As some one who lives in a rural circumstance I am well aware of the way that creeping development can encroach upon the very qualities of an area that made you want to live here in the first place. This is why local governments allow residents to object to any new developments. If the furore over the proposed Muslim school at Camden show anything it is that minions from both the far left and the far right are willing to use what should be primarily a local matter to further their own political agendas.
A LARGE Islamic school proposed for a rural area in south-west Sydney is facing fierce opposition from residents just months after Camden residents waged a racially charged battle against a similar development in their area.
A company called ASFA Limited has applied to Liverpool City Council to build an educational facility called Qaadiri College for 600 primary and high school students at Gurner Avenue in Austral.
But neighbours of the site are adamant a development of that scale will destroy their peaceful lifestyle. They insist their concerns have nothing to do with Islam and would oppose similar-sized projects if they were proposed by other faith groups.
I seems very clear from the SMH piece that the far right fringe are preparing to put some of their energy and enthusiasm in to this new planning matter about another Islamic school. I can’t help thinking though that they are going to just make it easier for the latte sippers to denounce local unease and objections about the proposed development for being motivated by the same sort thinking as the loud-mouths from the Uber-right.
Of course those on the far (and not so far) left will undoubtedly denounce all who object to this school as “racists” (even though Islam is not a race) but many of these militant atheists will be exposing their own hypocrisy by doing so because they are so often willing to denounce other faith based teaching loud and long especially if they are Catholic in particular or Christian in general.
Personally I am rather uncomfortable with all faith based education and and that unease is directly proportional to the religiosity of the curriculum, several of my friends send their children to Genesis College here in Queensland and there they are taught a fairly fundamentalist view of the world and that disturbs me. But i also have friends that send their children to an Anglican school which is more secular (as one expects from the Anglicans ) and i am less worried about the minds of their children. But I also know that for most parents the reasons they send their children to private schools is more to do with a desire to see them excel academically than a wish to inculcate them with the tenants of their faith. When secular state schools have become the laboratory for the constant Doctor Frankenstein like schemes* so beloved by the far left teaching unions, is it any wonder that those parents who have the means have been deserting public education? I am sure that this is also the thinking of many of the parents who might consider sending their children to this proposed Islamic school. It is not that they want to turn their offspring into religious zealots they just want their children to have the best possible education and the values neutral secular schools are just not up to it in their eyes.
But why are the secular state schools unattractive to parents? Well I put some of that down to the fact that there are many kids who are attending high school, especially in the senior years, who are in essence just being minded, they are the students who in an earlier age would have left school at the end of year ten. Those students who are not in the slightest bit academically inclined. Yet they remain in school distracting those who do want to learn and using up the limited resources the state provides. The teaching unions continue to insist that a solution will be found in more money and more teachers. Perhaps they need to think about sending those who don’t want to learn out of the schools so that those who do want to learn can do so better. Of course this is not going to happen because for the left just keeping more students at school to the end of year twelve, the much vaunted “retention rate” is the be all and end all of public education.
So by way of a conclusion lets go back to this new proposal for another Islamic school and give the residents the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are genuine about not wanting ANY sort of school disturbing their peace and lets also consider the success or failure of our schools in terms of their ability to teach rather on their ability to mind unwilling students.
Cheers Comrades
* that have seen whole generations of children leave school unable to write , spell, or do basic math
Filed under: Christainity, Domestic life, Education, Ethical questions, Islam, Local government | Tagged: Islamic schools, rural living
Maths Iain, not Math. Math is taught in America.
A difficult piece to comment on ?
Whichever way someone comments on this, you are going to be seen as either a racist, or a zealot, trying to convert the world ?
Religion based schools, for the most part do a great job. They taught me, at a very young age, how to read and write, and so on, all be it from the fear of a bloody long piece of half inch diameter cane, in their right hands ?
They can afford to charge high prices, (like any private education source), and by doing so, can offer curricula and facilities, way beyond what our tax funded schools can.
I spent my early years on Guadalcanal, in the Solomon Is group, and the only school available, was a Catholic Missionary Primary School, staffed by nuns. They were brutal disciplinarians, to put it mildly. Not so much a comment on the Catholic religion, more a comment on the times. When I got back to Australia, and went to a public school, discipline was just as nasty, and physical as well.
