Too much trash talk against Christianity

Nick Park · 01-04-2016 10:25AM

steamengine wrote: »

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools established by the state.

That's an interesting quote from the Constitution.

Taken at face value, it asserts the right of a group of parents of a minority religious faith to provide religious education for their children in schools established by the State.

Has this ever been tested. For example, could a minority faith group claim the right to hold their Sunday Schools in a Catholic-run school that is established by the State? Any lawyers out there care to comment?

Speedwell · 01-04-2016 10:27AM

Nick Park wrote: »

That's an interesting quote from the Constitution.

Taken at face value, it asserts the right of a group of parents of a minority religious faith to provide religious education for their children in schools established by the State.

Has this ever been tested. For example, could a minority faith group claim the right to hold their Sunday Schools in a Catholic-run school that is established by the State? Any lawyers out there care to comment?

IANAL, but I would guess that "according to their means" would come into play.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-04-2016 10:31AM

Nick Park wrote:

Yes, people have celebrated the return of the sun - they did so with solstices and equinoxes and suchlike.

Nick Park wrote:

It's a bit rich to say Christians 'borrowed' Easter. Then, when pressed as to from where Christians borrowed the idea of the Son of God dying for the sins of the world and rising from the grave, to say, "Ah well, you know, flowers blooming and winter ending and stuff like that."

No no. The line of argument was that nobody can use the symbolism of easter (death and rising again) without blaspheming christian god. In face it's as ligitimate for my or you or Pearse or christians or pagans to use the symbolism.

Christians didn't invent it, they don't own it and they have no authority to police it.

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-04-2016 10:32AM

NS77 wrote: »

Indeed - good public administration practice. Similar, in fact, to enrolling in a school. One can't just drive up and deposit a child at school without filling out the necessary forms.

The difference being, on joining, I won't be asked for a Baptismal Cert. at my local library. I won't feel the pressure to baptise my child at birth, just in case they might want to borrow books in the local library in the future. My local library also carries books on a wide range of topics (including Christianity and Atheism), without favouring any one in particular.

I wasn't asked for a baptismal cert when I enrolled my son in an RC school last year. In fact 10% of students are not RC which for a relatively small school is a fair chunk.

We cater for non RC children by them either remaining in class or leaving the roomcand being supervised by another member of staff.
I'm also on the board of management, so so much for Catholic bias !!

Cabaal · 01-04-2016 11:46AM

Lets face it, the current catholic ethos model used in schools is a utter disaster,

Here we have an organization that holds strong beliefes that gay people are sinful and that marriage between two gay people is utterly wrong and against god. We have schools that are supposed to teach catholic value's into children from a very young age, these schools get about 16 years pushing these "values" into young people's minds and yet they utterly fail at it.

The biggest group to vote for marriage equality were the younger generation just in recent years out of schools!
A majority of the country also voted against the values the catholic church holds so dear...that marriage is between a man and women only.

But yet we have people claiming the ethos should remain, but when you look at it its been an utter failure.
People don't hold the value's of the catholic church, the hold the value of our society which the catholic church is more and more disconnected from.

Even though the Catholic church can't even do a decent job of instilling its views into young minds we still have them using it as a reason to discriminate against 5 year olds at the tax payer expensive. The bottom line is a different religion or lack of religion shouldn't ever be a reason to reject a child from a tax payer funded school, yet its common for schools to both use it as a reason and also outline it on their acceptance section.

AtomicHorror · 01-04-2016 11:48AM

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote: »

I wasn't asked for a baptismal cert when I enrolled my son in an RC school last year. In fact 10% of students are not RC which for a relatively small school is a fair chunk.

We cater for non RC children by them either remaining in class or leaving the roomcand being supervised by another member of staff.
I'm also on the board of management, so so much for Catholic bias !!

Interesting... so what you're saying is that if you don't personally experience something, it didn't happen?

Fact is, that if a school year is oversubscribed by even one pupil, and the school has a policy of prioritising Catholics (which some do), then a non-Catholic child can be denied admission regardless of other criteria. As long as that is even a possible scenario, I'm not happy and neither should you be.

solodeogloria · 01-04-2016 11:59AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No no. The line of argument was that nobody can use the symbolism of easter (death and rising again) without blaspheming christian god. In face it's as ligitimate for my or you or Pearse or christians or pagans to use the symbolism.

Christians didn't invent it, they don't own it and they have no authority to police it.

Good afternoon,

You've missed the point entirely if you think that I'm seeking to police blasphemy. I certainly don't.

However I'm entitled to believe that someone likening their death to Jesus' is blasphemous. Pearse didn't save anyone through his death. Jesus powerfully did. Pearse didn't offer life eternal Jesus did. The point I made was for a poster alma73 who said we should have a Catholic forum because of the Easter Rising. Hence my comments. The fruits of 1916 if there were any won't survive the grave. From my standpoint Biblically it is very difficult to see nationalism and patriotism as anything other than a distraction from the Gospel. If you're not a Christian the comments weren't for you.

