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

School patronage

equivariant

From today's indo

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/parents-get-vote-to-take-schools-out-of-control-of-the-church-3233287.html

This is interesting. It is hard to assess this initiative based on the information in that article. Of course, personally I would prefer a complete removal of religious influence from state funded schools. However I am not sure that I am happy about this proposed survey. I can see many parents voting not to change purely based on "the devil you know" attitude. I wonder also is potentially divisive to make communities nail their colours to the mast publicly? I suppose it will depend on the detail of the survey.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sarky

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Ah fair enough, we all have busy lives.

Continue to leave your views well an truly untested. Good man.

Uh... He just showed you that he does otherwise, and your church still comes out looking kinda hateful.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't have to waste my time.....

....I'm not wasting my time going over this again,

Ah fair enough, we all have busy lives.

Continue to leave your views well an truly untested. Good man.

jank

swampgas wrote: »

Yet religious people demand that their religion be "respected". However if we ask for some clarification as to what their religion actually is, they cannot provide a coherent answer, or they refuse to. So it's a demand for the state, and other people, to "respect" their religion, a religion for which no two people seem to have the same definition?

Many can provide an answer to what their religion is and isn't but one is not interested in the answer, they just want to provoke a response and poke holes just for the fun of it and sake of it. At the end of the if you are an Atheist, who gives a crap? Now, before you go off on the whole "school patronage" thing I am surprise you that I agree that people should be offered choice and that religion in state schools should be taught after hours and only by the patents consent. I am very much in the separation of church and state on that one.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I suggest, in all seriousness, that you visit a couple of weekend masses (where you'll get a sermon) in the next month or so and listen to see what kind of message is being given.

I don't have to waste my time,
My wife attends a number of masses as part of her role in a Choir, so I hear all about the messages of peace and love and open arms.

- Messages of love outlined by the priest have included how marriage was just for men and women and should never be extended to gay people, how gay sex is unnatural and sinful.

- How sex outside marriage was awful and wrong

- The priest allowed Youth Defense to hand out leaflets within a church itself (yes, inside the church building), infact I had gone in to meet my wife and they tried to hand one to me

- Oh, one of my favs, how the people at a mass should pray for all the Christians involved in a disaster. Not people, but just the Christians even though the Christians were only a very small minority of the people killed/hurt.

There's more but really they don't paint a good picture....

Also, talk to some parents with children in RCC run schools and ask them what message is being given to their children. Please come back and let us know what you heard.

I'm not wasting my time going over this again,
We've established the message of hatred given by the Vatican and as such the RCC.

eyescreamcone

The policies of the RCC belong in a bygone era.

Even the members of the RCC don't agree with their stance on many/all issues.

I can't understand how people (even RCC members) who don't believe in the core values of the RCC, are quite happy to say "we wan't our children taught all this rubbish ...even though it's nonsense".

If you don't go to mass, have sex outside of marriage, use contraception, vote yes for abortion, think transubstantiation is a bit weird, not sure about the whole Marian story...etc.

But then turn around and say I wan't my children taught the whole works in school and I want the lovely communion pictures etc.

Then that person in my opinion is a hypocrite and/or maybe even a little schizophrenic!

Maybe I'm closer to the truth than I imagine because the RCC god thinks he's 3 persons ...and man was made in his image!!!
Eureka!!!

Cabaal

gaynorvader wrote: »

The USSR wasn't occupied with the Gulags most of its thinking time. Still didn't make it a nicer organisation.

They still use them, but sure Putin must be a lovely chap because it doesn't occupy his mind all of the time

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Sadly I am proven right by the Vatican's stance on the matter as they head the Roman Catholic Church that has its ethos in so many of our schools,

I don't take joy in this, infact I find it so very sad that you're happy to keep religion pushed on a majority even those this very religion teaches hatred towards gay children/teenagers and towards kids parents,

I honestly wish I wasn't right, I take no joy in it what so ever.

I suggest, in all seriousness, that you visit a couple of weekend masses (where you'll get a sermon) in the next month or so and listen to see what kind of message is being given. Also, talk to some parents with children in RCC run schools and ask them what message is being given to their children. Please come back and let us know what you heard. You MAY find some reason to be less unhappy about the current state of affairs.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

The USSR wasn't occupied with the Gulags most of its thinking time. Still didn't make it a nicer organisation.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Well you must be right so if this is the end.

