Slovakia refuses to accept Muslim migrants

First topic message reminder :

Country will refuse entry to Muslims among quota of 200 migrants, on grounds that country has "no mosques", as German mayor threatens to seize private homes to house asylum seekers. Slovakia has said it will not accept any Muslims under an EU scheme to share migrants more evenly between member states. “We want to help Europe with the migration issue. We could take 800 Muslims but we don't have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?” Ivan Metik, an interior ministry spokesman, said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/slovakia/11811998/Slovakia-refuses-to-accept-Muslim-migrants.html


So utterly wrong on every level. I am sure they will be happy with being given a a place of sanctuary and will make do without a Mosque to pray.

Night all

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again subjective Rags, when they would no doubt be fleeing also with Muslims and other minority groups

Huh? What's subjective?

Interestingly, Poland doesn't seem too keen on taking Muslims either - they prefer Christian refugees.

What does that proves?
Exactly my point on how many Jews were treated and viewed by many European countries before.
It does not make their perceptions right Rags.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Huh? What's subjective?

Interestingly, Poland doesn't seem too keen on taking Muslims either - they prefer Christian refugees.

What does that proves?
Exactly my point on how many Jews were treated and view by many European countries before.

Well let's not single out Slovakia out - that's the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

What does that proves?
Exactly my point on how many Jews were treated and view by many European countries before.

Well let's not single out Slovakia out - that's the point.

But the debate was on Slovakia rags.

Anyway like I say this has ben exhausted

Anyway, I'll just say this is a really interesting thread. I didn't know about the lack of mosques in Slovakia - indeed, I don't know much about Slovakia generally. It's also been interesting to read about the rows between different countries regarding refugees.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well let's not single out Slovakia out - that's the point.

But the debate was on Slovakia rags.

Anyway like I say this has ben exhausted

It's called widening the debate Didge. If other countries have the same views, clearly it's not just a problem in Slovakia.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

But the debate was on Slovakia rags.

Anyway like I say this has ben exhausted

It's called widening the debate Didge. If other countries have the same views, clearly it's not just a problem in Slovakia.

Not really that is just adding another group with the same unfounded fears, which seems to suggest numbers agaian as a reason to justify, when it does not. All that means is that more people are pandering to fear which as seen has happened before.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's called widening the debate Didge. If other countries have the same views, clearly it's not just a problem in Slovakia.

Not really that is just adding another group with the same unfounded fears, which seems to suggest numbers agaian as a reason to justify, when it does not. All that means is that more people are pandering to fear which as seen has happened before.

Well this is also about the EU as well isn't it? If member states can't agree, and get threatened with legal action, what future is there for the EU?

I think the whole issue shows that some countries don't want to go on about the past, they want to live in the present, and they want to protect their own interests here and now. They see the Islamic threat or the perceived threat, and they don't want it in their own countries.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Not really that is just adding another group with the same unfounded fears, which seems to suggest numbers agaian as a reason to justify, when it does not. All that means is that more people are pandering to fear which as seen has happened before.

Well this is also about the EU as well isn't it? If member states can't agree, and get threatened with legal action, what future is there for the EU?

I think the whole issue shows that some countries don't want to go on about the past, they want to live in the present, and they want to protect their own interests here and now. They see the Islamic threat or the perceived threat, and they don't want it in their own countries.

But is it member states not agreeing or some within those states Rags?
Again you seem to be trying to justify discrmination based on numbers or a majority.
Sorry that is pandering again to fear.

To say they want to live in the present is the same absurd reasoning used against the Jews in the past.
Same shit spouted, different times.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well this is also about the EU as well isn't it? If member states can't agree, and get threatened with legal action, what future is there for the EU?

I think the whole issue shows that some countries don't want to go on about the past, they want to live in the present, and they want to protect their own interests here and now. They see the Islamic threat or the perceived threat, and they don't want it in their own countries.