I expect nothing from the secular state other than freedom to live a peaceful godly life in the present age. Many haven't realised what living in a minority in such a country looks like. It is exciting and not something to be afraid of as a follower of Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-04-2016 12:04PM

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

Over the past few days i've seen so much debatable talks about Christianity as a whole, and i'm sick of it...

Then perhaps boards.ie is not for you? This is, at the heart of it, a discussion and debate forum. So people will do just that.

And given the prevalence, and for some the importance, of religion in our world one expects it to be one of the most common themes or subjects.

That said I note while expressing your ire you have not actually shown what is "debatable" about the talks in the first place.

Are you bothered by the tone of them? The content of them? Or just the mere EXISTENCE of them? What EXACTLY is your issue here? It is not clear at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, it's quite likely they would be if children were not indoctrinated with a system of ethics, morals and values. Are you familiar with the book "Lord of the Flies"? That didn't end well for the children.

Aside from the comedy inherent in offering a work of fiction as evidence of.... well anything useful here..... the link you offer seems to say the opposite of the light you presented it in.

The children in the book were of an age were they HAD been indoctrinated into some system of ethics or morals.... and the book showed that that meant squat when it came down to it.

A parallel real world example not from the realms of fiction that I am not convinced you have read and even less convinced you have understood, would be Montreal's night of terror. These were grown adults indoctrinated into any number of varied ethical and moral structures.... and it meant squat on the night.

The point being made in Lord of the Flies and in real world examples is that when it comes down to it the system of ethics one has or sells is near irrelevant in the face of things like societal structures, judgement and expectations.... or the loss of them.

Which we see ramified in many social experiments viewing the behaviors of people when divorced from such norms. Such as, say, the effect of deindividuation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who exactly are you to determine anyone else's personal relationship with either Jesus or God for that matter, or how they choose to identify themselves?

Yet nothing in the piece of text you are replying to here is a comment on how people "identify themselves". But whether they genuinely or usefully fit the definition they choose.

I could "identify myself" as a neurosurgeon and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is ALSO nothing wrong with someone coming along and pointing out I do not fit the definition.

I feel you miss that distinction here in the post you reply to, in that if someone wants to identify as "catholic" I am not seeing many (if any) people saying they can not do so.

But there is also nothing wrong with pointing out the Catholic Churches definition of what constitutes a catholic, and evaluating if the person in question fits or not.

Nor does the person doing so require or deserve snide comments about "pedestals" or crass baseless comments about "preaching".

salmocab · 01-04-2016 01:59PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I was replying to a Christian poster on the Christianity forum in all fairness. You can happily ignore what I wrote. My post is about the implications for Christians linking 1916 to Christianity. I think that's blasphemous.

No you were replying to me thats why you quoted my post.

solodeogloria · 01-04-2016 02:01PM

salmocab wrote: »

No you were replying to me thats why you quoted my post.

And who was I replying to originally? It was to another Christian poster alma73.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-04-2016 02:30PM

solodeogloria wrote:

You've missed the point entirely if you think that I'm seeking to police blasphemy. I certainly don't.

solodeogloria wrote:

If you're not a Christian the comments weren't for you.

That's fair.

Cheers got clearing that up.

lawred2 · 01-04-2016 02:33PM

EirWatcher wrote: »

In fairness, those threads aren't started in the Christianity forum. You can discuss in here if you want a different bias.

Personally I find it interesting that Christianity is so foremost in some people's thoughts that they do start topics on it regularly, even outside the Christianity forum.

really?

Stealthfins · 01-04-2016 02:43PM

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote:

I wasn't asked for a baptismal cert when I enrolled my son in an RC school last year. In fact 10% of students are not RC which for a relatively small school is a fair chunk.

Exactly I don't see what's going on with people moaning about having to get their child baptized,so they can enroll in the school.

During the late 70's and 80's I went to a RC primary school in Shannon.

The kid's from other denominations were welcomed and there wasn't any problems with baptismal certs etc

We had kid's from all over the world in class,during religion they did their homework.

Some people use the school thing as an excuse to vent their resentments towards the church,others have a valid excuse to be wary or indifferent to Christianity.

Elemonator · 01-04-2016 02:53PM

Slightly hypocritical, sorry OP. You are putting down people who have different beliefs to you.

Christian "tolerance" no doubt.

Labarbapostiza · 01-04-2016 03:53PM

steamengine wrote: »

Article 42.1&2 of the State's Constitution

1. 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 the parents tp provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools established by the state.

My emphasis above, but as can be seen religious education in school is supported by the Constitution.

No. You misunderstand the constitution. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Now there are eejits who believe, and have believed, that you can be free to chose your religion; eg Catholic or Protestant. But you must have a religious belief. That may have been the intention of John Charles Mcquaid, but this is not the constitutional position.

Atheists do have a position on religion. They believe it's bunkum. And that is the religious instruction they'd like their children to have. A middle ground would be no religion.

