Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Should religious induction of children be banned?

1…6791112…20

Comments

  • #242
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    RobertKK wrote: »
    We have the current Catholic education domination of education, because the Catholic church and the Protestant churches at one stage were the only providers of education.

    We could have said no to education which the English government wanted at one point with the penal laws.

    I think some non religious people are bitter and just like complaining rather than setting up their own schools and doing stuff for themselves like Catholics had to do when education to Catholics was banned.

    The religious response of 'set up your own school' is laughable. Most families, mine included, are too busy raising our families and earning money to support ourselves and pay taxes, to have the time or inclination to build new schools. We pay taxes and expect to recieve public services that are appropriate and do not discriminate. Currently we are paying taxes to fund religious owned institutions that are, in many cases, the only places available to have our children educated, and totally inappropriate for the needs of our families.

    Would you say to someone who needed a medical treatment not available here "well set up your own hospital then"?
    Pwindedd wrote: »
    Dawkins junior school for Militant Atheists? Yeh has a nice ring to it.

    It's state money now though not Catholic money. FFS we don't want to segregate - just educate. It's about their tiny sponge like wonderful little minds and how we can raise them to question, investigate and reach conclusions of their own.

    It seems segregation of children based on the religious belief of parents is unbelievably, what we are stuck with. Mostly because successive governments have no balls and the RCC are trying to claw and cling to the dying throes of their influence over Irish society.


  • #243
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Another bleeding poll with the results hidden. Give me strength!


  • #244
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    catallus wrote: »
    Which is slavery, right? :rolleyes:

    Which is that, according to Catallus, "the influence of the church is very much needed [because] the moral destitution of the people is being sanctioned by secularists".


  • #245
    Pwindedd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,316 ✭✭✭Pwindedd


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is not using one's brain if one thinks a Catholic for example does not question, investigate or reach conclusions.
    Some atheists like to use Galileo, however he remained a devout Catholic throughout all his life and he investigated and made conclusions.
    Going to a Catholic school doesn't stop this.

    I didn't say that and you well know it. I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive properties. I'm saying schools should be secular to enable an environment of learning without a particular bias. Why does that trouble you? Surely it's a positive thing?


  • #246
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is money from Catholics that make them exist since it was that money that created them.

    Might doesn't make right. Should we also have publicly-funded bus stations segregated according to religion? Should we have publicly-funded hospitals segregated according to religion?

    Why not go a bit further and demand that the schools should be segregated according to race or the political party of the parents?
    catallus wrote: »
    Which is slavery, right? :rolleyes:

    The Magdalene Laundries and the Church-run industrial schools would be far closer to slavery than anything Obama's done.



    Quite frankly RobertKKK and catallus [sic], your wilful obtuseness is beginning to frustrate me. By any chance are you two "patrons" of the Ionanist Institute?


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    deseil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭deseil


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    People have clearly seen this idea as an infringement on their rights to practice religion when that could not be further from the truth. Article 42, Section 2.1 which I have quoted as the basis of this argument guarantees 'freedom of conscience and the free profession & and practice of religion'. How is it that everyone has this right except children where the decision is made for them by their parents.

    Has anyone who posted on this thread either for or against CHOSEN a religion without having been indoctrinated into it first as child?

    I see where your coming from, but every religion in the world is passed down through generations.

    I have only ever come across one person who chose her own religion and that was for marraige


  • #248
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    By any chance are you two "patrons" of the Ionanist Institute?

    Nobody would openly admit to being a part of that.

    It would be like saying, "I'm in the KKK".


  • #249
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    RobertKKK wrote: »
    It does come across that some non religious want everything handed to them, including Catholic schools which were founded by Catholics.
    The state took polls at some of these schools and for most of these schools the parents wanted the school to remain as it was.
    Why don't militant atheists spend their own money like Catholics had to do originally and set up their own schools?

    We just want our rights "handed" to us - specifically, our right to freedom of religion in our schools, to not worry about children being sucked into the Church's grasp. If other parents want to bring up their kids in their religion, that's fine - just don't use PUBLICLY-FUNDED schools to do so.

    I wonder if, 30 years ago, you'd sneer about blacks in South Africa wanting "everything handed out to them". Given your posting history I wouldn't be surprised.