With all the bad press, that the Islamic religion has received since 9/11, one wonders whether, the response by the locals in Camden, is not out of fear, (rather than secular ?)
I don’t agree with the comment, that teachers, are underpaid. There has been a massive move, in the last years, to compensate our teachers, for their workload. No longer are they massively underpaid. Their start salary, is on par with other graduates, and their work conditions have improved out of sight ? They have been “blessed”, with a very militant union, to protect their rights, and have been extremely vocal, for many decades, in their attempt to protect the rights, as well as renumeration of teacher tenure.
As for kids leaving at year 10, isn’t that their choice ? Public schools, in some states, now do not go beyond year 10. If you want to progress to year 12, and further, university, then you have to enrol in a private college.
With all the rantings, especially from that “ratbag” in Sydney, I am not surprised by the response from the local population. I wonder, if lived there, would my response would be any different ?
Keri
I do prefer the more traditional English language structure but I think that your point is entirely trivial, you may be xenophobic about the way that our friends from the United States interpret the English language But i am not.
David
Agree that this is a tricky one, but I actually hope that we can get past the knee jerk accusations that characterised much of the Camden fiasco.
Agree again I suspect that the fact that the parents make substantial sacrifices to send their children makes them rather more willing to work at their studies as well.
My early school experience was peppered with teachers just as dictatorial as those nuns…
With all the bad press, that the Islamic religion has received since 9/11, one wonders whether, the response by the locals in Camden, is not out of fear, (rather than secular ?)
Sorry do not quite get what you mean here David.
I agree that teachers are not as badly paid as some of them would have us believe and they clearly have an very effective union, but of course it is when they believe that they have a right to decide what is to be taught that my problems with the teaching unions begin.
Up here i Queensland every child may leave school once they turn 15 but in practice most stay until the end of year twelve I think that the situation is the same elsewhere in Australia
Yes it seems to me that for residents near this proposed school that they face a catch 22 situation . If they oppose teh school they will be branded “racist” by the chattering classes and if they say nothing they will end up having to endure a blight on their rural idyll anyway.
“With all the bad press, that the Islamic religion has received since 9/11, one wonders whether, the response by the locals in Camden, is not out of fear, (rather than secular ?)
Sorry do not quite get what you mean here David”
I mean, that the media loves to portray some of these secular schools, as dens of terrorism. Bomb-making 101 ? Teaching hatred of anyone, who is not of the Muslim faith? I know the majority are not as labeled, but, that is the impression the average Joe is getting. There is nothing wrong with secular schools. I remember as a kid, a few of my Greek mates, used to have to attend Greek schools, on a Saturday morning. Boy, didn’t they just love that, as the rest of us, made our way to the footy, or other more “pleasurable” things ?
The school leaving age here is also 15 Iain, but, high schools now, do not go beyond year 10. If you want to progress past that, then you either go to Tafe, or a private school. This is heavily subsidised. The govt here, after supposed extensive public research and consultation, considers, it is cheaper to help fund the supposed “few”, that want to progress past year 10, than it is to keep high schools, in every town or suburb fully funded to year 12. They travel to either the Tafe, or a private school, in a nearby centralised location. You know where I am sort of located, and that is the case in my nearest state. There is no longer access to years 11 or 12 in that state AT ALL, in a public school anyway.
“but of course it is when they believe that they have a right to decide what is to be taught that my problems with the teaching unions begin.”
Hmm, this is a difficult one too ? What gets taught in our schools now, is a long, and drawn out process. Here, the teachers, go to massive statewide curriculum conferences, in a centralised location, at least twice a year. Teachers, community leaders, employer organisations, as well as Education Dept bigwigs, sit down for a couple of days, (usually on a weekend, or during school vacation time), and try and nut out, what is relevant, (in many working groups/workshops), and what is not, to be taught our kids.
Still a tricky situation in Camden tho ?
“I do prefer the more traditional English language structure but I think that your point is entirely trivial, you may be xenophobic about the way that our friends from the United States interpret the English language But i am not.”