But is it member states not agreeing or some within those states Rags?
Again you seem to be trying to justify discrmination based on numbers or a majority.
Sorry that is pandering again to fear.

To say they want to live in the present is the same absurd reasoning used against the Jews in the past.
Same shit spouted, different times.

It's the Governments of those States Didge.

Why keep on about the Jews? This is not about Jews, and it's not about Nazi Germany.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

But is it member states not agreeing or some within those states Rags?
Again you seem to be trying to justify discrmination based on numbers or a majority.
Sorry that is pandering again to fear.

To say they want to live in the present is the same absurd reasoning used against the Jews in the past.
Same shit spouted, different times.

It's the Governments of those States Didge.

Why keep on about the Jews? This is not about Jews, and it's not about Nazi Germany.

Because you fail to understand the significance of history Rags.
I spent much of my studies around Nazism and the far right racism on the earlier part of the 20th century for part of my degree and how I see the same poor fear based arguments used. It is very significant and how societies in creeping slowly into extremist views based off pandering to fear based arguments. So it is vital and important to learn from the past and see why again people today scapegoat others even more so when there has been a recession. Before the Wall Street crash the Nazi's had only gained 29 seats, they were going nowhere and after the crash they capitalized on this to play off this as the fault of the Jews. Soon support was gowing daily as blame and fear was formed around the Jews and their culture. We see now today the exact same happen with Muslims being scapegoated for what is happenning in the Middle East when it is Muslims themselves who are by far and large the biggest victims of Islamic extremism.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the Governments of those States Didge.

Why keep on about the Jews? This is not about Jews, and it's not about Nazi Germany.

Because you fail to understand the significance of history Rags.
I spent much of my studies around Nazism and the far right racism in the earlier part of the 20th century and how I see the same poor fear based arguments used. It is very significant and how societies in creeping slowly into extremist views based off pandering to fear based arguments. So it is vital and important to learn from the past and see why again people today scapegoat others even more so when there has been a recession. Before the Wall Street crash the Nazi's had only gained 29 seats, they were going nowhere and after the crash they capitalized on this to play off this as the fault of the Jews. Soon support was gowing daily as blame and fear was formed around the Jews and their culture. We see now today the exact same happen with Muslims being scapegoated for what is happenning in the Middle East when it is Muslims themselves who are by far and large the biggest victims of Islamic extremism.

Well as you're so interested in history, perhaps you should read about the roots of "Islamophobia" in parts of Europe.

These migrants are coming from Islamic countries, they're not born in those European countries. There is a fear that they will not integrate, and that some ISIS elements might get through. I'm afraid that a lot of the violence these days is happening in Islamic countries, and the fear is that it will spread.

If there is "Islamophobia" in some countries more than others, wouldn't it make more sense for Muslim refugees to go to the countries where there's less? It makes no sense to exacerbate the situation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Because you fail to understand the significance of history Rags.
I spent much of my studies around Nazism and the far right racism in the earlier part of the 20th century and how I see the same poor fear based arguments used. It is very significant and how societies in creeping slowly into extremist views based off pandering to fear based arguments. So it is vital and important to learn from the past and see why again people today scapegoat others even more so when there has been a recession. Before the Wall Street crash the Nazi's had only gained 29 seats, they were going nowhere and after the crash they capitalized on this to play off this as the fault of the Jews. Soon support was gowing daily as blame and fear was formed around the Jews and their culture. We see now today the exact same happen with Muslims being scapegoated for what is happenning in the Middle East when it is Muslims themselves who are by far and large the biggest victims of Islamic extremism.

Well as you're so interested in history, perhaps you should read about the roots of "Islamophobia" in parts of Europe.

These migrants are coming from Islamic countries, they're not born in those European countries. There is a fear that they will not integrate, and that some ISIS elements might get through. I'm afraid that a lot of the violence these days is happening in Islamic countries, and the fear is that it will spread.