It's Cannon law that Catholics must attend weekly religious service. If they don't, they're not Catholics. Church attendance is about 6 to 10% of the population. Of whom the parents of small children are of an even smaller percentage. To have Catholicism in schools at this point in time makes as much sense as having astrologers in schools.

AtomicHorror · 01-04-2016 04:08PM

Stealthfins wrote: »

Exactly I don't see what's going on with people moaning about having to get their child baptized,so they can enroll in the school.

During the late 70's and 80's I went to a RC primary school in Shannon.

The kid's from other denominations were welcomed and there wasn't any problems with baptismal certs etc

Great. But now there is, and it is a practice protected by Irish law.

I would guess it actually was a problem in some schools during the 80's, and the reason it wasn't for you was that schools set their own admissions criteria and yours was progressive. The law prevents schools from setting criteria on the basis of (for example) race, but they are permitted to discriminate on religious grounds. Many schools don't bother, but some do and there is nothing in law to stop them.

Stealthfins wrote: »

We had kid's from all over the world in class,during religion they did their homework.

There's no reason why pupils should have to fill time during school hours like that.

Stealthfins wrote: »

Some people use the school thing as an excuse to vent their resentments towards the church,others have a valid excuse to be wary or indifferent to Christianity.

It is an unfair and unjust system that causes resentment towards the church. Whether anyone uses it as an "excuse" is hardly relevant, is it? I'm sure there were plenty of civil rights activists who seized on discriminatory policies that did not directly affect them- but what of it? Did that mean they were wrong?

Motive is irrelevant- the law is fair or it is unfair. We say it is unfair.

One eyed Jack · 01-04-2016 04:36PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Aside from the comedy inherent in offering a work of fiction as evidence of.... well anything useful here..... the link you offer seems to say the opposite of the light you presented it in.

The children in the book were of an age were they HAD been indoctrinated into some system of ethics or morals.... and the book showed that that meant squat when it came down to it.

A parallel real world example not from the realms of fiction that I am not convinced you have read and even less convinced you have understood, would be Montreal's night of terror. These were grown adults indoctrinated into any number of varied ethical and moral structures.... and it meant squat on the night.

The point being made in Lord of the Flies and in real world examples is that when it comes down to it the system of ethics one has or sells is near irrelevant in the face of things like societal structures, judgement and expectations.... or the loss of them.

Which we see ramified in many social experiments viewing the behaviors of people when divorced from such norms. Such as, say, the effect of deindividuation.

I see lots of words, but very little argument that's of any use really. That we could read the same book and come to different interpretations of it's value comes as no surprise really. There are numerous works of fiction from which we could learn about ourselves, so if there's comedy in using a work of fiction to demonstrate the value of instilling a system of ethics in children there, I'm not seeing it. Wikipedia was just a handy reference point to the book itself, you probably shouldn't have tried reading so much into that as you appear to have derived a completely different interpretation of my intent. It's hardly surprising that we would disagree on our interpretations at this stage.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet nothing in the piece of text you are replying to here is a comment on how people "identify themselves". But whether they genuinely or usefully fit the definition they choose.

Oh?

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

We're just asking people to tell the truth. If you don't go to mass every Sunday, you're not a Catholic. You could be an admirer of Jesus all you like, but if you don't follow the rules, you're not really in the club.

We appear to have a difference of interpretation again in how we read that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I could "identify myself" as a neurosurgeon and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is ALSO nothing wrong with someone coming along and pointing out I do not fit the definition.

You don't fit their definition of a neurosurgeon. That's a different matter entirely. They aren't causing you any harm by identifying themselves however they choose (isn't that the whole point of freedom of choice?), so why do you feel a need to point out to them that they are not what they say they are because you say so? That seems a rather rude and insensitive thing to do to someone, and I'm sure it causes them harm. I imagine you wouldn't like it done to you, so why would you feel a need to do it to someone else?

Ben Carson seems to have done alright as a neurosurgeon and a Seventh-day Adventist all the same. I'd sooner trust that he knows what he's doing as opposed to someone who purports to be able to tell someone what they are or aren't when they are unsuitably qualified to do so. It may be upsetting to some people that people may identify themselves as they choose, but that's those people's problem, not the person who is happy in what they choose for themselves.

If someone is asking people to be honest with themselves, then they should start with themselves first.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I feel you miss that distinction here in the post you reply to, in that if someone wants to identify as "catholic" I am not seeing many (if any) people saying they can not do so.

You may want to read the post again that I was replying to where the poster specifically states that if people who identify as Catholic do not do as he says, then they are not Catholic -

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

We're just asking people to tell the truth. If you don't go to mass every Sunday, you're not a Catholic. You could be an admirer of Jesus all you like, but if you don't follow the rules, you're not really in the club.