Like this comment?:
“Keri: Oh, and what’s your problem with Dude, Dude?
Iain: It is an American term that I personally do not like and given that i have asked you nicely not to use it in reference to Moi that should be enough,”
Or the week and a half of back and forth e-mails about John Surname using what you considered to be an American spelling of “Skeptic”?
Do you even know what Xenophobic means, Iain? I’ve travelled around America. And we’ve had the discussion about things I like about America. There’s certainly more I like about it than don’t.
I don’t like the spelling, no, but mostly because I consider it laziness, not because I have an irrational hatred of Americans.
Keri
I just liked the sound of the sentence with the word “math ” and frankly I am not going to get too obsessive about this, unlike your own good self..
as for your quotes that must have taken you a while to find or do you keep a little cache of Iain Goodies to draw on at times like this ?
sigh
One quote doesn’t exactly take a long time to find.
And you’re obsessive enough to label me Xenaphobic, Iain. Don’t be surprised if I respond.
I just liked the sound of the sentence with the word “math ” and frankly I am not going to get too obsessive about this, unlike your own good self..
In other words, she’s just shafted you with your own grand statement and now you don’t wanna talk about it anymore.
as for your quotes that must have taken you a while to find or do you keep a little cache of Iain Goodies to draw on at times like this ?
Typing “American” into the search field of your blog would have done it in, oh, about 2.1 seconds, Iain. She was just checking up to see if your words matched your previous actions – and sadly for you, they didn’t.
I agree that teachers are not as badly paid as some of them would have us believe and they clearly have an very effective union, but of course it is when they believe that they have a right to decide what is to be taught that my problems with the teaching unions begin.
If you don’t like what is being taught then you have a number of options. Contact the teacher, the principal, the state education bureaucracy; go on the school council; move your child to another school. Finally, if all else fails, you could pull them out and homeschool them and see how that goes.
The school system, like all systems, is an imperfect creature. You cannot have all children being taught all things, nor can you have parents (who contrary to what many of them believe are NOT experts) setting the curriculum. It’s a balancing act and if you don’t like what’s being taught at school then you can counsel your children of your own views when they return home. Personally, I wouldn’t be happy if schools were teaching some of the stuff you trot out (e.g. global warming is a religious myth).
There you go tilting at windmills again, Iain. You make two mistakes: (i) believing the monolithic left exists, and (ii) believing you can predict what people who are entirely different to you will think and say.
By the way, here is what I said about the Camden proposal – and I was far from alone in my point of view. There might well be legitimate planning issues, but when you have ignorant bigots like Kate McCulloch participating in the protests, its fair enough to point to prejudice as an issue.
In terms of this proposal, I haven’t seen much about it yet, so I don’t know whether the religious nature of the school is relevant. But I will say that the people of Austral who are objecting to this are going to face an uphill battle over the years to come, even if they win this one. This is where the proposed development is located. The orange road is the M7 (opened three years ago), the main orbital road around western Sydney – which intersects with the M5 at Prestons. Everything on the other side of it consists of developed residential, commercial and industrial areas. As Sydney grows, these areas near the main transport hubs are going to be developed – unless everyone can be talked out of the Great Australian Dream of owning a house with a yard, we’re going to keep seeing outward expansion.
If you want an idyllic rural lifestyle, the Sydney basin is really not the best place to find it. Having spent a decent portion of my life on the rural-urban fringe of Sydney, I’m not going to call these objections racist, but I will say that they are unrealistic.
Keri
Keri apart to a point about orthography You are yet to respond to the substance of this post how about you try that?
Mark L.,
No Mark Keri is making a very trivial point and I have told her so.
Nah none of the quotes come up with that search Mark
I know all that Mark and i am far from being a shrinking violet when it comes to my children’s education
You miss read me Mark when it comes to Global Warming my position is not that it is a “religious myth” my position is that most people accept it because it’s advocates sell the idea with faith based emotional arguments and its most prominent advocates display a religiosity about their belief in the theory that would put religious fundamentalists to shame.