I have read loads about islamophobia which is steeped in cultural pessimism.
So you are preaching to the choir.
Its the same argument based against and claimed of the Jews. Incompatiable culture, incompatiable with democracy etc as explained again Rags, so your argument is completely circular again. What you fail to grasp is why there has been an explanation of violence in the Middle east of what can be more compared to the 30 years war once in Europe. Control of this religion by opposing Islamic factions with many Muslims caught up in the Middle. If you go back to the last century and used your reasoning it would have been European countries where all the violence  or involved in around the world and no doubt if you lived back then you would say of the fear of these nations. Times change and in time things will change in the Middle east but to go again off a view to fear others over present conflicts to then ostracize people ensures more are susceptible extremism. You are not offering me anything new rags but repeating the same fear based views as people are justified to do so and making all Muslims culpable and even worse the vast majority fleeing this violence.

Sorry as much as this is interesting it is going around in circles.
If you have something new to add then fine, but if not, there is little point continuing.
Sorry

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well as you're so interested in history, perhaps you should read about the roots of "Islamophobia" in parts of Europe.

These migrants are coming from Islamic countries, they're not born in those European countries. There is a fear that they will not integrate, and that some ISIS elements might get through. I'm afraid that a lot of the violence these days is happening in Islamic countries, and the fear is that it will spread.

I have read loads about islamophobia which is steeped in cultural pessimism.
So you are preaching to the choir.
Its the same argument based against and claimed of the Jews. Incompatiable culture, incompatiable with democrayc etc as explained again Rags, so your argument is completely circular again. What you fail to grasp is why there has been an explanation of violence in the Middle east of what can be more compared to the 30 years war once in Europe. Control of this religion by opposing factions with many Muslims caught up in the Middle. If you go back to the last century and used your reasoning it would have been European countries where all the violence  or involved in around the world and no doubt if you lived back then you would say of the fear of these nations. Times change and in time things will change in the Middle east but to go again off a view to fear others over present conflicts to then ostracize people ensures more are susceptible extremism. You are not offering me anything new rags but repeating the same fear based views as people are justified to do so and making all Muslims culpable and even worse the vast majority fleeing this violence.

Sorry as much as this is interesting it is going around in circles.
If you have something new to add then fine, but if not, there is little point continuing.
Sorry

Fine by me. You've been repeating yourself for the last few posts anyway.

I think a lot of people are fed up with the Middle East and the relentless crap there.

13) Which further initiatives could Member States, EU institutions and international organisations take in order to promote common values and mutual understanding and counter stereotypes in the educational sphere (e.g. citizenship education; education about the EU history, its fundamental values and EU rights; intercultural workshops in school, training for teachers, guidelines for educators, etc.). What are already existing best practices in this respect?
In the rise of extreme right wing sentiments and nationalism in the EU, the Member States and the Union itself, shall work more on de-emphasizing the differences between 28 EU Member States and emphasize the common values that the EU was established on. Moreover, with regards to the Muslim minority, the EU including the Member States shall take a very sensitive approach when taking positions on terroristic attacks such as the one against Charlie Hebdo. The security measures and nationalistic narrative can very easily boost anti-Muslim behaviour. Consequently, we face mobilisation of people against the minorities or immigrants as it can be seen these days. The emphasis shall be given on individual penetrators as terrorist not whole religious group as terrorist.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/colloquium-fundamental-rights-2015/files/contributions/slovak_national_centre_for_human_rights_en.pdf

Cuchulain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If they can get through turkey to Europe then they should go through turkey to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhsta n instead but we all know that The promise of housing and benefits is the heal draw.

Plus most are coming across the med add are sub saharan Africans and should be returned to the African union.

Already answered this and you are thus repeating yourself again.

You answered with a load of waffle... maybe you should have a look at a map and see it is easily possible to get to countries I said

Tommy Monk wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Already answered this and you are thus repeating yourself again.

You answered with a load of waffle... maybe you should have a look at a map and see it is easily possible to get to countries I said

Nonesense.