You're right though, there aren't many people saying they cannot do so, because to do so would be a rather rude and insensitive thing to do to someone, and I'm sure it causes them harm. Thankfully, most people in society do not interfere with people who are not causing them any harm.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But there is also nothing wrong with pointing out the Catholic Churches definition of what constitutes a catholic, and evaluating if the person in question fits or not.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with evaluating if the person fits the Roman Catholic Churches definition of what constitutes a Roman Catholic (there are a few different interpretations of a Catholic as I'm sure you're aware), but the dictionary definition of a Roman Catholic at least seems fairly straightforward -

Oxford English Dictionary: A member of the Roman Catholic Church

Merriam-Webster: a member of the Roman Catholic Church

But pointing out to anyone, that they don't fit the definition of something, well, it just seems a bit rude really, to me at least. If they're happy, why interfere with them?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor does the person doing so require or deserve snide comments about "pedestals" or crass baseless comments about "preaching".

You appear to have interpreted my post in a rather different light to the way in which it was intended. "Snide", to me at least, would be referring to priests as pedophile con artists, and telling people what they are or they aren't as they choose to evaluate them. No, I think you appear to be misinterpreting and substituting "snide" for "objective".

Cabaal · 01-04-2016 04:50PM

EirWatcher wrote: »

Personally I find it interesting that Christianity is so foremost in some people's thoughts that they do start topics on it regularly, even outside the Christianity forum.

Given the catholic religion interferes with people's lives in Ireland even when they want nothing to do with that specific faith its not surprising at all,

Also, in case you missed it there's be thousands of abuse cases over the past number of decades world wide, funnily enough people find these cases sickening and the Vatican's disasters attempts to cover them up utterly disgusting

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-04-2016 05:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see lots of words, but very little argument that's of any use really.

You just see what you want to see, usually with the agenda of replying without actually replying to anything that was said. The simple fact is however you offered a work of fiction up as an example of what happens when someone is not indoctrinated with ethics and morals.

But the example was a poor one because:

a) The characters in the books were not an example of that, BECAUSE at their age would have been thus indoctrinated and
b) the book was not about that, it was about what happens when humans are dropped into a situation where societal rules and structures break down.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That we could read the same book and come to different interpretations of it's value comes as no surprise really.

That I can, and did, explain the basis of my interpretation, and the fault in yours, while you have merely asserted yours and not offered much else, is also no surprise really. It seems to go like that every time we speak.

Again, you offered the citation as an example of a text where bad things happened because the children were not instilled with morals or ethics. But at that age they would have been. So your interpretation is just baseless and nonsense because the foundation of your interpreatation is demonstrably false.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if there's comedy in using a work of fiction to demonstrate the value of instilling a system of ethics in children there, I'm not seeing it.

The comedy comes from making a real world assertion, and backing it up with fiction. That would be like me saying "Super soldiers with incredible abilities can be trained, sure just look at the Bourne Identity".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wikipedia was just a handy reference point to the book itself, you probably shouldn't have tried reading so much into that

Errrrrr I didn't. Not a single thing I said was about wikipedia or anything related to it. EVERYTHING I just wrote was related to the citation of the book itself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh? We appear to have a difference of interpretation again in how we read that.

We do, and once again as just written above the form that takes is that I explain my interpretation and why yours is wrong, and you do no such thing in return. Every time.

Yet I am happy to repeat where your error lay:

Again the user did not say the person can not SELF identify as a catholic. The user simply said that the definition is the wrong one. Two massively different things here, the distinction is not a small one.

Yet you have replied to him as if he engaged in the former rather than the latter.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don't fit their definition of a neurosurgeon.

Well no, not what I said. The point I was making is that there is a central authority usually that defines what it means to be X. There are things that need to be attained to be rightfully defined as a neurosurgeon. And while I might CALL myself one, I would not be one.

Similarly there is a central authority, the Catholic Church, that defines what Catholiscism means and what it is, and what a Catholic is. So while a person might define THEMSELVES as being "catholic". They might not necessarily fit the "official" definition.

And that is all the user was pointing out. He was not saying people could not define themselves as they wish.... as you simply pretend he did.......... but that they still MAY not be a catholic by the official definition of the word.

Again this distinction is not small but as long as you miss or ignore it, you are going to continue to be baffled at our differing interpretations of the text. And when you notice the distinction then it is you........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You may want to read the post again

........ not I that would benefit from some re-reads.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But pointing out to anyone, that they don't fit the definition of something, well, it just seems a bit rude really

Sometimes. But not so in the context that we are discussing here which was, as the OP pointed out, the context of the census. And there is NOTHING rude in that context of saying "I do not care how you define YOURSELF but could you maybe find out what the CENSUS means be "Catholic" and fill it out based on whether you fit THAT definition, not your own".

If you see something rude in that, then by all means regale me, because I suspect you would simply be imagining it.

Other contexts however, I have no doubt I would agree with you entirely.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to have interpreted my post in a rather different light to the way in which it was intended. "Snide", to me at least, would be referring to priests as pedophile con artists

No I think my interpretation appears just fine thanks. But I do agree calling priests pedophile con artists is going too far as only a relatively small proportion of them are pedophiles.

steamengine · 01-04-2016 05:43PM

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

No. You misunderstand the constitution. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Now there are eejits who believe, and have believed, that you can be free to chose your religion; eg Catholic or Protestant. But you must have a religious belief. That may have been the intention of John Charles Mcquaid, but this is not the constitutional position.