Sadly I am proven right by the Vatican's stance on the matter as they head the Roman Catholic Church that has its ethos in so many of our schools,

I don't take joy in this, infact I find it so very sad that you're happy to keep religion pushed on a majority even those this very religion teaches hatred towards gay children/teenagers and towards kids parents,

I honestly wish I wasn't right, I take no joy in it what so ever.

swampgas

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

Just because there are other issues that may concern Catholics doesn't make the RCC's official stance on homosexuality any less offensive. I fail to see what difference it makes, to be honest.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

End of,

Well you must be right so if this is the end.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

Stop skating around the issue
We know issues like this don't occupy the mindset of the church 100% of the time no more then a persons racist hatred of a black person also does not occupy a person's mindset 100% of the time, but it is none the less their view of black people....or in this case the RCC's view on gays.

It does not however change the very fact that the message of hatred by the Vatican is still their view on the matter,

End of,

eyescreamcone

Sarky wrote: »

Much like how Scientology gets in vulnerable and impressionable people by looking all nice and friendly at the stsart, and not really mentioning the child slave labour and litigating people to the point of suicide.

But But Scientology is an evil money grabbing cult...whereas the RCC is

....an evil money grabbing cult!!!

Cabaal

swampgas wrote: »

Really? What does "intrinsically disordered" mean to you? To me, it's a fancy way of calling someone a deviant and/or a pervert. It's a pretty obnoxious term to use for a fellow human being.

intrinsically

belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something

disordered

- in a confused or messy state : having a lack of order or organization
medical : not working in a normal, healthy way

So we have two meanings,
naturally messy or confused
or
naturally unhealthy

Either way its a pretty ****ed up way to refer to people, I'm sure I Heart Internet will tell us it means something else though.

I Heart Internet

eyescreamcone wrote: »

What he's saying is - the RCC waters down what it says to the children in primary school because if they unloaded their whole program of:
- anti gay
- anti women
- anti divorce, abortion and contraception
- anti condoms to help prevent AIDS

...people might think that they are a bunch of crazies!!!

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

Sarky

eyescreamcone wrote: »

What he's saying is - the RCC waters down what it says to the children in primary school because if they unloaded their whole program of:
- anti gay
- anti women
- anti divorce, abortion and contraception
- anti condoms to help prevent AIDS

...people might think that they are a bunch of crazies!!!

Much like how Scientology gets in vulnerable and impressionable people by looking all nice and friendly at the stsart, and not really mentioning the child slave labour and litigating people to the point of suicide.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Come now, Robin, unjust and warranting a change /= hateful toward people.

As swampgas says, what does "intrinsically disordered" convey to you? This is the written policy of the RCC and, according to the RCC, all catholics are required to uphold it.

Does "intrinically disordered" send out warm, friendly vibes, or diseased and dangerous ones?

I Heart Internet

swampgas wrote: »

Really? What does "intrinsically disordered" mean to you? To me, it's a fancy way of calling someone a deviant and/or a pervert. It's a pretty obnoxious term to use for a fellow human being.

It is, indeed. I think it should change.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Have you now? Amazing that. These bishops you've apparently seen welcomed a gay person who has gay sex did they?

They don't dwell on those private matters, but yes, I've seen bishops embrace gay people who happen to sing in choirs, are members of pilgramage groups, etc with their partners alongside them.

You should get out more Cabaal. The world isn't as black and white as you believe. Most people rub along nicely together and try to do their best by each other.

eyescreamcone

What he's saying is - the RCC waters down what it says to the children in primary school because if they unloaded their whole program of:
- anti gay
- anti women
- anti divorce, abortion and contraception
- anti condoms to help prevent AIDS

...people might think that they are a bunch of crazies!!!

swampgas

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Come now, Robin, unjust and warranting a change /= hateful toward people.

Really? What does "intrinsically disordered" mean to you? To me, it's a fancy way of calling someone a deviant and/or a pervert. It's a pretty obnoxious term to use for a fellow human being.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not true. I've seen it myself.

Have you now? Amazing that. These bishops you've apparently seen welcomed a gay person who has gay sex did they?

Have you also seen the Vatican welcome gay women and men who have gay sex as well?

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

The Vatican's employee's...in this case Bishops in Ireland do not welcome gay people with open arms.....

That's not true. I've seen it myself.

