Absolam wrote: » I have a feeling you're not going to show us how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people though, are you?
robindch wrote: » I trust the nation reached for its off-switch.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » What they cannot do is insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. How is that disenfranchisement?
Bristolscale7 wrote: » Banal cultural relativism.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Religious people are not disenfranchised when their religion does not interfere in policy and the provision of public services, so long as they are free to practice their religion as they see fit without interference. What they cannot do is insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. How is that disenfranchisement?
Shrap wrote: » No, and neither are you going to show how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State BY disenfranchising religious people, are you? Which *sigh* I am well aware is not what you were asked to do. However, can you show this? I am agog.
Absolam wrote: » I didn't say it was? I asked how Looksee would frame a Constitutional amendment to prevent religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people. You're the one who's claiming (without offering any evidence at all) that it's being done in nearly every first world country on the planet. I've certainly not claimed that anyone can insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others, so that would appear to be something posters around here like to call a strawman on your part?
Absolam wrote: » Tenebrous pseudo-intellectual deflection
Bristolscale7 wrote: » I should get a prize for reducing Absolam to ad-hominem attacks.
PopePalpatine wrote: » With a cherry on top for emulating the Watery One's/a pompous monk's thesaurus abuse. :pac:
looksee wrote: » If we assume (and we have to make assumptions as you are not being clear - what else is new?) that you are giving the term disenfranchise its fairly obscure reason of 'removing a right' rather than the more usual meaning of 'depriving of the right to vote' then, yes, let's disenfranchise people. All through history people have lost rights in order that other people gain rights. I am not going to offer any examples as you will immediately go off at a tangent to fudge the argument.
looksee wrote: » The only other first world country that I know of where religion is given authority in schools is some states of the USA (yes yes, we know states are not countries) where their insistence on religion based teaching in relation to Creationism/Evolution makes them a laughing stock, but actually it is no more ridiculous than some of the topics that are regarded as 'education' in Ireland.
looksee wrote: » I don't really believe that it is necessary to change the constitution to remove these rights, the constitution has a lot of unnecessary religious waffle in it, but that is just my opinion.
looksee wrote: » Any decent lawyer could interpret the current constitution to show that it does not give the Roman Catholic church the authority in schools that it has taken on for itself, and that the government gave to it. If they could give, a hundred years ago, they can take away now.
Absolam wrote: » Well, you didn't ask, but since the word seems to be an issue for you I mean disenfranchise as in prevent from participating in the democratic process, which is to say, having the same voice as everyone else in our nation's decisions (or, to put it another way, having the same entitlement to interfere with the State as anyone else).
Which is all fine and dandy I'm sure, but we weren't talking about religion being given authority in schools; we were talking about your particular concern to prevent religion from interfering with the State.
Well, I don't know what 'these rights' are that you're referring to removing, but since most rights are expressed in the Constitution, it's hard to imagine they could be removed without changing the Constitution? If you are aware of a way to remove Constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, there's a lot of people here with more than a passing interest in the 8th Amendment just dying to hear how to do it...
I don't think anyone has suggested the Constitution gives the Catholic Church authority in schools though, have they? That looks like one of those arguments where you pretend someone else is making it so you can knock it down. So.... well done?
looksee wrote: » In fact I did ask, you are only just answering.
looksee wrote: » In respect of the topic we are discussing, not everyone, if judged by your analysis, is enfranchised, so some people have more voice than others.
looksee wrote: » Yes we were, one leads directly to the other.
looksee wrote: » If you had quoted all that I said instead of being selective the answer is already there.
looksee wrote: » That is exactly the argument that has been made since the beginning of the thread.
looksee wrote: » You are really reaching for arguments at this stage Absolem.
looksee wrote: » There are a few posters who only come into A&A for the purpose of the argument, rather than any real interest in the topic. That is fair enough up to a point, but it does become filibustering after a while.
looksee wrote: » None of the points you raised above are real arguments, if you can come up with some genuine reasoning I will be happy to discuss them, I have no desire to discuss semantics and concocted, irrelevant points.
To be fair I think you're kind of handing a lot of them to me on a plate...
Bristolscale7 wrote: » Absolam's contribution to this forum is to show us the increasingly tendentious legalistic grounds for allowing catholic patroned schools to discriminate against non-catholics. Just as that horrible mary or whoever it was that was posting about begrudgers is illustrative of the low end of the scale, Absolam illustrates the Jesuit version. So, for example, in the past few days we learned that the church uses 'disenfranchisement' in a way that normal people do not. He's useful for that kind of stuff. The rest is just intellectual masturbation.
Absolam wrote: » If the idea of participating seems a little too much like intellectual masturbation for you... maybe you're doing it wrong?
robindch wrote: » You may well be, by some distance, the forum's leading language slicer. This is not an enviable position since fully stimulating, intellectual intercourse really does need to involve more than one person.
looksee wrote: » Non-participation is becoming increasingly appealing, I think I might head over to Humanities. (you needed a comma after the 'sometimes' in the first paragraph)
The study on Islamophobia in the city also shows evidence of racism by teachers towards their pupils, of institutional racism within An Garda Síochána and it criticises the media portrayal of Islam. Author of the report Dr James Carr also highlights the Department of Education policy “not to have a policy” on school uniforms and says that because of it “teachers might feel more legitimised” in displaying racist behaviour towards students.
The author said teachers have an impact when they engage in “racist discourse” in school. The report highlights discriminatory practices and the failure to address anti-Muslim racism in the class. In one school incident a teacher told a female student wearing a hijab or headscarf to “take that stupid thing off your head”. In another incident a boy in sixth class at the time was told to “Shut up, Allah” when he explained that his Muslim beliefs were different from what was being taught about Islam in the curriculum. In another, the year-head teacher told a student “Sorry, can’t do anything” when she reported racist comments from other students. In one Dublin university a number of lecturers have been reported as “blatantly racist” and “Muslims actually go into lectures and record them”.
The study is based on a qualitative survey of 66 men and women about their experience of being Muslim in Dublin.
Dr Carr said schools were “de facto segregationist” because friends in primary level are separated at secondary level because of the religion requirements in enrolment policy.
From the Pastoral statement on the Catholic Bishops of Ireland on the upcoming General Election – distributed at mass across Ireland yesterday.
Cabaal wrote: » None shocking study finds Ireland's education system is effectively segregationist,http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-education-enrolment-segregated-study-reveals-1.2543205O
Cabaal wrote: » Oh look, the catholic church is trying to direct people away from the actual issue again Of course if the catholic church runs the schools and the schools are failing travelers doesn't that make it the church's fault? can read it in full at http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2016/02/18/pastoral-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-ireland-on-the-upcoming-general-election/
Cabaal wrote: » None shocking study finds Ireland's education system is effectively segregationist,http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-education-enrolment-segregated-study-reveals-1.2543205 The flippant abusive attitude is not very different to what I experienced in school when I said I didn't believe in god. Had a priest lecture me one day and was thrown out of numerous religion classes by questioning stuff in a none disruptive way. On a side note, the story is somewhat inaccurate as Islam is of course not a race so the teachers comments can't be racist. However they are none the less discriminatory comments based on religion which are still certainly not ok.
Once again, children found themselves unable to access their local primary schools because of their religion. Momentum on this issue fell sharply over the course of the Government and the grade for ‘Patronage and Pluralism in Primary Education’ dropped to a ‘D’.