#
Tobias Ziegler,
I have never claimed the left is monolithic Tobias but i am willing to make broad brush generalisations , just as you do about conservatives The only predictions that I am making is that that the same arguments about those who opposed the school at Camden will be trotted out about objectors to this project and i think that that is a pretty sure bet
Sure it is legitimate to question the motives of the objectors but what I saw about the Camden thing was that citing “bigotry” was the mainstay of leftist commentary and as i say in my piece given the fact that so many of them are militant atheists I find it hugely amusing that they are so keen to defend the establishment of Islamic faith based schools and yet they denounce private Christian schools with equal vigour.
Sure i understand what you are saying here But as i have seen the sea of development creep closer to where I live I empathise with those people who are uneasy about it, No mater what is the driver of the development and I support the right of people who have a stake in the area being heard and not to be vilified as “racists ” or bigots” if the development happens to be an Islamic school.
Maybe that is the cas now but what of the people who have lived in these areas for many many years well before the developers even had their areas in their sights?
Iain, it’s hard to give the outspoken Camden residents “the benefit of the doubt” after seeing the way they behaved last Christmas and earlier this year when the council’s decision was announced. There was clear bigotry on display, echoed by their “supporters” all over the place and stoked by people like Fred Nile. I saw it: I was there.
Is that Cat Stevens or Yusuf Islam.
I sometimes wonder why the socialist with their hatred of the Christian Church have taken the Muslims to heart. Then you think, the Muslims control the actions of people and this is the goal of socialism.
And yes i no this better than most people as I was raised by political socialists.
Shawn
You are the first person to notice why i picked that particular You Tube
Damian
This piece is not really about what anyone thought in Camden it is more about the way that they were All tarred with the same brush by your pals from the le left.
Iain, I am trying to show you WHY they have been portrayed that way. If the people of Camden don’t want to look like bigots then they should stop acting that way. Of those who opposed the school the vast majority did so out of prejudice. You tar le left with the same brush, yet now you object to bigots being called bigots.
Damien
just how can you know that Most of the Camden objectors were acting from bigotry? You can’t, that has to be just an assumption on your part.
Care to offer an opinion of the point I was making about the hypocrisy of vocally denouncing Christian teachings in private schools that is so common with you pals from the left and their equally vocal defence of Muslim schools?
Iain, I attended a “community meeting” in Camden (my home town) in which a couple of thousand people clapped in appreciation of hateful propaganda. Those same people partied outside council after the announcement about “planning irregularities” was made. Australian flags and anti-immigrant slogans have nothing to do with planning. Out of all those who objected to the school, these views were held by the majority.
Since you ask, I don’t vocally denounce Christian teachings and I don’t know anyone who does (and no views of this type are provided by your post). I attended a Catholic high school in Campbelltown. My wife attended a Catholic school in Singapore. I reckon Muslim schools should be allowed, just as other religious schools are. All of them have to teach what is on the syllabus. Otherwise they will be shut down, as happened to an Anglican school in Camden a few years ago.
Damien
if you go to Grods, and check out their blog roll and review the content or any number of other leftist blogs you are going to find lots of anti Catholic rants, rants denouncing private education in general and anti Christian education in particular.
Sharia law in England coming soon to a country near you.
Are all the English sheople?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
So, when Grods posts against Fundies, it’s a rant.
When you post against Muslims, it’s words of wisdom?
BTW Shawn Whelan, the new David Tan??
The point is Craigy that so many of your pals on the left are so keen to denounce some faiths, Christianity in particular but they wildly denounce anyone who is critical of Islam.
No, I denounce you for the fact that you post regularly on the problems with fundamental Muslims as an attempt to smear all Muslims as ‘teh enemy’.
You have also failed to acknowledge (or avoided) the subversive nature of some Christian fundie groups for fear of upsetting your group-think buddies.
It is interesting, Iain, that your “religion is bad” posts seem to focus almost exclusively on Islam.
And that you label the left as anti-christian, forgetting completely that many of us are christian.
Craigy
I always make the distinction between the Jihadists and the more moderate followers of Islam to avoid inadvertently smearing any group of people as a whole, yet it is of no consequence to the likes of you now is it? I am a plain speaking man and if I truly wanted to denounce all Muslims then I would not hesitate to do so . The facts of the matter are that I don’t wish to smear All Muslims at all.
keri,
My position is not that religion is bad, but that an excess of religiosity is .
