Our president made a startling, but unsurprising claim at a town hall meeting in Belfast on Friday.


The US President has made an alarming call for an end to Catholic education in Northern Ireland (http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/29253/us-president-undermines-catholic-schools-after-vatican-prefect-praised-them/) in spite of the fact that Archbishop Gerhard Müller told Scots that Catholic education was 'a critical component of the Church.’

President Barack Obama (above), repeated the oft disproved claim that Catholic education increases division in front of an audience of 2000 young people, including many Catholics, at Belfast’s Waterfront hall when he arrived in the country this morning.

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” the US president said.

The US politician made the unfounded claim despite a top Vatican official spelling out the undeniable good done by Catholic education in a speech in Glasgow on Saturday and in his homily at Mass on Friday.

I guess he doesn't realize The Troubles wasn't really a religious conflict but what the heck, never waste an opportunity - much like using the contraception mandate in Obamacare to redefine the church in the U.S. in a brazen attempt to keep the church confined within the walls of a building.

So do you agree with Obama or not and why?

Exit question from Fr. Z (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/06/pres-obama-sticks-his-nose-into-catholic-education-in-ireland/):


Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a foreign visit to a Islamic nation where he told people on his arrival that they shouldn’t have madrasas. Can you?

Did he when visiting, say, Israel, say “You Jews shouldn’t have synagogue schools and you muslims shouldn’t have mosque schools.” I can’t remember. Did he?

He isn't saying religious schools are bad. He's saying it's bad "if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden."

Wow, that's some shoddy reporting. That's not at all what Obama said.

Wow, the level of denial amongst you people is astounding. It was quite clear to me and obviously to the Catholics in Northern Ireland what the meaning was.

"if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs... that too encourages division and discourages cooperation."

Now, the claim in the OP is according to Obama, "religious schools cause division."

My question was do you agree with Obama or not and why? Or did he not really say religious schools cause division? If you don't care to engage in a discussion then please, don't bother.

The emperor has Catholics in the cross hairs because they dare to demand their 1st amendments rights. He don't take kindly to those who oppose him (just look at how far the Obots went to take out the TP is 2012) . That he chose school children for his vitriol is despicable

You guys are cherry picking. It's like if I said, "Having sex is not a good idea for young teens," and you quote me as saying, "Having sex is not a good idea."

You guys are cherry picking. It's like if I said, "Having sex is not a good idea for young teens," and you quote me as saying, "Having sex is not a good idea."

I take it that means you don't want to engage in discussion.

Regardless of your issues with the source - I mean geez the story had to come from somewhere since the American media ignored it - what I said was accurate.

But since you won't respond to that part you tell me what those kids were supposed to come away with after being told "we need you to get this right" to "set an example for those who seek a peace of their own" and then told having separate religious schools "encourages division" and "discourages cooperation".

I take it that means you don't want to engage in discussion.
Are you familiar with the history of Northern Ireland and how politics and religion are so intertwined -- Protestant unionist communities vs. Catholic nationalist communities? The historical situation should be our starting point to clarify why President Obama said what he did.

Discussion only if it is fair and reasonable, without misquoting people. So far it isn't.

Are you familiar with the history of Northern Ireland and how politics and religion are so intertwined -- Protestant unionist communities vs. Catholic nationalist communities? The historical situation should be our starting point to clarify why President Obama said what he did.

Discussion only if it is fair and reasonable, without misquoting people. So far it isn't.

For a librarian you sure can't recognize plain English. No one has been misquoted and my personal representation and question are entirely accurate. If you don't want to discuss it why the hell are you here? You're acting just like NK, and that's not a compliment.

