Page 2 of 5

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:13 pm
by CitizenPaine
Wording of proposed children's referendum
Monday, 19 February, 2007, the Government released its wording for the proposed referendum on children's rights.

1. An acknowledgement by the State of the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children.

2. Restatement of the existing protection of children and parents contained in the current Article 42.5 and the extension of this provision to all children.

3. Legal authority for the adoption of children who have been in care for a substantial period of time if it is in the best interests of those children.

4. Ensuring that all children are eligible for voluntary adoption.

5. Legal authority to secure the best interests of children in any court proceedings relating to adoption, guardianship, custody or access.

6. Legal authority for the collection and exchange of information relating to the risk or actual occurrence of child sexual abuse.

7. Legal authority to create offences of absolute or strict liability in respect of offences against or in connection with children.

More information about this proposed referendum is available at the Office of the Minister for Children website.
If this is placed into the constitution after the proposed referendum, which I fully expect will happen, it should have far reaching consequences for the current primary school arrangements in this country. The situation where a child is refused entry to a government funded school because of the religious standpoint of his or her parents, or allowed to attend the school but be branded as abnormal by being asked to go somewhere else when Catholic doctrine is being taught, will have to be against the first para above:

1. An acknowledgement by the State of the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children.

Disciminating against certain children in this way can be very damaging for the child's development. I can even foresee claims being brought against the state in the future, for emotional distress.

Citizen P.

Re: This sick little island

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:05 pm
by FXR
paolovan wrote:
FXR wrote:
What are the chances of such a letter being published do ya think?

FXR
Be your own God

Hmmm, I dunno...with words like 'coercion' and 'insidious organisation' you may be lessening your chances a bit :lol:
You may well be right but I figure the best way is to tell it like it is. If they did publish the letter you can just imagine the reaction from the true believers!

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:40 pm
by alfonso
Although it is always possible to be successful whilst not preaching to the choir... it is better to aim for the undecided and true moderates.

The idiocy of unquestioned respect towards religious beliefs has allowed religious people to call us, god-less ones, fanatics, even fundamentalists.

I won't hide in the closet, and if no matter what my efforts are I still look like fundamentalist to them, I have no plans on changing my behaviour. But in principle, I think it is wise to present our profound ideas with moderate words...

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:13 pm
by FXR
alfonso wrote:Although it is always possible to be successful whilst not preaching to the choir... it is better to aim for the undecided and true moderates.

The idiocy of unquestioned respect towards religious beliefs has allowed religious people to call us, god-less ones, fanatics, even fundamentalists.

I won't hide in the closet, and if no matter what my efforts are I still look like fundamentalist to them, I have no plans on changing my behaviour. But in principle, I think it is wise to present our profound ideas with moderate words...
I agree to a certain extent: as times or in certain situations it may well serve better to take a more diplomatic approach. On the other hand to paraphrase Richard Dawkins: Why should the dictionary tiptoe out of the room when we describe religion.

Coercion is coercion and forcing people to be baptised in order to recieve an education is coercion. The Catholic Church is de facto an insidious organisation.

Re: This sick little island

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:52 pm
by brianmmulligan
bipedalhumanoid wrote: If, in Ireland, I can't send my children to a school that doesn't include a specific religion in the curriculum and that doesn't constantly expose my children to religious attitudes and religious symbolism, sadly, i'm going to have to leave this country and return to Australia (my country of birth) before they reach school age.
Don't worry too much about it. I was brought up in a very strict catholic family, but I had an excellent science education. By the time I was 16 my rational nature had led me to become an atheist. I had no particularly bad experiences with the church - it just had no evidence.
My wife (who is agnostic leaning to atheist) and I decided to send our kids to a local catholic school (the Gael Scoil is nearer but I find gaegloiri harder to take). She does not want to confuse them by me telling them that I am atheist, so I work on developing their sceptical side. I constantly tell them about the need for evidence. Every time they come home with another christian howler I say "maybe, but lots of people don't believe that and where is the evidence that it is true". It is working very well. As my 8 year old said to me last week "I believe in Jesus but I don't know about those miracles" - now how close is he to the truth? Bang on.