Look at map, whole north border of turkey!!!


But maybe they wouldn't all get nice house and benefits etc there...

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

What is wrong with building places of worship, if people fund this themselves?

Lol so you're not against places of worship but are against schools of worship ie religious schools?

I think you're opinion relies solely on what side of the bed you get out of.
Your opinions are inconsistent, to say the very least.


Oh and ps: how on earth will refugees,  That have fuck all, be able to fund building a mosque?

I think you really are not able to understand very simple things.

A place of worship is for those that believe in that faith and accomadates people of that faith.

A school should be neutral as it will take in those of many faiths and those of no faith, so there is no biased or beliefs that are counter to the well being and equality of poeople.

Personal belief is fine and so are places of worship.

You so realise that there is such a thing as Muslim charities and funders where there is a need and call for a place of worship to be built.

Hope that helps you understand as everyone should have equality under the law, that also means allowing places of worship for all faiths.

But you make endless threads about how shit religion is?
You're an atheist

Inconsistencies.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I think you really are not able to understand very simple things.

A place of worship is for those that believe in that faith and accomadates people of that faith.

A school should be neutral as it will take in those of many faiths and those of no faith, so there is no biased or beliefs that are counter to the well being and equality of poeople.

Personal belief is fine and so are places of worship.

You so realise that there is such a thing as Muslim charities and funders where there is a need and call for a place of worship to be built.

Hope that helps you understand as everyone should have equality under the law, that also means allowing places of worship for all faiths.

But you make endless threads about how shit religion is?
You're an atheist

Inconsistencies.

Lets help you Eddie.

Religions are an ideology, especially the Abrahamic ones, where they are very much political and economically based, the later being good, the former being extremely bad and dangerous. It allows people to forego those they most love to place them onto a secondary status to place something higher that they cannot prove exists. A simple example of this is for a family to disown their own child for being homosexual. God comes before the love of their own child. Now we all know as I have explained many times love conquers hate, as love is a positive emotion whereas hate is a negative emotion. The deities claimed are all forgiven and loving. This is false, as there is conditions for this love and if you do not comply with these conditions you could end up suffering also.

Just imagine that for a moment that a persons marriage was that way. That the love from one partner was only given if the other complied to the others conditions. Now you tell me is that love? No, because love is being coerced and not freely given. You know love is freely given when you truly love someone. Threats are stated from the start throughout the Abrahamic faiths that you must believe and love. It denies you to truly love because that love is brought about through fear and really ceases to be love at all. It makes the person a slave to the others will. Now if you met any friend of yours in that situation, you would be the first person to help them get the hell out of such a loveless relationship, because you would know full well they are being used. I think that these religions are like many bad relationships and bad marriages we see, to the extreme where we see domestic violence used on a person when the view is the other is not loving them by not obeying them.

These faiths are following an abuser, one that if all loving would not need or require to punish anyone, as love forgives all, even the most vilest of people. To punish means you are not all loving and forgiving, that is a myth. So you ask why I am so highly critical, well as seem you see the similarity in how we never stand by and allow such a relationship to continue without speaking out on how wrong it is because people are suffering and like anyone we hate to see people suffer and would want to help them break away and be free of this punishment.

Still, everyone has a right to equality within the law, no matter what beliefs they do have. People can hold the poorest views but I respect the fact I have to treat them equally within the law. I will certainly counter their views and speak out on them, but I cannot discriminate against them because of their beliefs. So you really need to understand this huge difference Eddie and why no religion is beyond showing how poor it is when it effects the well being and equality of others, but I still have to respect the fact they hold poor views and treat them equally within the law. As a believer in equality I have to by this belief apply this to everyone, no matter what they believe. It does not require me to to hold back condemning their views, but it does require me treating them equally. If they have ever conflict with equality, then we have to address that balance because the well being and equality of people is that important, otherwise equality is meaningless.