Text is here..
Obama?s Speech in Belfast to Youth of Northern Ireland | IIP Digital (http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130617276442.html#axzz2Wm2XEU9I)

Nothing distorted . He equated Catholic Schools with segregation . And no ;he would never equate a madrassa or a Yeshiva with segregated education.

text is here ..
Obama?s Speech in Belfast to Youth of Northern Ireland | IIP Digital (http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130617276442.html#axzz2Wm2XEU9I)

Nothing distorted . He equated Catholic Schools with segregation . And no ;he would never equate a madrassa or a Yeshiva with segregated education.
I read it. Where oh where did you get that he equated Catholic schools with segregation?

It's all in one paragraph... not all that hard..

Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity -- symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others -- these are not tangential to peace; they're essential to it. If towns remain divided -- if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs -- if we can't see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.

it's all in one paragraph ... not all that hard ..

Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity -- symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others -- these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided -- if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs -- if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.
Good grief, Tom! Do you know the political-religious history of this country? You are definitely cherrypicking.

You are asking an American of Irish Catholic descent if he knows the history of Ireland ? The truth is that it would not have been nearly the issue it was over the decades if it wasn't for British meddling .

For a librarian you sure can't recognize plain English. No one has been misquoted and my personal representation and question are entirely accurate. If you don't want to discuss it why the hell are you here? You're acting just like NK, and that's not a compliment.
And you are lifting bits and pieces out of context to prove your (pathetic) point.

you are asking an American of Irish Catholic descent if he knows the history of Ireland ? The truth is that it would not have been nearly the issue it was over the decades if it wasn't for British meddling .
Okay, now tell us about the intertwining of the religious and political factions, and how they have worked against peace in that country.

The answer was it was NOT a religious problem . Ireland voted to break from England . So England carved out another nation in what became Northern Ireland that was majority Protestant . Then the Brits decided to enforce the division militarily . The split was nationalists and unionists . Most nationalists were/are Catholics and most unionists were/are Protestants that is true. But the split was Never about religion.

Edit... it is an abusrd insult to say that religious education contributes to the problem .

Most nationalists were/are Catholics and most unionists were/are Protestants that is true. But the split was Never about religion.
The religious differences are implicit, are all bound up, in the political differences.

The religious differences are implicit in the political differences.

See my edit

see my edit
Obama didn't say that "religious education contributes to the problem."

***ADDED IF we allow religion to tear us apart. IF we allow politics to tear us apart. "IF we can't see ourselves in one another, IF fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation."

No he suggested that segregated religious education contributed to the problem .

no he suggested that segregated religious education contributed to the problem .
Historically, religious differences contributed to the political problems because politics and religion were so intertwined. That is changing, and he encouraged the young people of that country to keep that change alive and continuing. That doesn't mean there can't be Catholic and Protestant education.

The religious leaders of Ireland know what he meant . To the Obamas of the world ,if it isn't secular state run education it isn't legit.

And you are lifting bits and pieces out of context to prove your (pathetic) point.

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it any more true, I distorted nothing, I misquoted nothing, and the context was perfectly clear. Again, if you don't want to have this discussion why the hell are you here? Is it also your goal on this board to antagonize me for some pathetic reason?

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it any more true, I distorted nothing, I misquoted nothing, and the context was perfectly clear.
Physician, heal thyself.

Again, if you don't want to have this discussion why the hell are you here? Is it also your goal on this board to antagonize me for some pathetic reason?
You can chose to feel antagonized, or you can have an honest discussion.

Physician, heal thyself.

You can chose to feel antagonized, or you can have an honest discussion.

Been trying to have an honest discussion from the start. It's you calling, a Catholic newspaper, a priest and a simple question of "do you agree with Obama or not" dishonest and refusing to speak to the subject of the post. So again, if you don't want to discuss the subject matter why the hell are you here?

Catholicism has plenty of things to be criticized for these days, but Catholic education isn't one of them. On the contrary, Catholic schools remain one of the wonders of the world of education.

Also, there's no such thing as "Protestant" schools in Northern Ireland, so it's hard to understand what Obama is referring to. A case of bad speech-writing, let's hope, since he is clearly dissing Catholic schools (and non-existent Protestant ones).