You’ve completly ignored this point:
“And that you label the left as anti-Christian, forgetting completely that many of us are Christian”
The point is Craigy that so many of your pals on the left are so keen to denounce some faiths, Christianity in particular but they wildly denounce anyone who is critical of Islam.
On the contrary Iain, I am an atheist and I think that all established religions are havens for supersitition, backward thinking and corruption – and I think that Islam is more medieval in its thinking than most. It’s only when closet Catholics like your good self start slinging the arrows at Muhammed and his mob without a skerrick of self-awareness that I speak up.
If you are, as you claim, an atheist you would agree with me that religion is a shonky construction built around a false idea, yes?
I haven’t forgotten it Keri I just do not think that it is true, at least not for the leftards that you knock about with. Name me ten of your blogging acquaintances who are practising Christians, just ten.
Who said anything about practising Chrisitans?
Do I count?
I am a practising Catholic Iain, and I suppose you regard me as a “leftard”.
Keri
You can your self as a Christian if you have attended mass recently But that still leaves you as only on of the ten required.
Mark
First and final warning on your claim that I am a “closest catholic” any future claims to that effect will be edited out of any comments you make as I have made it very clear that such claims are false and still you persist in making them. i am fed up with such crap OK?
Jason
well there may be hope for you yet if you confess your sins, truly repent and mend your ways.
Well, there’s two for you, Iain, without even looking.
And again – who said anything about practising Christians? All I said was Christian.
three
Iain, seems I have touched on a delicate subject. If you can’t get in touch with your faith then I’ll drop it, as you request. I notice you avoided my question about your alleged atheism too. Oh well.
Kevin Rudd is a practicing Christian (well he used to be, when he had the time to go to church) and he’s a leftist in the world-according-to-Iain.
Keri
I think that for someone to actually be a Christian they have to do a bit more than write “Christian” on their Census form they have to at the very least occasionally attend church or actually practice the tenants of the faith.
“three”
is not by any stretch of the imagination a political blog leftard or otherwise nor are they overtly Christian
Oh, and Private Tom has an entire section on his blogroll dedicated to left-leaning christians
Iain – considering you aren’t Christian, I don’t think it’s up to you to judge who is or isn’t. Many people who don’t attend church have a reason for doing so – such as myself – but are still Christian (Although I no longer identify as Catholic on moral grounds)
Do you actually frequent those blogs on Tom’s blog roll Keri? They have to be blogs that you frequent and comment at.they have to be definitely of the left and they like wise have to be overtly Christian.
How about Ant , Chuck, Scott John Bridget and Jeremy?
and for the purposes of this exercise I can decide who is Christian enough to qualify.
Mark
Largely i would Mark However there are some exponents of religious faith that are inspirational even to an atheist like me and when people do good works and are exemplars for the virtue that we all aspire to I don’t care if they are motivated by a fallacious premise in the first place, or if they find comfort in a belief in the afterlife.
That’s not what I asked. There are individuals in every organisation who do good work, that doesn’t legitimise the organisation itself.
So, do you agree or not?
“and they like wise have to be overtly Christian”
So, hang on, instead of my original premise, which was just Christians, we’ve gone to practising christians.
Then, when you’re afraid I might actually find ten, you move the goalposts to overt?
I don’t think so. We’ll stick with your original demand, which was ten pracitising christians. I’m on three so far. I’ll have the other seven by the end of the day.
My point with Tom’s blogroll was that there are entire organisations devoted to leftist Christians.
I’ll play your little game. No doubt you’ll find another way to move the goalposts, but let’s see, shall we?
Not moving them Keri just making it clear exactly where they stand ,just so we don’ argue about it later. Isn’t that fair?
Not when you change the definition from “practising” to “overt”, no.
But here’s number four
Iain’s good at goalpost-relocation. Remember his promise to apologise to Haneef?
What part of “Largely i would” is incomprehensible Mark?