RELIGION ARTICLE 44

1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

2 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

There is a little more in the Constitution than just freedom of religion, (emphasis mine).

Atheists do have a position on religion. They believe it's bunkum. And that is the religious instruction they'd like their children to have. A middle ground would be no religion.

And Christians believe the opposite and would like their children to continue with their religious instruction.

It's Cannon law that Catholics must attend weekly religious service. If they don't, they're not Catholics. Church attendance is about 6 to 10% of the population. Of whom the parents of small children are of an even smaller percentage. To have Catholicism in schools at this point in time makes as much sense as having astrologers in schools.

Apart from the fact that cannons fire balls, it seems that this is a technicality proffered to support the atheist argument. It's up to Catholics to decide if they are Catholics, or not.

solodeogloria · 01-04-2016 05:48PM

Good evening all!

Maybe it might be better to remind ourselves about the OP.

I'm of the mind that the law shouldn't be used to coerce non-Christians to live a Christian life. I'm more and more of the mind that the State should be separated from the church and the church from the State.

If I process that algorithm through the list we get the following outcomes:
- Good Friday alcohol ban - should be scrapped. Alcohol consumption is a matter of personal freedom. When I was in Ireland I remember seeing people filling trolleys full of drink on Holy Thursday as a result. What even from a Christian perspective was the point of this law?

- Census - entirely down to the individual. Honesty best policy as State provision of services and governmental policies can be determined by this.

- Non religious funerals - secular plots should be made available for burial. State registered humanist officials are already available for this. This is a matter for the deceased and his or her will.

- Primary schools - the State should provide a secular system of education with parents providing religious education in partnership with their churches. No sacraments in class time.

In return I would expect the State to stay out of churches and not to restrict the freedom of religion. Provided the freedoms of Christians don't violate the freedoms of others they should be uninhibited but Christians should receive no additional privileges to any other faith groups.

I think this would spur Christians into action to do a better job of teaching the Bible themselves rather than relying on the State based education system to do it for them.

It was only recently when I discovered the full benefits for the Christian believer in a fully and completely secularised governmental system. Implemented correctly and all thrive. A wave of honesty over society where we acknowledge the truth that a lot of us aren't Christians any more and stop expecting others to be Christians. It improves dialogue with others, it makes my beliefs more radical and more robust. That's surely a good thing? Do we not trust that God is in control even when we don't seem to be "winning" in a worldly sense?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

One eyed Jack · 01-04-2016 06:33PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet I am happy to repeat where your error lay:

Again the user did not say the person can not SELF identify as a catholic. The user simply said that the definition is the wrong one. Two massively different things here, the distinction is not a small one.

Yet you have replied to him as if he engaged in the former rather than the latter.

Rather than pick your post apart, I shall restrict myself to the salient points of your argument -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similarly there is a central authority, the Catholic Church, that defines what Catholiscism means and what it is, and what a Catholic is. So while a person might define THEMSELVES as being "catholic". They might not necessarily fit the "official" definition.

Would you agree then that the poster is unqualified to proclaim who is, and who is not Roman Catholic and that they are in no position to appoint themselves the central authority on such matters?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And that is all the user was pointing out. He was not saying people could not define themselves as they wish.... as you simply pretend he did.......... but that they still MAY not be a catholic by the official definition of the word.

Again this distinction is not small but as long as you miss or ignore it, you are going to continue to be baffled at our differing interpretations of the text. And when you notice the distinction then it is you........

I'm actually more baffled by your insertion of the word "MAY" in there, when the poster was actually very specific in their declaration -

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

If you don't go to mass every Sunday, you're not a Catholic.

Nope, I don't see the word "MAY" in there anywhere.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

........ not I that would benefit from some re-reads.

I think you might benefit from some re-reads, as you appear to be including words that were not present in the original text, to support your differing interpretation to give the appearance of a distinction that does not exist.

Would I be correct in assuming that you inserted the word "MAY", because you understand that the poster is in fact incorrect in their assertion?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sometimes. But not so in the context that we are discussing here which was, as the OP pointed out, the context of the census. And there is NOTHING rude in that context of saying "I do not care how you define YOURSELF but could you maybe find out what the CENSUS means be "Catholic" and fill it out based on whether you fit THAT definition, not your own".

If you see something rude in that, then by all means regale me, because I suspect you would simply be imagining it.

Other contexts however, I have no doubt I would agree with you entirely.

Well the reason I would see it as rude in the context of how an individual chooses to identify themselves for the purposes of the census is that quite frankly, how they choose to identify themselves is nobody else's business! They are not making it anyone else's business either, but it appears that some people take it upon themselves to make other people's business their own, while decrying anyone else who does the same thing to them! Sort of an odd contradiction really IMO.