According to Wikipedia --

Education

Education in Northern Ireland is heavily segregated. Most state schools in Northern Ireland are predominantly Protestant, while the majority of Catholic children attend schools maintained by the Catholic Church. In all, 90 per cent of children in Northern Ireland still go to separate faith schools. The consequence is, as one commentator has put it, that "the overwhelming majority of Ulster's children can go from four to 18 without having a serious conversation with a member of a rival creed." The prevalence of segregated education has been cited as a major factor in maintaining endogamy (marriage within one's own group). However, the Integrated Education movement has sought to reverse this trend by establishing non-denominational schools such as the Portadown Integrated Primary. Such schools are, however, still the exception to the general trend of segregated education. Integrated schools in Northern Ireland have been established through the voluntary efforts of parents. The churches have not been involved in the development of integrated education.

Segregation in Northern Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_in_Northern_Ireland#Education)

**********
From Northern Ireland teaches us the dangers of segregated schools | David Pavett | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/29/northern-ireland-segregated-schools-peter-robinson)

If there is one area of the UK that knows a thing or two about segregated religious education it is Northern Ireland. The great majority of schools there are run by either Protestants or Catholics. Children are divided into these denominational institutions from the age of five. Given that the religious communities also tend to live in Catholic and Protestant areas the possibilities for the generation and maintenance of inter-communal misunderstanding and even violence are clear. This is not a matter of speculation but one of bitter experience.

**********
From CAIN: Background Information on Northern Ireland Society - Education (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/educ.htm)

Basically, all schools in Northern Ireland can be divided into 5 categories
(i) Controlled Schools: These are essentially Protestant schools - they are owned by the Education and Library boards, although they are mostly controlled by their Boards of Governors. The Protestant churches are represented on the Board of Governors.
(ii) Catholic Maintained Schools: These are essentially Catholic schools - they are owned by the Catholic Church but are managed by a Board of Governors. The Education and Library Boards provide some financial assistance, by financing recurrent costs and the employment of non-teaching staff.
(iii) Other Maintained: These are essentially Protestant schools, in that they are owned by the Protestant church and managed by a Board of Governors. Like the Catholic maintained schools, they received funding from the Education and Library Boards for the recurrent costs.
(iv) Voluntary Grammar: These schools are owned by school trustees and managed by a Board of Governors.
(v) Grant Maintained Integrated Schools: These are essentially mixed schools, for Catholic and Protestant children. They are partially owned by trustees and managed by a Board of Governors, with their recurrent costs being met by the Department of Education.

The majority of Protestant children in Northern Ireland attend state controlled schools, whilst the majority of Catholic children attend Catholic maintained schools. These are essentially Protestant and Catholic schools.

Catholicism has plenty of things to be criticized for these days, but Catholic education isn't one of them. On the contrary, Catholic schools remain one of the wonders of the world of education.

Also, there's no such thing as "Protestant" schools in Northern Ireland, so it's hard to understand what Obama is referring to. A case of bad speech-writing, let's hope, since he is clearly dissing Catholic schools (and non-existent Protestant ones).

Absolutely, but private education is anathema to Obama - especially religious schools - because they stand in the way of the collectivist, progressive agenda. We can't have people being taught to think outside of the public education system or relying on something other than the government.

He felt a need to rehearse that screed in Northern Ireland. Here he has the force of the government behind him to try and reign in us "bitter clingers."

Absolutely, but private education is anathema to Obama - especially religious schools
His own daughters attend Sidwell Friends School (http://www.sidwell.edu/) in Washington, D.C. Private. Quaker.

The majority of Protestant children in Northern Ireland attend state controlled schools, whilst the majority of Catholic children attend Catholic maintained schools.[/I]

"State controlled" vs. "Catholic maintained". You could say public (state controlled) schools in America are Protestant, using the same reasoning. In any case, the schools are not Protestant in the same sense that the Catholic ones are Catholic.