  • #250
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Hey Pope, you calling me obtuse is absurd; really absurd.

    This is the typical behaviour exhibited by posters in A&A when they find someone who dares disagree with them. And now I see you've just resorted to calling someone else a racist for having opposing thoughts to yours. Well done.


  • #251
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    catallus wrote: »
    Hey Pope, you calling me obtuse is absurd; really absurd.

    This is the typical behaviour exhibited by posters in A&A when they find someone who dares disagree with them. And now I see you've just resorted to calling someone else a racist for having opposing thoughts to yours. Well done.

    Im wondering if you have found some of those examples yet?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90444137&postcount=228

    Theres a difference between disagreeing and making comments about why would an atheist got to hospital as their lives and meaningless. I have a feeling if you are making comments in the latter and its not making you any friends.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    catallus wrote: »
    Hey Pope, you calling me obtuse is absurd; really absurd.

    This is the typical behaviour exhibited by posters in A&A when they find someone who dares disagree with them. And now I see you've just resorted to calling someone else a racist for having opposing thoughts to yours. Well done.

    Where did he call anyone racist? He asked someone who is expressing views that are contrary to social progression, equality and inclusion whether they have been opposed to other movements reflecting similar values.


  • #253
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    catallus wrote: »
    Hey Pope, you calling me obtuse is absurd; really absurd.

    This is the typical behaviour exhibited by posters in A&A when they find someone who dares disagree with them. And now I see you've just resorted to calling someone else a racist for having opposing thoughts to yours. Well done.

    Nah, it's not absurd, I'm just calling it as I'm seeing it, and not resorting to needlessly verbose posts like some shitty John Waters wannabe.


  • #254
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    Don't think I don't hold my parents accountable to some degree. They violated my rights however the State allowed them and allows thousands others to do so despite claiming to protect those rights.

    They didn't violate your rights... if your too young to understand then you can't make and informed decision in the first place. So parents, for better or for worse, make many choices for their children. They will choose what they think is best.

    I'm an atheist but to say my parents violated my rights is laughable. They had some guy sprinkle water on my head. It doesn't matter to me if I can't leave the church because I don't believe in it in the first place. It's irrelevant in my life. I believe in non-denominational public education but we can't stop parents passing on their beliefs.

    If you believe in separation of Church and State then you can't believe in banning religious induction at any age. It's a parent's right to raise a child in their tradition.


  • #255
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Where did he call anyone racist? He asked someone who is expressing views that are contrary to social progression, equality and inclusion whether they have been opposed to other movements reflecting similar values.

    Just a giant old straw man then.

    EDIT : he did say "given your posting history I wouldn't be surprised" ... That the guy he was responding to would have been a racist. Back in the day.


  • #256
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    I find all this funny because, although an atheist, I don't think religion is child abuse.

    If it were child abuse, however, then it wouldn't be enough to ban it at school but to make it illegal at home as well. The offshoot of that is far from a "liberal" law but a fairly fascist one.

    Good luck with a liberal republic banning Islam at home.


  • #257
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Pwindedd wrote: »
    I didn't say that and you well know it. I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive properties. I'm saying schools should be secular to enable an environment of learning without a particular bias. Why does that trouble you? Surely it's a positive thing?

    It doesn't trouble me, but it seems it is Catholic schools that must change to suit people who are maybe anti-Catholic, there is an irony here.


  • #258
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    RobertKKK wrote: »
    It doesn't trouble me, but it seems it is Catholic schools that must change to suit people who are maybe anti-Catholic, there is an irony here.

    It's not a matter of "anti-Catholicism" as you claim/shriek, it's a matter of being able to educate children in a PUBLICLY-FUNDED school without worrying about them being indoctrinated into a religion. How many times must this be drilled into your head?


  • #259
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    So Jesus and the bible is wrong. Should probably stick a note in there or released a new edition. Makes the bible a bit redundant if the pope can just pick and choose parts that the religion follows.

    Im not sure what opposing the pope has to do with anything. The last pope was connected with covering up child abuse so can see why they would oppose an organisation that would have someone like that as a leader.