That's not to mention the fact that the person they're suggesting could maybe find out what the census means by "Roman Catholic", may indeed have already done so, and judged that they do indeed fit that definition, and not someone else's (whose definition happens to be incorrect!).

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No I think my interpretation appears just fine thanks.

If you say so. Well, it would be rude of me to suggest otherwise really when you appear to be satisfied at least with your interpretation.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-04-2016 07:06PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rather than pick your post apart, I shall restrict myself to the salient points of your argument

Or in other words you will be skipping over most of my post, especially the bits you can not rebut or argue, such as the whole "interpretation" matter related to the book you cited.....where you cited a book containing children who have been brought up with ethics and moral.... as an example of what happens when children are not brought up with ethics and morals........ and the relevance of the role of ethics and morals in peoples behavior which is, seemingly, a lot less than you think.

But I remain genuinely AGOG to hear all about how a book about children who are of an age to have been brought up with a moral and ethical upbringing or "indoctrination" is a good example of what happens when children are not brought up with a moral and ethical upbringing or "indoctrination". I really can not wait to hear how that works.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you agree then that the poster is unqualified to proclaim who is, and who is not Roman Catholic

I have no idea what their qualifications are or are not on the matter. Nor is this in ANY way relevant to the point I was ACTUALLY making which is the MASSIVE distinction between:

A) Complaining about how people identify themselves and

Evaluating whether the label they choose is actually correct.

The poster appears to have done B. You replied to the poster as if they did A. And pointing that out was all my point was. Nothing to do with this tangent you are going off on now.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm actually more baffled by your insertion of the word "MAY" in there, when the poster was actually very specific in their declaration - Nope, I don't see the word "MAY" in there anywhere. I think you might benefit from some re-reads, as you appear to be including words that were not present in the original text

If you can not distinguish between MY words and the other users words, that if your failing not mine. The point I am making remains the same, that there is a distinction between telling people how to identify themselves, and evaluating whether their identification is valid. ESPECIALLY, as I already said, dependent on the context. And the context here is the census where it is quite relevant to establish what the words mean in that context.

So the need for a re-read still lies with you, not me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would I be correct in assuming that you inserted the word "MAY", because you understand that the poster is in fact incorrect in their assertion?

Nope you would not be correct in this assumption at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the reason I would see it as rude in the context of how an individual chooses to identify themselves for the purposes of the census is that quite frankly, how they choose to identify themselves is nobody else's business!

Yet it is, in terms of the census. If a census for example asks if I am Caucasion or Black, I might identify as Black, but if I put myself down as Black I would be falsifying information on the census.

It is a good idea.... whether people actually do it or not is another issue but it is a good idea..... to find out what the CENSUS means by the words it has on there, and answer the questions accordingly.

So how you identify YOURSELF is not relevant in that context. And merely asking people to check when answering the census whether they are answering by their own meaning of the words, or the Census meaning of the words, is not "Rude" as you pretend it to be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you say so. Well, it would be rude of me to suggest otherwise really when you appear to be satisfied at least with your interpretation.

Well as I said already, and the dynamic of your baseless interpreting of the cited book is a prime example, there distinction here lies in me actually presenting arguments as to why I think my interpretations are correct and yours false.... and you doing no such thing in return.

Again, no small distinction there either.

Stealthfins · 01-04-2016 07:20PM

AtomicHorror wrote:

There's no reason why pupils should have to fill time during school hours like that.

Says who ?

If I had the enthusiasm at a young age to do my homework before I get home I'd be doing ok.

Each school to their own yeah,being progressive and all that....

One eyed Jack · 01-04-2016 08:04PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or in other words you will be skipping over most of my post

No other words are necessary. I specifically stated:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rather than pick your post apart, I shall restrict myself to the salient points of your argument

How you choose to interpret that is not a failing on my part to be very specific about my intent. I intend to do the same again now.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have no idea what their qualifications are or are not on the matter. Nor is this in ANY way relevant to the point I was ACTUALLY making which is the MASSIVE distinction between:

A) Complaining about how people identify themselves and
Evaluating whether the label they choose is actually correct.

The poster appears to have done B. You replied to the poster as if they did A. And pointing that out was all my point was. Nothing to do with this tangent you are going off on now.

The poster, according to my interpretation of their post, was doing a combination of both (A) and (B), specifically when they stated (incorrectly!):

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

We're just asking people to tell the truth. If you don't go to mass every Sunday, you're not a Catholic.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you can not distinguish between MY words and the other users words, that if your failing not mine. The point I am making remains the same, that there is a distinction between telling people how to identify themselves, and evaluating whether their identification is valid. ESPECIALLY, as I already said, dependent on the context. And the context here is the census where it is quite relevant to establish what the words mean in that context.

So the need for a re-read still lies with you, not me.

You appear to be unable to distinguish between the words that the poster actually stated, and words that you put in there for them, that weren't there before. I actually can distinguish between the other posters words, and yours, which is why I'm still baffled as to why you re-interpreted their post and inserted the word "MAY", when it wasn't there before, in order to create a distinction that wasn't there before.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope you would not be correct in this assumption at all.