I hold all claims about the supernatural to be total nonsense But I also accept that the supernatural is convincingly real to many of a more religious bent and I feel no need to disavow them of that belief.
I gather that you do feel the need to convince those who believe in a deity that their belief is either stupid or pernicious.
Iain – this all raises another issue. I am a practising Catholic, as I said (and I usually wouldn’t raise this publicly on a blog but there you are).
I am not personally offended when any of the “leftards” you mention make criticisms of the Church – in fact I tend to agree with criticisms like the ones Jeremy has been making lately far more often than I do with Dr Pell.
I am capable of understanding that religious practice takes place in the context of a robust democracy, where criticism is to be expected, and where debate should be welcomed.
So why do you – a confessed atheist – think that the Church should be absolved from any criticism?
Ref 4
Come off it Keri
where did you find that? by Google?
I notice a complete absence of any comments from you to any of the posts so how can that be a blogger of your acquaintance?
Simply put Jason i don’t but if you remember what the post is about my drawing a comparison between the way that leftards are willing to criticise Christians their churches and the expressions of that faith BUT ALSO how they have coniptions when someone like me criticises any aspect of Islam sprouting claims of bigotry , racism or Islamophobia
Ronda?
She commented on my blog on the 15/07 and the 1/08. She also commented on my other blog later, but I can’t figure out how to get that comment out of moderation, because it’s an old blog.
We both comment at Nics blog, Iain.
I hold all claims about the supernatural to be total nonsense But I also accept that the supernatural is convincingly real to many of a more religious bent and I feel no need to disavow them of that belief. I gather that you do feel the need to convince those who believe in a deity that their belief is either stupid or pernicious.
No, only that it is wrong. And even then, only if the subject happens to raise its head (which it does here often).
Personally I think that religion is a load of nonsense but if people buy into it, then good for them. It’s when they use their church or religious beliefs to proclaim superiority, take the moral high ground, interfere in politics, fleece others of their hard-earned or abuse women or children – and the systems and superstitions of religion help them do this – that religion itself becomes a problem.
Unfortunately, while you’ve been more than happy to take potshots at Islam for this, you’ve overlooked examples from other religions – and even occasionally offered apologia for them, e.g. confessional privilege in the Catholic church.
Mark
The only comments that I have made about the sanctity of the confessional was trying to make the point that Catholics in general and Catholic priests particularity take the seal of the confessional seriously enough to endure any punishment rather than violate it. Yet you are so flippantly insisting that a two thousand year old tradition can be swept away for the benefit of secular law.
Female genital mutilation is 2000 years old too, are you suggesting we let that go through to the keeper too because it’s a “tradition”?
Mark
once again you are entirely predictable.
And again you provide no answers whatsoever. Your beliefs and principles aren’t worth diddly if you can’t defend or explain them, Iain.
Sorry for the delay, Iain, I’ve had a backlog of stuff to deal with tonight.
Wll have a fulllist of the ten bloggers tomorrow morning.
And what exactly do I have to explain Mark?
I have made my position ON FGM perfectly clear in the past and Likewise I have made it entirely clear why I write about the threat from the Jihadists.
Is it any wonder that I treat you comments with disdain when you insist on reiterating the same questions and yet you won’t accept my answers no matter how often I make them?
Here’s the rest of the list, Iain. Sorry for the delay.
five
Bron
seven
eight
nine
ten
And that’s just from a cursory glance at those who’ve made comments on my blog, or I know pretty well.
I have no idea what I’ve done to the tags there, Iain.
Is it any wonder that I treat you comments with disdain when you insist on reiterating the same questions and yet you won’t accept my answers no matter how often I make them?
Probably because you avoid answering the question in the first place. You defend confessional privilege on the basis that it’s a 2000-year old tradition – the same as FGM, slavery and any number of backward or barbaric practices. I want to know how in your reckoning the Catholic church can get away with having stuff from the Dark Ages – including something that allows their paedophiles and perverts to avoid detection – whereas Islam can get away with nothing? Give me one argument why the confessional should be immune from mandatory reporting – other than “Oh well Mark, they’ve had it for such a long time…”
I will answer this in as much detail as I can but suspect that you won’t like the what I say.
