I used to know a guy, gay, who was raised as a JW and went through that kind of scenario. From the stories he told of his treatment, that kind of 'imparting religion' did do a lot of damage to him. He was one very mixed up kid. How about a situation where JW parents won't allow their child to have a blood transfusion...?

JimiTime

pauldla wrote: »

So would you advocate the setting up of a watchdog body to ensure this doesn't happen?

Ensure what doesn't happen?

I used to know a guy, gay, who was raised as a JW and went through that kind of scenario. From the stories he told of his treatment, that kind of 'imparting religion' did do a lot of damage to him. He was one very mixed up kid. How about a situation where JW parents won't allow their child to have a blood transfusion...?

He's not an optician by any chance?

Also, is your questioning above, not actually exemplifying my point?

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact is, that there are seemingly intelligent people who blatantly advocate the view that teaching ones child your faith, in a way other than, 'And some people believe this, and others believe that' is child abuse.

Note: this answer is going to contain a lots of "you"s but it's not directed at YOU personally.

So how would you word the issue of homosexual acts and religious belief?

I favour the manner you've suggested - "Catholic people believe that homosexual acts are a sin" (of course, I wouldn't bring it up apropos of nothing). But that's speaking as an atheist.

If I were Catholic myself, I could probably sanction "I believe that homosexual acts are a sin". After all, I do have beliefs (albeit not religious) and would be happy to convey them honestly to anyone who asked.

What I simply cannot think appropriate is teaching "Homosexual acts are a sin", as if it were a statement of universal truth. I understand you might well believe it to be a universal truth but don't you have a duty to your child, who may be struggling with their sexual identity, to at least be tactful about it? Forgetting even if it's "proper" or "allowed by the State" or whatever, making such a bald statement has the power to hurt someone, especially those younger than you, who view you as the ultimate authority of the world.

I think that by teaching your child "homosexual acts are sinful and will be punished", when you know that your child will believe you with few (if any) questions, is nothing other than indoctrination. You might be doing your duty - in most cases, it's your right to do so - but it shouldn't be forgotten that this statement represents YOUR belief and YOUR belief only. As such, you are almost lying to your child if you don't acknowledge this?

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Note: this answer is going to contain a lots of "you"s but it's not directed at YOU personally.

So how would you word the issue of homosexual acts and religious belief?

I favour the manner you've suggested - "Catholic people believe that homosexual acts are a sin" (of course, I wouldn't bring it up apropos of nothing). But that's speaking as an atheist.

If I were Catholic myself, I could probably sanction "I believe that homosexual acts are a sin". After all, I do have beliefs (albeit not religious) and would be happy to convey them honestly to anyone who asked.

What I simply cannot think appropriate is teaching "Homosexual acts are a sin", as if it were a statement of universal truth. I understand you might well believe it to be a universal truth but don't you have a duty to your child, who may be struggling with their sexual identity, to at least be tactful about it? Forgetting even if it's "proper" or "allowed by the State" or whatever, making such a bald statement has the power to hurt someone, especially those younger than you, who view you as the ultimate authority of the world.

I think that by teaching your child "homosexual acts are sinful and will be punished", when you know that your child will believe you with few (if any) questions, is nothing other than indoctrination. You might be doing your duty - in most cases, it's your right to do so - but it shouldn't be forgotten that this statement represents YOUR belief and YOUR belief only. As such, you are almost lying to your child if you don't acknowledge this?

I think this is for the Megathread (I've answered it over there), though may I note once again, that the above does exemplify the point I made in this thread about how easy it is to go down this route in terms of child welfare.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

I think this is for the Megathread (It'll get moved there I suspect)

Something which I would find immensely frustrating. I don't understand why it is not possible to use a right-leaning Christian position on homosexuality as an EXAMPLE of how religious beliefs should/could be taught. I could have easily chosen to use a right-leaning Christian position on creation as the example. This would presumably divert the post to another megathread....

I am not in any way discussing the rights/wrongs/opinions/whatever of homosexuality in itself. The issue is being used as a tool to examine an entirely different position.

Didn't you yourself object to posts being cast to the murky depths of megathreads, when they didn't really belong there? I'm surprised you're prompting mine to be treated as such.

To repeat for the sake of the mods: I am not interested in discussing the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. In this context, it is simply a teaching of Christianity, that may or may not have a real effect on the mental health of a child, in order to discern whether a child has the "right" to freedom of religion, conscience, etc etc.

Jimi, would you be able to discuss which of the three positions I outlined (or another), regarding the teaching of your religion to your child, would fit with what you think a parent should do? Do you teach issues as personal beliefs or as universal truth? How does this compare to how you think a school should approach the issue?

ETA: Jimi, did you copy and paste my posts over in the megathread?

