Page 4 of 5

Re: This sick little island

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:30 pm
by Martha
brianmmulligan wrote:Now can you help me find out what the bad experiences are?
Everyone has to face up to the painful realities of their own personal life. Its not for me to tell you what is and isn't right or wrong about your life. You have to do that for yourself. For example, if you are content to cling to the delusion that you had no bad experiences as a child growing up in Holy Catholic Ireland and attending Catholic schools, then that's your choice to cling to that deception. Just remember, you and above all, your children, will have to live with the consequences of that self-delusion.

Re: This sick little island

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:45 pm
by brianmmulligan
Martha wrote:
brianmmulligan wrote:Now can you help me find out what the bad experiences are?
Everyone has to face up to the painful realities of their own personal life. Its not for me to tell you what is and isn't right or wrong about your life. You have to do that for yourself. For example, if you are content to cling to the delusion that you had no bad experiences as a child growing up in Holy Catholic Ireland and attending Catholic schools, then that's your choice to cling to that deception. Just remember, you and above all, your children, will have to live with the consequences of that self-delusion.
OK, fair enough it was too much to ask you to identify what the actual bad experiences were, but, go on, tell me how you were able to tell that I had them.

Actually it is now coming back to me. It is Saturday evening back in 1967 and I'm at rosary and benediction. I am being bored to death by the trimmings of the rosary. I'm 10 years old and I can't figure out what good this praying lark is. But wait, the singing in benediction is starting. Now this is more interesting. Do you know how many harmonies you can do to Tantum Ergum? This is fun. I leave with a smile on my face but underneath the scar caused by the boredom of the rosary will last until I confront it years later.

How could you detect all this? I think you could be an aethiest evangelist. You could stand up on stage and call people forward and tell them that you can feel their pain. Forget evidence and logic, this is the way to get aethiesm to the masses. Don't let us down.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:16 pm
by Renn
I suppose we just have to accept that some people have gone through a religious school have no major scars as a result and are still atheists simply because it’s patently obvious not due to any trauma. Or that’s my storey anyway.

This is article 44 of the constitution if you have an issue with a head teacher selecting on religion and they receive state funding it may be worth mentioning!

Article 44 Religion
(2.4) Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:55 pm
by FXR
Renn wrote:
This is article 44 of the constitution if you have an issue with a head teacher selecting on religion and they receive state funding it may be worth mentioning!

Article 44 Religion
(2.4) Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school
I don't believe I read that. It goes to show what a Vatican banana republic we live in that no one, not one organisation or individual, has taken the government to court.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:23 pm
by CitizenPaine
Renn wrote: (2.4) Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school[/i]
These sub sections precede the one above:
2.2°: The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2.3°: The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
The very similar First Amendment to the USA constitution:
‘First, the Congress shall do nothing to favor, promote, or endow religion; second, that Congress shall take no step that would impede, obstruct, or penalize religion.
has been interpreted there to mean that the state cannot provide any funding to a school that has any religious affiliation. In practice, state schools cannot even be used afterhours for any kind of religious function. Compare that with the situation in Ireland.

How can English speaking lawyers have such different interpretations of such similar clauses? Does it mean, as FXR has hinted, that a case needs to be taken regarding the constitutionality of the present National Primary School arrangements?

CitizenPaine

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:51 pm
by Martha
FXR wrote:It goes to show what a Vatican banana republic we live in that no one, not one organisation or individual, has taken the government to court.
I don't think that's entirely true; I'm pretty sure there have been a few individuals who have at least tried to challenge the Irish State. But, you see (shock-horror!) THE VAST MAJORITY of the Irish people actually support of the policies of Official Ireland, which makes it near to impossible for any individual or group to successfully tackle the Irish Catholic Establishment! "The majority are not complaining, so piss off, you!"

Why else do you think the MAJORITY of the Irish now have Private Health Insurance, for example - when their taxes (leaving all those stealth taxes aside) are supposed to provide a decent public health service? Because they are a pathetic spineless lot of cowards and/or are so dim-witted they don't know when they are being screwed!

The fact is, Ireland will remain a Banana Republic as long as the masses are content to be the fodder of the so-called Ruling Elite in this country - which they obviously are.

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:38 am
by Martha
Renn wrote:
This is article 44 of the constitution if you have an issue with a head teacher selecting on religion and they receive state funding it may be worth mentioning!

Article 44 Religion
(2.4) Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school
Meantime, its BUSINESS AS USUAL : the Catholic Church OWNS 98% of the LAND on which our National Schools and Hospitals are built on! Therefore, the Catholic Church has the MONOPOLY on how those so-called SOCIAL SERVICES operate!!!

That's the closest you can get to a DICTATORSHIP!

How close to The "666 Beast" do the Irish need to get - before they wake up and realise they are being fucked every-which-way by their Loved Ones?

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:24 pm
by eamonnm79
DeValera, Contrary to popular to public belief was a republican (i.e. he believed in the seperation of church and state)
The constitution was a comprimise between his ideals and those of the Catholic church, in the shape of Bishop McQuaid.
If the church had not been so powerful for the next 50 years perhaps the words of the constitution would actually have been implemented.
In effect it was ignored to the benifit of the Catholics, to the extent we have forgotten our rights as non Catholics.

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:48 pm
by eamonnm79
Renn wrote: This is article 44 of the constitution if you have an issue with a head teacher selecting on religion and they receive state funding it may be worth mentioning!

Article 44 Religion
(2.4) Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school
I think we should make sure that no one has taken a case on behalf of their child under article 44.
If not we should take legal advice.
If the legal person believes that current interpretation of article 44 is incorrect, we should look at taking a case?
I think it correct to say that when cases are of national importance, regardless of the result the state picks up the costs?

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:49 pm
by lostexpectation
eamonnm79 wrote:DeValera, Contrary to popular to public belief was a republican (i.e. he believed in the seperation of church and state)
The constitution was a comprimise between his ideals and those of the Catholic church, in the shape of Bishop McQuaid.
If the church had not been so powerful for the next 50 years perhaps the words of the constitution would actually have been implemented.
In effect it was ignored to the benifit of the Catholics, to the extent we have forgotten our rights as non Catholics.
just looking at the constitution, is anyone old enough to have been around for the referendum for the removal of the special position of the church in 72