You make the mistake of confusing my not giving you the answer that you are so often seeking, namely some thing that you can use as proof of the evil that you are certain (quite wrongly as it turns out)I am concealing by the careful use of words in my responses. After for years of dealing with so many leftards trying the same game I am rightfully suspicious of such loaded questions.
Actually i neither defend nor condemn the confessional, I merely describe the way that Catholics view the institution, but in reality even if there was some Miraculous way to dissolve the confessionals seal as evidence it would only be hearsay and inadmissible in most court proceedings. But why stop there if you are so keen to attack professional confidentialities why not remove the privilege between a lawyer and their clients/ or between a doctor and their patients? definitely we would have to get rid of a journalists right to protect their sources. Why not while we are at it take away an accused persons right to silence?All of these considerations could make it easier for Nonces to escape your own brand of vigilante justice.
Whenever we as a society create some form of privileged confidence we understand that such things are a balancing act between competing imperatives we accept the privileged status of the relationship between lawyer and client because we know that no defence would be possible with out it. Between a doctor and patient confidentially is essential for a patient to be entirely candid with his physician. It is really the same situation for a sinner and their confessor without the understanding that anything said is absolutely privileged nothing that could possibly be incriminating would ever be confessed. So your much desired dissolution of the confessional seal would not result in the arrest and prosecution of even one more Nonce. You are pissing into wind on this and getting terribly upset about something that is not even on ANY schedule for reform.
About thirty years ago I was just so rampantly anti catholic that I would have made Ian Paisley look like a Papist and believe me I gave the church of Rome more abuse than you can imagine and to be entirely honest I have been there and very much done that. As I have just explained riling against the seal of the confessional is entirely pointless. As for Islam I have only really taken an interest in that faith since 9/11 and I find that the more obsessive followers of that faith present much more of a threat to the world than all of the individuals who may have abused their parishioners for sexual gratification.
Actually i neither defend nor condemn the confessional, I merely describe the way that Catholics view the institution
I’m not interested in description, I want your view of it, since you describe yourself as an atheist then do little to justify it.
In reality even if there was some Miraculous way to dissolve the confessionals seal as evidence it would only be hearsay and inadmissible in most court proceedings. But why stop there if you are so keen to attack professional confidentialities why not remove the privilege between a lawyer and their clients/ or between a doctor and their patients? definitely we would have to get rid of a journalists right to protect their sources. Why not while we are at it take away an accused persons right to silence?
All of those examples there are flawed. Doctors are compelled to report cases where they consider that children or even adults are being abused; privilege does not come into it. Journalists have been fined and imprisoned for not revealing their sources because not doing so conceals a crime or threatens national security. Lawyer-client privilege doesn’t come into it because by that stage the matter is already in the legal system, however there have been many cases where lawyers have withdrawn or been stood down from cases because they’ve expressed a view on their client’s guilt.
All of these considerations could make it easier for Nonces to escape your own brand of vigilante justice.
“Vigilante justice”?? Where’d you pull that one from, your arse? I’m first and foremost concerned with the protection of the abused, exploited and threatened. Cover-ups behind the screen of the confessional place these individuals at continued risk.
Whenever we as a society create some form of privileged confidence we understand that such things are a balancing act between competing imperatives
In my view there is no balance between rights, principles and tradition against the safety and security of children.
You are pissing into wind on this and getting terribly upset about something that is not even on ANY schedule for reform.
I realise it’s not because the Catholic church is still wealthy, influential and continues to hold many governments by the nuts. I’m only raising it in the context of your own wavering “atheism” that can’t seem to see the folly of defending such a backward tradition (which, let’s face it, was concocted by early Catholics to provide access to information and power over the individuals whose interests they claimed to protect).
About thirty years ago I was just so rampantly anti catholic that I would have made Ian Paisley look like a Papist and believe me I gave the church of Rome more abuse than you can imagine and to be entirely honest I have been there and very much done that. As I have just explained riling against the seal of the confessional is entirely pointless.
So where was your conversion on the road to Damascus? Something must’ve happened for you to go soft on them.
I am under no obligation to justify my atheism to you or anyone else for that matter merely asserting my faith position is enough; quite simply I disavow the existence of any deity or any thing that is supernatural.