    You must have misunderstood me. I asked:

    The church changes despite what people think, it changed its policy on executions when prisons became a place where highly dangerous people couldn't escape from.
    In the past prison breaks were common, no one wants a psychopath loose and killing due to escaping from prison.
    The church can see that a prison in bible times was not secure and executions were part of justice, there was no high security prisons for example...

    The previous Pope did a great job in regards to child abuse, when he was in the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, it was the Cardinal from Colombia who was in charge of priests - in the congregation for the clergy. There are articles about a power struggle between Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Hoyos. Cardinal Ratzinger was not happy with how Cardinal Hoyos was dealing with the abuse cases.
    Cardinal Ratzinger won the power struggle, and the dealing of abuse cases moved from Hoyos to Ratzinger in 2001. Hoyos was against the reporting to civil authorities, Hoyos was against denouncing the abusers.
    Cardinal Ratzinger called the people who abused as being "filth" and he has been the architect in child protection within the church, and made a point of meeting people who had been abused. To say he covered up abuse is to rewrite history.
    He was the one who went out of his way to take control of it when we had a Pope who should have resigned due to health reasons and who had not been in a position to deal with it.


  • #260
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    It's not a matter of "anti-Catholicism" as you claim/shriek, it's a matter of being able to educate children in a PUBLICLY-FUNDED school without worrying about them being indoctrinated into a religion. How many times must this be drilled into your head?

    I am not shrieking, your publicly funded bit might be you shrieking :P

    I went to a school where a Protestant person didn't have to do religion class, it was no big deal.


  • #261
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It doesn't trouble me, but it seems it is Catholic schools that must change to suit people who are maybe anti-Catholic, there is an irony here.

    How does the churches 'property ownership' of schools work when they own the land but tax payer money pays to maintain old buildings and build new ones?

    Does the RCC cough up when I new classroom needs building in a religious school or do taxpayers?

    In the case of schools which have been rebuilt does the state own the buildings on land owned by the RCC since taxpayers have paid for them?

    It's all a bit of a mess isn't it?


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I am not shrieking, your publicly funded bit might be you shrieking :P

    I went to a school where a Protestant person didn't have to do religion class, it was no big deal.

    Does his religious belief not matter? Should it not have been included in the class rather than just making him feel excluded and different?


  • #263
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Might doesn't make right. Should we also have publicly-funded bus stations segregated according to religion? Should we have publicly-funded hospitals segregated according to religion?

    Why not go a bit further and demand that the schools should be segregated according to race or the political party of the parents?


    The Magdalene Laundries and the Church-run industrial schools would be far closer to slavery than anything Obama's done.



    Quite frankly RobertKKK and catallus [sic], your wilful obtuseness is beginning to frustrate me. By any chance are you two "patrons" of the Ionanist Institute?

    No, nothing to do with Iona.

    It is not KKK, a sign of you losing the argument.

    It is you who has a problem with Catholic schools and other reschools where there is a religion, the problem is you want segregation as Catholic schools will take people who are not Catholic.

    Maybe thinking about yourself when you said KKK, since you brought in segregation.


  • #264
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    RobertKKK wrote: »
    I am not shrieking, your publicly funded bit might be you shrieking

    It's not shrieking, it's emphasising my point that you can't seem to comprehend.

    Now tell me, why do you believe that the State's money should be used to subsidise the Church's indoctrination of children? This is the Catholic Church we're talking about, an organisation with billions of euros in assets, and I find it hard to believe they're too cash-strapped to fund their own schools, unless of course an abuse scandal breaks out across the developing world which dwarfs the clerical abuse across the developed world.


  • #265
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    RobertKK wrote: »
    No, nothing to do with Iona.

    It is not KKK, a sign of you losing the argument.

    It is you who has a problem with Catholic schools and other reschools where there is a religion, the problem is you want segregation as Catholic schools will take people who are not Catholic.

    Maybe thinking about yourself when you said KKK, since you brought in segregation.

    I don't want segregation.

    How many times must this be repeated? It is the current schools system that is the source of segregation. I do have a problem with the current schools system. If parents want to send their children to a Catholic school, let the Church fund that. The State should not prop up the Church by funding its schools.


  • #266
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    RobertKK wrote: »
    No, nothing to do with Iona.