But I will concede the point. His remark was still out of order since it comes across as a general slam on Catholic education.

His remark was still out of order since it comes across as a general slam on Catholic education.
Please quote his slam.

It's been quoted. See the bold part in the original question.

It's been quoted. See the bold part in the original question.
How is that a slam?

Catholic schools divide towns, he says.

Catholic schools divide towns, he says.
That's not what he said.

***ADDED*** He's speaking to the history of the country and its political and religious division: "If towns remain divided -- if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs -- if we can't see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division."

That's not what he said.

***ADDED*** He's speaking to the history of the country and its political and religious division: "If towns remain divided -- if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs -- if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division."

What part of "that encourages division" are you having difficulty understanding? Are you somehow more equipped to interpret the remarks for the Catholics there than they are? Are they too stupid to understand what he really meant or what?

It's pretty darn clear they full well know what he meant from the opening part of the article, "President Barack Obama.. .repeated the oft disproved claim that Catholic education increases division". Sounds to me like they've heard this before, don't need you to interpret and don't take too kindly to it. Who are you to discount their complaint?

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” the US president said.

Translation, segregation in any form encourages division and discourages cooperation.

It wasn't a slam it was a statement over religious conflicts that have racked the world and still do. The religion doesn't matter, but its telling that its taken as a slam against Catholics by Catholics.

So this whole discussion is how you see what the president said, and you cannot leave out the "IF" and relate it to the segregation part. You don't have to go to Ireland to find segregation, you can go anywhere to see the conflicts it causes directly related to the degree it's practiced.

The point is that Christians segregate themselves and have the same conflicts that Sunnis and Shiites are having now, replete with the same terrorist attacks, and killing of the innocent. The President has clearly taken the side of peaceful co-existence through interaction, and cooperation, and has extolled the youth of both sides to keepit going and build better social bridges of cooperation.

But you can hear what you want to I suppose.

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” the US president said.

Translation, segregation in any form encourages division and discourages cooperation.

It wasn't a slam it was a statement over religious conflicts that have racked the world and still do. The religion doesn't matter, but its telling that its taken as a slam against Catholics by Catholics.

So this whole discussion is how you see what the president said, and you cannot leave out the "IF" and relate it to the segregation part. You don't have to go to Ireland to find segregation, you can go anywhere to see the conflicts it causes directly related to the degree it's practiced.

The point is that Christians segregate themselves and have the same conflicts that Sunnis and Shiites are having now, replete with the same terrorist attacks, and killing of the innocent. The President has clearly taken the side of peaceful co-existence thru interaction, and cooperation, and has extolled the youth of both sides to keepit going nd build better social bridges of cooperation.

But you can hear what you want to I suppose.

Is there something about you and WG that just can't acknowledge how it was perceived by the Catholics there? See my last post, it's very clear and no amount of liberal spin is going to change it.

Does this wanker go around interferring in the internal affairs of any place he sets his foot.

The Irish problems go way back to the Norman conquest and the treatment of the natives, now where have I heard that before, what England did in Ireland was genocide over many centuries and the resentment remains.Omama has forgotten his roots otherwise he wouldn't talk that way to an oppressed people

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics and Protestants can't see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” the US president said.

Understand?

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics and Protestants can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” the US president said.

Understand?

Interesting. You've changed what he said, kept it in quotes, and made no attempt to show how you are now misquoting him. Leaving out the all-important "schools" may help your agenda but lays bare what you did.

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics and Protestants can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” the US president said.

Understand?

What Athos said. Tis not I who does not understand.

You want an honest debate? Ok, I'll grant you that those other things also discourage cooperation in Obama's eyes if you'll grant that one doesn't single out Catholic and Protestant schools unless they're meant to be a specific target.