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Something which I would find immensely frustrating. I don't understand why it is not possible to use a right-leaning Christian position on homosexuality as an EXAMPLE of how religious beliefs should/could be taught. I could have easily chosen to use a right-leaning Christian position on creation as the example. This would presumably divert the post to another megathread....I am not in any way discussing the rights/wrongs/opinions/whatever of homosexuality in itself. The issue is being used as a tool to examine an entirely different position.

Didn't you yourself object to posts being cast to the murky depths of megathreads, when they didn't really belong there? I'm surprised you're prompting mine to be treated as such.

Hey, I'm not doing it out of a desire to. I'd burn those megathreads in an unquenchable fire if I could:) I'm just saving myself the hassle of being moderated or accused of 'hopping on my hobby horse' derailing a thread etc. I'm in complete agreement with you about the megathreads.

To repeat for the sake of the mods: I am not interested in discussing the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. In this context, it is simply a teaching of Christianity, that may or may not have a real effect on the mental health of a child, in order to discern whether a child has the "right" to freedom of religion, conscience, etc etc.

I set up a thread about the impending conflicts in relation to 'rights' and it was dumped into the megathread. I've also set up threads in the past about reconciling Adam and Eve etc with a belief in evolution, but it was dumped in the creationist megathread. I'd be with you 100% in terms of not dumping all such things into megathreads.

Jimi, would you be able to discuss which of the three positions I outlined (or another), regarding the teaching of your religion to your child, would fit with what you think a parent should do? Do you teach issues as personal beliefs or as universal truth? How does this compare to how you think a school should approach the issue?

ETA: Jimi, did you copy and paste my posts over in the megathread?

I did indeed copy your last post over to the megathread. You want me to delete it?

philologos

There's no "right" or "left" leaning Christianity. Besides, "right wing" is to do with economics. Not with libertarianism or convervatism. Christianity isn't "liberal" or "conservative" either. Christianity for the most part is opposed to sexual expression outside of a marriage (between a man and a woman) of any kind.

And yeah, this is for that thread.

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Ensure what doesn't happen?

To ensure militant atheists don't use the law to take children away from parents for teaching them religion. Isn't that the scenario you were outlining?

JimiTime wrote: »

He's not an optician by any chance?

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, is your questioning above, not actually exemplifying my point?

I'm not sure what you mean...? How does it exemplify your point...?

JimiTime

pauldla wrote: »

To ensure militant atheists don't use the law to take children away from parents for teaching them religion. Isn't that the scenario you were outlining?

Its not even militant atheists. Such people may be the ones that start the ball rolling. As for setting up a watchdog, what good would that be?

Ha ha. Just realised that that looked like I was making some kind of point. I was actually just asking you was the guy in question an optician, as I know someone matching the description you gave who happens to be an optician.

I'm not sure what you mean...? How does it exemplify your point...?

That you happen to already be thinking in those terms.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

There's no "right" or "left" leaning Christianity. Besides, "right wing" is to do with economics.

I disagree, on both counts. But it's irrelevant to thread. If I didn't convey my sentiments as intended, I'm sorry if you were confused.

philologos wrote: »

And yeah, this is for that thread.

Lot of back seat modding around these boards lately.

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not even militant atheists. Such people may be the ones that start the ball rolling. As for setting up a watchdog, what good would that be?

Well, forgive my innocence, but surely any law can be twisted by those unscrupulous enough. Wouldn't a watchdog be useful for those rare cases such as the one outlined?

JimiTime wrote: »

Ha ha. Just realised that that looked like I was making some kind of point. I was actually just asking you was the guy in question an optician, as I know someone matching the description you gave who happens to be an optician.

Oh right. No, not the same fella...or rather, I doubt it very much.

When he told me his story, at first I was very shocked and outraged etc, but thinking on it some more, I began to see it as a tragedy for all involved. His parents were good people generally, from the sound if it, but they just couldn't handle the son being gay. It got very messed up, I'll spare you the details.

But it seems to me that, in that kind of a situation, some outside mediation from a neutral party might be beneficial. Perhaps this is not the place to opine on that, though.

JimiTime wrote: »

That you happen to already be thinking in those terms.

Sorry Jimi, bit denser than usual this evening, what terms..?

Benny_Cake

Mod note: There has been some good discussion here, just to warn people, if you wish to discuss homosexuality specifically, the place to do that is the megathread. This thread is about the children's referendum, and the conflict (if any) between the provisions of this referendum and religious freedom. While there is no problem in mentioning homosexuality in connection with the this, let's not make this thread about that issue specifically.

Greaney

I've trawled through some of the replies here and I've asked my local politician why this referendum and why should I be moved to vote yes, she refered to the 'roscommon case'. The abuse was so bad, that the mother tried to make one of her children disabled to claim carers allowance. She blindsided the HSE who were going to take the children into care by piping them at the post herself.

'And, when it finally came to the point that the WHB was considering legal action to take the children into care, they were blindsided by the mother, who went to the High Court ahead of them and obtained an injunction restraining the WHB from removing any of the children from her custody'.

I believe it was to overcome these kind of legal scenarios.