    It is not KKK, a sign of you losing the argument.

    It is you who has a problem with Catholic schools and other reschools where there is a religion, the problem is you want segregation as Catholic schools will take people who are not Catholic.

    Maybe thinking about yourself when you said KKK, since you brought in segregation.

    Huh? Come again there? Who is the dedicated advocate of segregating children according to the religious beliefs of their parents here?

    The current system IS segregation. Yes, religious schools may take children of other religions and none, but I suspect that this is more to do with preventing the European Courts ordering the abolition of the status quo in the Irish Education System than goodwill! They do it because they HAVE to.


  • #267
    Red Pepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Red Pepper


    In the larger towns and cities, parents are voting to keep the Catholic "ethos" in order to discourage non-Catholics from enrolling (especially black muslims). In the same way, parents are putting their kids into Gaelscoils to avoid the immigrants.


  • #268
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Its not like the Irish are new to the idea of segregation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_in_Northern_Ireland

    And look at the **** going on in London here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tEpjmFH9g


    Some people might be happy for this to happen but I would prefer it if we raised our children together and that they are the same, not teaching them that the other children are different and a warped view of what the other side is like. If these people went to school together they would have friends of the other religion and not take part in these pathetic events. At least if this happened you can be glad that your religion is being taught to your children by others because you are too lazy to do it yourself and go to mass on a Sunday.


  • #269
    FunLover18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Because according to Articles 41.1 and 42.1 -

    1.The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.


    The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

    The right to educate, yes. I see no mention of indoctrination, and there is a difference. I don't have to be baptised in order to be educated about the Catholic church.
    Paramite Pie wrote: »
    They didn't violate your rights... if your too young to understand then you can't make and informed decision in the first place. So parents, for better or for worse, make many choices for their children. They will choose what they think is best.

    I'm an atheist but to say my parents violated my rights is laughable. They had some guy sprinkle water on my head. It doesn't matter to me if I can't leave the church because I don't believe in it in the first place. It's irrelevant in my life. I believe in non-denominational public education but we can't stop parents passing on their beliefs.

    If you believe in separation of Church and State then you can't believe in banning religious induction at any age. It's a parent's right to raise a child in their tradition.

    Of course they violated your rights. You may not care but they did. Why should the parents right to raise a child in their tradition come before the child's right to choose their faith? Yes for Christian it's a splash of water but where Jews and Muslims are concerned males are circumcised and yet this isn't classified as child abuse because it's in the name of some god that the child may or may not grow up to believe in.

    The state is not interfering in religious practise and it is not preventing children from being educated in religion. But indoctrination of children is surely a violation of their rights to free practice of religion.


    PS the current poll results stand thus. I have updated them in the first post also

    Yes 220 votes 64.33%
    No 65 votes 19.01%
    Don't Care/Undecided 57 votes 16.67%


  • #270
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    Article 44, section 2.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states
    To clarify the poll options and poll results so far (as I accidentally made them private)
    Yes = Yes 220 votes 64.33%
    Down With This Sort Of Thing = No 65 votes 19.01%
    Careful Now = Don't Care/Undecided 57 votes 16.67%

    I don't wish to vote or express an opinion on this issue. What I want to say is that answers to questions such as this are normally worded as yes, no and undecided. By inserting glib alternatives you have slanted the poll and robbed it of credibility. No national polling agency would resort to this. Can you imagine that type of facetiousness being employed in a national referendum? Have your fun by all means, but don't expect any mature person to take this poll seriously.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Pwindedd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,316 ✭✭✭Pwindedd


    feargale wrote: »
    I don't wish to vote or express an opinion on this issue. What I want to say is that answers to questions such as this are normally worded as yes, no and undecided. By inserting glib alternatives you have slanted the poll and robbed it of credibility. No national polling agency would resort to this. Can you imagine that type of facetiousness being employed in a national referendum? Have your fun by all means, but don't expect any mature person to take this poll seriously.

    Yes OP what were you thinking.

    Our reasoned debate and polite interchange are all for nothing because of your ill considered yet topically and culturally relevant poll options.

    What about the Atari Jaguarists among us? :D


Advertisement
Advertisement