If I may be so bold as to ask you directly then - do you think the poster was incorrect in this assertion?

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

If you don't go to mass every Sunday, you're not a Catholic.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet it is, in terms of the census. If a census for example asks if I am Caucasion or Black, I might identify as Black, but if I put myself down as Black I would be falsifying information on the census.

If you say so, but you identifying yourself as black is still none of anyone else's business, nor is what you put down on the census if you believe you meet the definition. I won't even point out to you that the colour of your skin is completely irrelevant in the context of your religion, which is the context in which we are talking about in filling out the census truthfully, or at least whatever you believe to be true as it applies to you. I don't think there's any penalty for filling out the census truthfully, none as far as I'm aware of anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a good idea.... whether people actually do it or not is another issue but it is a good idea..... to find out what the CENSUS means by the words it has on there, and answer the questions accordingly.

That isn't in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is that one person without any authority to do so, deems that (by their misunderstanding of Canon Law) another person who is completely unknown to them, is not Roman Catholic.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So how you identify YOURSELF is not relevant in that context. And merely asking people to check when answering the census whether they are answering by their own meaning of the words, or the Census meaning of the words, is not "Rude" as you pretend it to be.

It is entirely relevant how one identifies themselves if that's the question you're being asked on the census form! It's very straightforward, and I've given you the dictionary definition already. There was no "merely asking people to check" as you put it, in this statement:

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

If you don't go to mass every Sunday, you're not a Catholic.

That's just plain rude, or snide, if you prefer to use that term.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well as I said already, and the dynamic of your baseless interpreting of the cited book is a prime example, there distinction here lies in me actually presenting arguments as to why I think my interpretations are correct and yours false.... and you doing no such thing in return.

Again, no small distinction there either.

You haven't presented a very compelling argument so far then in that case, because the distinction you claim, appears to be based upon your complete reinterpretation of the post to insert words that weren't there and then claim that it is I am at fault for misinterpreting that which was never written in the first place!

That's a fairly large distinction in my book, between what was actually written, and what you added in yourself of your own volition to make a point that really, just does not exist! Quite why you insist on doing so I have no idea, but carry on if you think you're getting somewhere. You seem to be happy in doing so, so I'll let you have at it and I won't argue with you any more after this point.

eviltwin · 01-04-2016 08:15PM

One Eye a fundamental part of being Catholic is going to mass. It's not fair to compare oneself to a person who engages and supports their church if you aren't part of that community. You seem desperate to hang onto your Catholic tag. You can still have a relationship with God by being just a Christian.

One eyed Jack · 01-04-2016 08:28PM

eviltwin wrote: »

One Eye a fundamental part of being Catholic is going to mass. It's not fair to compare oneself to a person who engages and supports their church if you aren't part of that community. You seem desperate to hang onto your Catholic tag. You can still have a relationship with God by being just a Christian.

Well yeah, I agree that a fundamental part of belonging to the RCC at least is weekly mass attendance, but, failure to do so, does not automatically mean that the person is not, or is no longer Roman Catholic. That's what the poster was claiming, and they are simply incorrect in their assumption.

I'm actually not desperate to hang on to anything in fairness, I'm quite comfortable to identify as Roman Catholic (and I attend weekly mass, so at least that poster can't point any wagging fingers in my direction on that score), and of course I understand that a person can still have a relationship with God by being just a Christian. I'm easygoing enough that I'm not going to be telling anyone what they are or aren't if that's how they choose to identify themselves.

I just don't see why people who would claim that the RCC is judgemental, would not see how judgemental they are actually being themselves, and they're not even religious, so it can't be that a judgemental attitude is solely the preserve of the religious then. There has to be another reason for it. I'm just not sure what that reason is. Human nature perhaps?

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-04-2016 08:46PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No other words are necessary. I specifically stated: How you choose to interpret that is not a failing on my part to be very specific about my intent. I intend to do the same again now.

And I dont blame you. Having no argument to support your interpretation is certainly cause to run away from that area of the discussion. A shame however as, as I said, I could not wait to hear how a book where children had been brought up ethically and morally, was an example of a situation where children were not brought up ethically or morally. A clear nonsense, which it is no surprise you are dodging now.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The poster, according to my interpretation of their post, was doing a combination of both (A) and (B)

And yet there is none of A. Because at no point did the poster say that people could not identify themselves as they wished. He only said the identification was inaccurate.

Now you might feel he is WRONG in that evaluation of accuracy, but that does not change the point I am making, or rebut it in ANY way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to be unable to distinguish between the words that the poster actually stated

And yet the only person here failing to make that distinction is you, you and just you. Because I never once "put words there for them". I merely offered my own words, at no point putting them into the mouth of another. You are merely making things up now.

As I keep saying, some re-reading would be of benefit for you here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I may be so bold as to ask you directly then - do you think the poster was incorrect in this assertion?