So maybe you will understand now why I speak out so much on such religions, as just like we both have done loads, we look out for people. We do not force our views or make conditions when we help them, that love is freely given. The Abrahamic faiths are far removed from that, as seen already, that sadly in literal belief can lead to them imposing their views on others, which is not equality.
Now surely you would help people allowing themselves to be abused in such a one sided relationship?
You think to plainly and not abstractly on matters.

One last point. 
How many on here have known victims of Domestic violence or one sided relationships?
How many have seen where many have expressed that they love those (who we know are abusing or treating them like dirt), with all their hearts?
How many have been frustrated trying to help our friends who are victims of violence or mistreatment because they will not listen to reason when we only want to help?
How relieved and happy both  are when that the friend who has been abused or mistreated opens their eyes to  the reality of this loveless relationship is finally free?
We then hope they find true?

On that note I bid all a goodnight

Dodgy waffle...


Nothing to do with thread.

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodgy waffle...


Nothing to do with thread.

Look you had your say, which as seen had no bearing and now Eddie has asked some interesting points. You may not like that, and are clearly trying to spoil the debate, because nobody is now interested in your views on this as nobody either cares or find any relevance in them. So show some decency and allow others to continue their discussion. If others take up your point then you can continue with your points.
Its that simple

Still a load of dodgy waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:Still a load of dodgy waffle...

I thank you for your opinion but it seems you seem a tad bitter nobody wants to talk about your views now and this is you making that known.
Sorry about that, but that is life Tommy. I am sure other debates will attract some interest in your views or that someone now comes on here after me saying this to bring you back into the discussion.
I wish you success on that

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I think you really are not able to understand very simple things.

A place of worship is for those that believe in that faith and accomadates people of that faith.

A school should be neutral as it will take in those of many faiths and those of no faith, so there is no biased or beliefs that are counter to the well being and equality of poeople.

Personal belief is fine and so are places of worship.

You so realise that there is such a thing as Muslim charities and funders where there is a need and call for a place of worship to be built.

Hope that helps you understand as everyone should have equality under the law, that also means allowing places of worship for all faiths.

But you make endless threads about how shit religion is?
You're an atheist

Inconsistencies.

Lets help you Eddie.

Religions are an ideology, especially the Abrahamic ones, where they are very much political and economically based, the later being good, the former being extremely bad and dangerous. It allows people to forego those they most love to place them onto a secondary status to place something higher that they cannot prove exists. A simple example of this is for a family to disown their own child for being homosexual. God comes before the love of their own child. Now we all know as I have explained many times love conquers hate, as love is a positive emotion whereas hate is a negative emotion. The deities claimed are all forgiven and loving. This is false, as there is conditions for this love and if you do not comply with these conditions you could end up suffering also.

Just imagine that for a moment that a persons marriage was that way. That the love from one partner was only given if the other complied to the others conditions. Now you tell me is that love? No, because love is being coerced and not freely given. You know love is freely given when you truly love someone. Threats are stated from the start throughout the Abrahamic faiths that you must believe and love. It denies you to truly love because that love is brought about through fear and really ceases to be love at all. It makes the person a slave to the others will. Now if you met any friend of yours in that situation, you would be the first person to help them get the hell out of such a loveless relationship, because you would know full well they are being used. I think that these religions are like many bad relationships and bad marriages we see, to the extreme where we see domestic violence used on a person when the view is the other is not loving them by not obeying them.

These faiths are following an abuser, one that if all loving would not need or require to punish anyone, as love forgives all, even the most vilest of people. To punish means you are not all loving and forgiving, that is a myth. So you ask why I am so highly critical, well as seem you see the similarity in how we never stand by and allow such a relationship to continue without speaking out on how wrong it is because people are suffering and like anyone we hate to see people suffer and would want to help them break away and be free of this punishment.