As for the institution of of confession and and the privilege of any admissions made there my actual opinion is of no consequence because the institution is never going to change.
But that is not what I am talking abut the privileged information is what you may tell your doctor in confidence and which may not be divulged without your consent.
yes because they stand up for the principle strange how you would defend Journo’s but you would be jailing priests for standing up for their principles.
You are talking through your bum Mark If a client tells his lawyer that he has done something very nasty say That Lawyer is bound by law to respect that confidence. The usual legal ethics insist upon this and no court or officer of the law would even think of compelling a lawyer to do otherwise.
Oh I think that you want vigilante justice mark because you are so keen to get rid of things like a presumption of innocence, the right for an accused person to due process, you also want an acquittal to mean nothing if you think the person may have done it. The question is how much of our legal protections do you want to consign to the scrap bin in pursuit of that small number of (admittedly disgusting) individuals?
Well it would be interesting to see how you would react to being accused of something and just how sanguine you would be if you had to defend your good name and were denied due process , a presumption of innocence and true exoneration were you to be found not guilty. then you would realise that such things do require balance.
Yada yada yada
My atheism is unwavering,Your claim that I “defend” the confessional is nonsense such aspects of the Catholic faith are rather like the air, it exists and good bad or indifferent it will continue.
As I said that I grew tired of arguing about it. Is there nothing that that obsessed you in the past that you no longer talk about Mark?
I am under no obligation to justify my atheism to you or anyone else for that matter merely asserting my faith position is enough
Indeed. In fact most of your blog posts and comments are just assertions with no evidence or explanation, so this is not a deviation from your usual method.
As for the institution of of confession and and the privilege of any admissions made there my actual opinion is of no consequence because the institution is never going to change.
In that case why bother blogging about anything you dislike, including your hated “Warministas” or “Brother Number One”? You’re not going to change any of those either.
But that is not what I am talking abut the privileged information is what you may tell your doctor in confidence and which may not be divulged without your consent.
Wrong. If someone presents with injuries or symptoms that the doctor believes are consistent with abuse or mistreatment, the doctor is obliged to report it – even if the patient pleads with them not to.
Oh I think that you want vigilante justice mark because you are so keen to get rid of things like a presumption of innocence, the right for an accused person to due process, you also want an acquittal to mean nothing if you think the person may have done it.
Wrong. Another trademark Iain Hall strawman.
Well it would be interesting to see how you would react to being accused of something and just how sanguine you would be if you had to defend your good name and were denied due process , a presumption of innocence and true exoneration were you to be found not guilty. then you would realise that such things do require balance.
Wrong. Another attempt to deflect attention from the true issue: the protection of the innocent.
Your claim that I “defend” the confessional is nonsense such aspects of the Catholic faith are rather like the air, it exists and good bad or indifferent it will continue.
You’re resigned to allowing it to continue which means you tacitly support it.
As I said that I grew tired of arguing about it. Is there nothing that that obsessed you in the past that you no longer talk about Mark?
Another trademark Iain Hall personal jibe with no basis in fact or evidence.
So what? 98% of blog posts are just personal opinion I make no claim that my blog is other than that.
You are projecting Mark I don’t hate Warministas nor do I hate the Government of Brother Number One but I do have a reasonable chance of affecting the thinking of fans of both. In any case they are the topics that interest me and denouncing Catholicism is not.
Oh Mark do you want me to dig up the quotes that support this claim? It would be so easy.
Mark, the innocent can also be the person who has been accused are they not worthy of protection from the law? that is what I am talking about when it comes to balancing imperatives. You just don’t care.
I have no power to change it Mate, But i notice that you ignore my point made earlier that it would be worthless in law even if the seal of the confessional were to be dissolved, care to try that one now?
Rot !!
I ask you that because I want to suggest that we all move on from the things that were the passions of our younger days.
Now this is a personal observation and it is this:
I can’t help but think that you can only be so one eyed about this issue because you yourself were a victim of abuse as a child, and that you still react like a child, totally insensitive to the bigger picture and wanting more than anything to get vengeance for your own violation.