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

You've said yourself that the RCC's fundamental doctrinal statement about gay men and women, that they are "intrinsically disordered", is "unjust".

But you're now saying that what they say is just?

Which is it?

Come now, Robin, unjust and warranting a change /= hateful toward people.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

People are certainly mistaken in their understanding of what it taught to primary school children in RCC primary schools.

Some are also claiming that all people are not welcome in the RCC, which is entirely untrue.

It is wrong to state that the RCC does not welcome every single person, and is not open to every single person in the world, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, political views, class, etc.

The RCC does not preach hatred of gay people (or anyone else).

RCC Primary schools do not teach hatred of gay people (pr anyone else).

I Heart Internet, stop embarrassing yourself,

The Roman Catholic Church or which the Vatican/Pope calls the shots has peddled a messages of wrong and hatred against gay people and what gay people do (having the gay sex) for decades and continue to do so.

The Vatican's employee's...in this case Bishops in Ireland do not welcome gay people with open arms.

Organizations that represent Catholics in Ireland such as Iona also do not welcome gay people and do not want equal rights given to gay people in Ireland,

Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself, nobody is accepting your nonsense.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The RCC does not preach hatred of gay people (or anyone else). RCC Primary schools do not teach hatred of gay people (pr anyone else).

You've said yourself that the RCC's fundamental doctrinal statement about gay men and women, that they are "intrinsically disordered", is "unjust".

But you're now saying that what they say is just?

Which is it?

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

So everybody here is lying about the RCC and what it does?Pots and kettles, there heart.

People are certainly mistaken in their understanding of what it taught to primary school children in RCC primary schools.

Some are also claiming that all people are not welcome in the RCC, which is entirely untrue.

Cabaal wrote: »

I experienced such messages of hate when I was in school,

So you think its ok for the RCC to have a message of hatred against gay people, just as long as they don't preach it in primary schools? Seriously?

Cabaal wrote: »

But they don't welcome all,
The might use the words but the actions are not welcoming at all,

So to claim they welcome all is disingenuous and you know it,

It is wrong to state that the RCC does not welcome every single person, and is not open to every single person in the world, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, political views, class, etc.

The RCC does not preach hatred of gay people (or anyone else).

RCC Primary schools do not teach hatred of gay people (pr anyone else).

gaynorvader

jank wrote: »

I don’t understand the concept that Atheists think they can define what religion is to people who are religious. People can be religious by not thinking Holy Book x,y,z is meant to be taken literally or that everyone must fundamentally obey the whims of the heads of whatever church they belong to. To be honest it’s an overzealous look at the thin edge of the wedge.

No group, or people 100% agree on everything all the time, not even atheists yet you expect this robotic behaviour from religious people?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Jank, it's much easier to foster dislike of a group of people and build a concrete case of animosity against everything they do if one can usefully describe them as one monolithic entity, with no variation in thought or message, no room for greys and nothing but the most fundamentalist of view points.

It would be harder to paint the RCC as evil, if one dwelt upon the reality of what children learn in their primary schools, so better to make it up instead.

It's essentially what the very worst Christian fundamentalists do - paint those they disagree with as hopeless cases, that can do no good and always have the worst of intentions.

The RCC is an organisation. Everything it does in the public domain is viewable by everyone. Members and non-members have an equal view on it, though members are likely to be more blinkered or biased than non-members.
Having said that, when a criticism is levelled at the organisation, it in no way encompasses all of its members.
To godwin this thread, if I were to agree with the Nazi party of Germany that the Germans were a super race, but disagreed on their anti-Semitism and warmongering, that might not make me a bad person, but the Nazi party would still be an evil organisation and criticisms against it would not be automatically applied to me.

Sarky

Intrinsically disordered towards evil. Threat to society. Against nature. These are the words of popes down through the years. Popes FFS.

Don't tell me your church doesn't preach hate.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It would be harder to paint the RCC as evil, if one dwelt upon the reality of what children learn in their primary schools, so better to make it up instead.

So everybody here is lying about the RCC and what it does?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

[...] no room for greys and nothing but the most fundamentalist of view points [...]

Pots and kettles, there heart.

Can you please justify your broad insult with some evidence that everybody here is telling lies about the RCC? It would help your case if you took specific posts and pointed out the lies directly.

If you don't, or can't, then people are free to assume that you're being a bit dishonest yourself.