Still, everyone has a right to equality within the law, no matter what beliefs they do have. People can hold the poorest views but I respect the fact I have to treat them equally within the law. I will certainly counter their views and speak out on them, but I cannot discriminate against them because of their beliefs. So you really need to understand this huge difference Eddie and why no religion is beyond showing how poor it is when it effects the well being and equality of others, but I still have to respect the fact they hold poor views and treat them equally within the law. As a believer in equality I have to by this belief apply this to everyone, no matter what they believe. It does not require me to to hold back condemning their views, but it does require me treating them equally. If they have ever conflict with equality, then we have to address that balance because the well being and equality of people is that important, otherwise equality is meaningless.

So maybe you will understand now why I speak out so much on such religions, as just like we both have done loads, we look out for people. We do not force our views or make conditions when we help them, that love is freely given. The Abrahamic faiths are far removed from that, as seen already, that sadly in literal belief can lead to them imposing their views on others, which is not equality.
Now surely you would help people allowing themselves to be abused in such a one sided relationship?
You think to plainly and not abstractly on matters.

Okay. Your post was well thought out and I understood the point you were making.
(See what happens when you debate without insults and keep,your cool? People will listen!)

Anyway, back to the point: I cannot fault your logic and I agree with the similarities between a man and woman love relationship and man's relationship with his "God".

But my point is this: if you don't like schools that teach religion, why then, would you think it okay to have a place to practice that religion? Surely the two go hand in hand?
If you don't like or agree with one, how can you like or agree with the other?

Don't encourage his waffle Eddie... nothing to do with thread.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Lets help you Eddie.

Religions are an ideology, especially the Abrahamic ones, where they are very much political and economically based, the later being good, the former being extremely bad and dangerous. It allows people to forego those they most love to place them onto a secondary status to place something higher that they cannot prove exists. A simple example of this is for a family to disown their own child for being homosexual. God comes before the love of their own child. Now we all know as I have explained many times love conquers hate, as love is a positive emotion whereas hate is a negative emotion. The deities claimed are all forgiven and loving. This is false, as there is conditions for this love and if you do not comply with these conditions you could end up suffering also.

Just imagine that for a moment that a persons marriage was that way. That the love from one partner was only given if the other complied to the others conditions. Now you tell me is that love? No, because love is being coerced and not freely given. You know love is freely given when you truly love someone. Threats are stated from the start throughout the Abrahamic faiths that you must believe and love. It denies you to truly love because that love is brought about through fear and really ceases to be love at all. It makes the person a slave to the others will. Now if you met any friend of yours in that situation, you would be the first person to help them get the hell out of such a loveless relationship, because you would know full well they are being used. I think that these religions are like many bad relationships and bad marriages we see, to the extreme where we see domestic violence used on a person when the view is the other is not loving them by not obeying them.

These faiths are following an abuser, one that if all loving would not need or require to punish anyone, as love forgives all, even the most vilest of people. To punish means you are not all loving and forgiving, that is a myth. So you ask why I am so highly critical, well as seem you see the similarity in how we never stand by and allow such a relationship to continue without speaking out on how wrong it is because people are suffering and like anyone we hate to see people suffer and would want to help them break away and be free of this punishment.

Still, everyone has a right to equality within the law, no matter what beliefs they do have. People can hold the poorest views but I respect the fact I have to treat them equally within the law. I will certainly counter their views and speak out on them, but I cannot discriminate against them because of their beliefs. So you really need to understand this huge difference Eddie and why no religion is beyond showing how poor it is when it effects the well being and equality of others, but I still have to respect the fact they hold poor views and treat them equally within the law. As a believer in equality I have to by this belief apply this to everyone, no matter what they believe. It does not require me to to hold back condemning their views, but it does require me treating them equally. If they have ever conflict with equality, then we have to address that balance because the well being and equality of people is that important, otherwise equality is meaningless.