No you may not, because that has nothing to do with the point I am making. It is just another one of your tangent attempts that you try so often. Whether his assertion was correct or not, this does NOT in any way affect the point I am making. A point you have not to date actually addressed or rebuttted. Merely dodged.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you say so, but you identifying yourself as black is still none of anyone else's business

Except in the context of a PUBLIC census it is. That being the point and the context you seem unwilling to directly address. All I am saying is there is NOTHING at all wrong with suggesting to people that they find out what the words on the Census mean to the people producing the census, rather than just filling it out by what they think or want the words to mean. And there is nothing "wrong" or "rude" about it.

More than that I am not saying despite your usual tangents.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That isn't in dispute. What appears to be in dispute is that one person without any authority to do so, deems that (by their misunderstanding of Canon Law) another person who is completely unknown to them, is not Roman Catholic.

That might be what YOU are disputing but it has NOTHING to do with my posts or points here. As I keep telling you, but you seem unwilling to listen in your ongoing need to dodge what I am saying and addressing tangents.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You haven't presented a very compelling argument so far then in that case

Except yes I have, on all my points. Yet when I do so you either find a tangent to follow, or you whole sale start ignoring blocks and sections of my posts under your usual canard of pretense that those points are not worth addressing. The only one not offering arguments here is you. But by all means pretend otherwise if it gets you through.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

because the distinction you claim, appears to be based upon your complete reinterpretation of the post to insert words that weren't there

Except I have done NO such thing anywhere here. You are just making things up as usual.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and then claim that it is I am at fault for misinterpreting that which was never written in the first place!

No I think you are at fault for attacking something that was never there in the first place. In that the user in question never questions peoples right to identify themselves as they please. He just questioned the validity of that identification.

As I keep saying this is no small distinction that you are either missing or willfully ignoring.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a fairly large distinction in my book, between what was actually written, and what you added in yourself

Except I added nothing, you just keep inventing that. I have had words put in my mouth before (often by you as it happens) but I have never had someone vicariously put words in someones elses mouth on my behalf before. That is a whole new level of distortion.

Once again my point is, was, and ONLY has been: That there is a distinction between questioning a persons right to label themselves, and questioning the validity of that label. The user did the latter. You keep pretending he did the former. And yet you have failed to even ONCE quote him doing so. A failure I assume will be ongoing but am happy to be proven false in that assumption.

So really the only one inventing things to make a point that just does not exist is you again. Funny how that keeps happening, your accusing others of what only you are actually engaged in. Quite why you insist on doing so I have no idea, but carry on if you think you're getting somewhere. You seem to be happy in doing so.

looksee · 02-04-2016 09:13AM

Originally Posted by steamengine View Post
Article 42.1&2 of the State's Constitution

1. 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 the parents tp provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools established by the state.

My emphasis above, but as can be seen religious education in school is supported by the Constitution.

No, it is saying that parents have a right and duty to provide those forms of education, it does not say that all those forms must happen in one place.

It goes on to say

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State has an obligation to provide moral, intellectual and social education - no mention there of religion in a state school.

There are so many fudges and contradictions that the whole area should be revisited. Parents are not obliged to send their children to a school that conflicts with their own beliefs, yet the state can demand that children attend somewhere - and at present that is almost always a school with a religious ethos. Parents have a 'duty' to provide religious education, but at the same time do not have to provide education 'in violation of their conscience'.

One eyed Jack · 02-04-2016 10:26AM

looksee wrote: »

There are so many fudges and contradictions that the whole area should be revisited. Parents are not obliged to send their children to a school that conflicts with their own beliefs, yet the state can demand that children attend somewhere - and at present that is almost always a school with a religious ethos. Parents have a 'duty' to provide religious education, but at the same time do not have to provide education 'in violation of their conscience'.

I agree with you that the whole area of the provision of education does need to be looked at, but personally, I think there are too many self-interested parties to actually bring about any real change in the status quo that would mean more choice for parents. I'm not just talking about the Catholic Bishops either who are the patron body of RC schools. They're just the biggest target, because they're the biggest patron body. But, they actually have very little influence in education at all really. It's more the pen pushers in Athlone you need to be looking at, and all the various union bodies, and some of the other management organisations (I forgot to include the ncse which would be another influential body, the ICI, or that other group that advocates on behalf of travellers, can't think of their name, and numerous children's advocacy groups, parents groups, etc), loads of different stakeholders in education in Ireland.

Anyway, yeah, the parents rights over their children's education are not absolute, and the State can, and does step in where necessary in the best interests of the children's welfare (that's what was passed by the children's referendum, to give the State that right). The State can not demand however, that the parents must send their child to an educational facility which would be in violation of their conscience.

Interesting case I read about in a HSE report last year (they're all up on the website in the public domain) about a child who was placed with a foster family, and the HSE gave them a red mark on their report card because they were not fostering the child's religious beliefs! It's an issue I was aware of with transcultural and transethnic adoption, but it was the first time I'd heard of it in relation to foster care!!

Too much trash talk against Christianity

Comments