He was in Ireland talking to Catholics and Protestants. Both CHRISTIANS. That's the audience he was speaking to, EQUALLY. He said you guys done good keep up the good work.

does this wanker go around interferring in the internal affairs of any place he sets his foot.

The Irish problems go way back to the Norman conquest and the treatment of the natives, now where have I heard that before, what England did in Ireland was genocide over many centuries and the resentment remains.Omama has forgotten his roots otherwise he wouldn't talk that way to an oppressed people

Yup , now I'm the 1st to admit that the IRA was a bunch of bad actors that made the situation worse. But there is no doubt that the problems in Northern Ireland were the result of the Brits trying to maintain an empire there.

yup , now I'm the 1st to admit that the IRA was a bunch of bad actors that made the situation worse. But there is no doubt that the problems in Northern Ireland were the result of the Brits trying to maintain an empire there.

I don't applaud the IRA Tom they are like the Taliban and while they operate peace wasn't possible, but there are times when a population must stand up to the bullying. In Ireland that bullying was by a protected minority who used religious grounds for their discrimination I have heard masons in Scotland say how dedicated they were to supporting what the protestants in Ireland were doing even to the point of fighting

He was in Ireland talking to Catholics and Protestants. Both CHRISTIANS. That's the audience he was speaking to, EQUALLY. He said you guys done good keep up the good work.

So in other words you don't want to have an honest discussion.

So in other words you don't want to have an honest discussion.

If you want to have an honest discussion then you would need to change your idea that the conflict was predominately a religious conflict. History doesn't seem to support the idea of religious wars. By this I mean the conflict could just as easily be viewed as an ethnic conflict.

So in other words you don't want to have an honest discussion.

I am having one, and have submitted my honest opinion on what the President said.


If you want to have an honest discussion then you would need to change your idea that the conflict was predominately a religious conflict. History doesn't seem to support the idea of religious wars. By this I mean the conflict could just as easily be viewed as an ethnic conflict.

I can agree but separating an ethnic group from their religion, especially when its thrown in the mix by one side or another, rightly or wrongly, is extremely difficult. Religious principle is often tied to ethnic identity.

Most conflicts I think are simply promoting self interest of who controls what, and who is enriched by it. Be it tribes and territory, or governments and nations. US vs THEM is never a good starting point for cooperation and MUTUAL benefit.

I am having one, and have submitted my honest opinion on what the President said.
I've decided "an honest discussion" means we all have to agree. I've disagreed, given my opinion, and been scolded for not being honest.

If you want to have an honest discussion then you would need to change your idea that the conflict was predominately a religious conflict. History doesn't seem to support the idea of religious wars. By this I mean the conflict could just as easily be viewed as an ethnic conflict.

Tut, did you miss my words in the OP?

'I guess he doesn't realize The Troubles wasn't really a religious conflict'

I've decided "an honest discussion" means we all have to agree. I've disagreed, given my opinion, and been scolded for not being honest.

That was totally dishonest.

text is here ..
Obama?s Speech in Belfast to Youth of Northern Ireland | IIP Digital (http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130617276442.html#axzz2Wm2XEU9I)

Nothing distorted . He equated Catholic Schools with segregation .

Not exactly.If you read a little further on you would see that he equated segregated schools, housing and lack of job opportunity as symbols of divisions rather than actual divisions. I think he got that bit right. Symbolism has always been important in Northern Irish politics. Probably still does.

In the quote provided by the OP he does appear to make reference to actual schools and institutions as a source of divisions, but this is further complicated whereby he again talks about these these things in terms of symbols in the following paragraph.

This is why it is important to provide all quotes that are relevant to the issue. Not just partial quotes

You can parse it that way if you choose. Bottom line is that the implied message is a call for an end to separate Protestant and Catholic educational institutions.

I don't get what's so difficult to understand, he said flat out If Catholics and Protestants have separate schools it contributes to division and discourages cooperation. There can only be one implied meaning, that has to end.