So maybe you will understand now why I speak out so much on such religions, as just like we both have done loads, we look out for people. We do not force our views or make conditions when we help them, that love is freely given. The Abrahamic faiths are far removed from that, as seen already, that sadly in literal belief can lead to them imposing their views on others, which is not equality.
Now surely you would help people allowing themselves to be abused in such a one sided relationship?
You think to plainly and not abstractly on matters.

Okay. Your post was well thought out and I understood the point you were making.
(See what happens when you debate without insults and keep,your cool? People will listen!)

Anyway, back to the point: I cannot fault your logic and I agree with the similarities between a man and woman love relationship and man's relationship with his "God".

But my point is this: if you don't like schools that teach religion, why then, would you think it okay to have a place to practice that religion? Surely the two go hand in hand?
If you don't like or agree with  one, how can you like or agree with the other?

Eddie its simple.
I have to respect that every ideology has the right to hold a place where they can express their views, whether it be a KKK meeting hall to a church or Mosque that preaches their belief. There is no law now today that would allow stopping parents indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs. I can only ensure institutions are fair, I cannot stop people expressing their views in a confined space they chose, otherwise it means me also then controlling their lives. Equality is the same for all that ensures we treat everyone fair. So a school is different, it has not to be a place controlled by the parent but by a body that is impartial to any view, where as a parent is not. A parent has access rights to children sadly like cattle, as if they are owned and not created out of love. Just because I stand by the status quo does not mean I would like also more protection was offered to children. I would rather no religion was taught to children until they were of a mature age to understand. So again you are mistaken, but my view has to require parents respect allowing to wait until children are of sound age to understand and be taught religion. I cannot enforce that, it has to be freely given by them. So they have no right to dictate how a school should pan out on religion, as other pupils go there who may not believe those views. At a religious place its really only those who believe that go there, so how is it effecting those who do not believe?

See the difference?

Schools are far from impartial...

Tommy Monk wrote:Schools are far from impartial...

And people say I crave attention.
Nobody claimed schools are impartial all the time, but the point is on them being that they are not run by an official body that has biased views. The point is on a secular view, where any politics and religions are taught with no favoring group that has a stance in control of that school.
Now I know you are being attention starved in this very nice correspondence between me and Eddie, but show some respect and allow us both to talk this out.

Thank you

Are you saying then, didge, that you think schools indoctrinate children?

eddie wrote:Are you saying then, didge, that you think schools indoctrinate children?

Yes some religious schools do indoctrinate where it is in conflict with the well being and equality of others

It's open debate dodge... not a pm chat so I'll post what I like!!!


Schools are totally run by an official body with an agendg that is totally biased.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Are you saying then, didge, that you think schools indoctrinate children?

Some Religious schools use where equality and well being of groups of people are concerned.

That's fair enough but I'd say that indoctrination starts earlier than that, after all, parents begin that at home before the child has even started school.

You could also argue though, that if a person is susceptible to going the "wrong way" because of religion, then they'd have gone that way, anyway.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Are you saying then, didge, that you think schools indoctrinate children?

Yes some religious schools do indoctrinate where it is in conflict with the well being and equality of others

Yes... the Muslim schools!!!


They seem to think that Islam is the only thing on The curriculum!!!


And ignore everything else!!!


That is the problem!!!


THe schools run as Christian or church etc, follow the regular curriculum as other schools do. So not a problem.

eddie wrote:You could also argue though, that if a person is susceptible to going the "wrong way" because of religion, then they'd have gone that way, anyway.

But that is basing a view everyone is equal in how they take something as real or unreal.
That is not a reality Eddie as some people will believe with all their heart as we well known when they follow something right or wrong. We all are unique this way, so we can never place a measure on that how we with know what we believe. People make mistakes and then correct them, so to say being susceptible to going the wrong way, would mean they go the wrong way is placing this on nothing more than their own actions which can not be based on outside influence. Saying they would go the wrong way would be impossible without knowing right from wrong, it has to be taught. So they would only go one way based off many aspects in their lives that effect their decisions and with religion it plays heavily on decisions