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:32 pm
by FXR
TV 3 carried a report about the schools in Blanch insisting on a baptisimal cert to gain entry. They kinda ducked the bullet by inteviewing a black guy whose kid was not a Catholic. I suppose it did not occur to them that everyone was being discriminated against.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:25 am
by Martha
FXR wrote:TV 3 carried a report about the schools in Blanch insisting on a baptisimal cert to gain entry. They kinda ducked the bullet by inteviewing a black guy whose kid was not a Catholic. I suppose it did not occur to them that everyone was being discriminated against.
Not least, the "token" black.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:55 pm
by zhollie
FXR wrote:TV 3 carried a report about the schools in Blanch insisting on a baptisimal cert to gain entry. They kinda ducked the bullet by inteviewing a black guy whose kid was not a Catholic. I suppose it did not occur to them that everyone was being discriminated against.
I didn't see this report. Were they attempting to put a racial slant on the story?

TV3

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:51 pm
by FXR
zhollie wrote:
FXR wrote:TV 3 carried a report about the schools in Blanch insisting on a baptisimal cert to gain entry. They kinda ducked the bullet by inteviewing a black guy whose kid was not a Catholic. I suppose it did not occur to them that everyone was being discriminated against.
I didn't see this report. Were they attempting to put a racial slant on the story?
this is the letter I wrote them and the reply (fair play to TV3's Sharon Tobin, its more than RTE would do)

Congratulations TV3 news.



This evening 12/3/'07 you reported how the Catholic Church is insisting on evidence of baptism when admitting children to two schools in Blanchardstown. I first came across this story in the Evening Herald. A search of the web let me to the site below where there was some discussion of the issue.

I happen to have talked to a number of mothers in that area about education recently. One of them is my sister which is how I came to be there. Everyone I talked to told me that if was not for the dominance of the Church they would never have had their children baptised.



Back to your report: While it was courageous to report on the situation at all, I think you may have missed a bigger picture. The situation in Blanchardstown, which I'm sure is not unique, is an example of Catholicism by coercion. Featuring a Black non Catholic gave the impression that the only victims of this discrimination were immigrants. In fact everyone in this country is an enforced Catholic.

TV3 is a busisness and I'm sure covering that angle would be a devatstating blow to RTE which much of the time is forced to act like the media wing of the Vatican. An interview with a local mother, face covered in shodow, would do wonders for ratings. In addition TV3 would be at the forefront of a growing wave of people who are becoming increasingly disatisfied with the dominance of the Vatican in Ireland.

REPLY
Dear x,xxxx

Thank you for your comments on our news report. You are quite right our 5.30 bulletin featured an immigrant, non-catholic family. However, our later 6.30 and 23.00 bulletins also included an Irish mother speaking about her experience. The reason she was not included in the first report was because of time constraints. Unfortunately, very few Irish parents wanted to speak on camera at the school, perhaps fearing repercussions. But I absolutley understand that it is a problem that faces a great many parents, Irish and immigrant, and I hope that was illustrated in my reporting.

Thanks again for your comments.

Regards,
Sharon Tobin

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:08 pm
by CitizenPaine
REPLY
Dear x,xxxx

Thank you for your comments on our news report. You are quite right our 5.30 bulletin featured an immigrant, non-catholic family. However, our later 6.30 and 23.00 bulletins also included an Irish mother speaking about her experience. The reason she was not included in the first report was because of time constraints. Unfortunately, very few Irish parents wanted to speak on camera at the school, perhaps fearing repercussions. But I absolutley understand that it is a problem that faces a great many parents, Irish and immigrant, and I hope that was illustrated in my reporting.

Thanks again for your comments.

Regards,
Sharon Tobin
Well done FXR and fair play to Sharon Tobin. We may be starting to get a little bit of traction here.

CitizenPaine