You can parse it that way if you choose. Bottom line is that the implied message is a call for an end to separate Protestant and Catholic educational institutions.



The problem is that your bottom line is not everyone's bottom line. This is why I will give the preceding bit that was left out of the OP posting:

Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity--SYMBOLS OF HISTORY* that are of pride for some and pain for others--these are not a tangential to peace, there essential to it.. . * my emphasis.

It then goes on to the OP posted quote
.
My bottom line is different to your bottom line. This is why anyone who provides an OP quote needs to include all relevant information. Everyone is free to give their bottom line AFTER they have given the complete picture.

Why is it you don't hold the others here to that standard? You let much more egregious violations of your standard go on a regular basis.

Maybe the Catholic Bishops of Ireland missed all the subtle nuance.

Hopefully they revisit the entirety of this speech and temper their reaction because its notable that not everyone who heard it came to the same conclusion as the bishops did.

I don't get what's so difficult to understand, he said flat out If Catholics and Protestants have separate schools it contributes to division and discourages cooperation. There can only be one implied meaning, that has to end.
No, there are other solutions.

No, there are other solutions.

Like despite differences we can cooperate for a common good?

Like despite differences we can cooperate for a common good?
And wasn't that the entire point of Obama's speech?

Without trying very hard, I can think of ten ways for religious schools to cooperate and coordinate.

A joint bake sale to benefit needy hungry kids? I know you like to bake. :D, :)

A joint bake sale to benefit needy hungry kids? I know you like to bake. :D, :)
I also like to cook -- so a joint picnic with grilled meats and lots of homemade side dishes and desserts.

A joint school dance in the gym.

Combined art or music classes.

Now you are questioning the contributions that Catholic Schools bring to the table ? Let me make it clear ;Catholic Schools are NOT a source of division .So the Emperor's premise is fundamentally flawed . He must be thinking of madrassas .

now you are questioning the contributions that Catholic Schools bring to the table ?
Huh? WHO is questioning Catholic school contributions??

And wasn't that the entire point of Obama's speech?


Yes, it was, and it was a good speech.

But, his comment on religious education was not good. No matter how people here break down the paragraph in question, the words are very clear. The very fact that some here are going to extreme lengths to turn his words upside down should tell you that he misspoke.

I like Obama but I think he should be taken to task when he says something he shouldn't. This is not the first time his words have been too far ahead of his brain.

Yes, it was, and it was a good speech.

But, his comment on religious education was not good. No matter how people here break down the paragraph in question, the words are very clear. The very fact that some here are going to extreme lengths to turn his words upside down should tell you that he misspoke.

I like Obama but I think he should be taken to task when he says something he shouldn't. This is not the first time his words have been too far ahead of his brain.
I see absolutely nothing against Catholic schools (or Protestant ones) in what he said. “If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

He is speaking about DIVISION, minds and hearts not being able to meet, and not about the quality of the schools.

We've come full circle. I think the discussion is done. Both sides have said their piece and there's really nothing more to say.

No point in starting over again.

We've come full circle. I think the discussion is done. Both sides have said their piece and there's really nothing more to say.

No point in starting over again.
Good wiggling. Should I close this thread?

>thread closed, then reopened<

>threads merged<

Just thought I'd ask since I don't think there is a consensus or agreement that the last word was said on the emperor's offensive words about Catholic Schools.
You see ,freedom of association is an implied right guaranteed in the 1st amendment . Maybe that's his real beef. He thinks Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and association are destructive and divisive .

Just thought I'd ask since I don't think there is a consensus or agreement that the last word was said on the emperor's offensive words about Catholic Schools.
He didn't say anything about Catholic schools that he didn't say about Protestant schools, and it wasn't offensive.

You see ,freedom of association is an implied right guaranteed in the 1st amendment . Maybe that's his real beef. He thinks Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and association are destructive and divisive .
Ireland has a 1st Amendment?

>threads merged<

Just thought I'd ask since I don't think there is a consensus or agreement that the last word was said on the emperor's offensive words about Catholic Schools.
You see ,freedom of association is an implied right guaranteed in the 1st amendment . Maybe that's his real beef. He thinks Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and association are destructive and divisive .


Huh?

This has nothing to do with rights or freedoms but in the difference of opinion how his words were interpreted by various people. The last I checked we all have the right to that opinion whether we agree or not.

I guess we can all spin, debate, and call names, but at some point our differences have to be bridged. Obviously not today .

No, there are other solutions.

So he wants to keep them in separate schools?

>thread closed, then reopened<

So that's your idea of an honest debate, closing the thread?

This has nothing to do with rights or freedoms but in the difference of opinion how his words were interpreted by various people. The last I checked we all have the right to that opinion whether we agree or not.

I guess we can all spin, debate, and call names, but at some point our differences have to be bridged. Obviously not today .

I can respect your opinion on a subject, but not denial of his plain words which is how this thread started.

Why is it you don't hold the others here to that standard? You let much more egregious violations of your standard go on a regular basis.

I wasn't trying accusing you of manufacturing a limited quote. If it sounded like that then I apologize.Obviously you didn't write the article- just posted it.

The main issue from your point of view seems to be an honest debate. I would suggest that for their to be an honest debate on this issue then we need to go beyond what was quoted in the feature article.

As I said in a previous post:

(a) The speech references schools as symbols of history.

(b) He then goes on to talk about actual schools. (This is the reference found in the article).

(b) The speech goes on to talk about symbolism again.

If you want an honest debate then I think people need to talk about a,b and c and not just b

I don't think I have come down on one side or the other.

I wasn't trying accusing you of manufacturing a limited quote. If it sounded like that then I apologize.Obviously you didn't write the article- just posted it.

The main issue from your point of view seems to be an honest debate. I would suggest that for their to be an honest debate on this issue then we need to go beyond what was quoted in the feature article.

As I said in a previous post:

(a) The speech references schools as symbols of history.

(b) He then goes on to talk about actual schools. (This is the reference found in the article).

(b) The speech goes on to talk about symbolism again.

If you want an honest debate then I think people need to talk about a,b and c and not just b

I don't think I have come down on one side or the other.

It was my choice to focus on what I wanted to discuss. If you want to call it symbolism then fine, but among those things (all of which I acknowledged) that encourage division and discourage cooperation, and the complaint from Catholics, was separate schools for Catholics and Protestants.

Is that true, were they singled out specifically? Yes. Was that not the complaint from Catholics? Yes, again.

The dishonesty came in those denying he singled out segregated religious schools. He did indeed and that is the subject of my post. It's not rocket science. If someone wants to focus on the other aspects they can start their own thread, this one is about the effects of segregated religious schools.

Huh?

In Northern Ireland ,what he calls the Protestant schools are the state controlled school system. So one of his real beefs is a private education system.

But he has a beef against Catholics in this country and has shown an intollerance to Catholic institutions here . As an example ,Catholic schools are now being coerced into providing contraceptives and abortifacients against their values.
Any way you look at it ,it was an insulting comment . He compared Catholic education to American education in the segregated South . He makes no such claims against the Quaker school his daughters attend . He made no such claim of divisiveness when he made his commencement address at Morehouse last month.. a traditionally Black and all male college . No ,his beef is with Catholics.

It was my choice to focus on what I wanted to discuss. If you want to call it symbolism then fine, but among those things (all of which I acknowledged) that encourage division and discourage cooperation, and the complaint from Catholics, was separate schools for Catholics and Protestants.

Is that true, were they singled out specifically? Yes. Was that not the complaint from Catholics? Yes, again.

The dishonesty came in those denying he singled out segregated religious schools. He did indeed and that is the subject of my post. It's not rocket science. If someone wants to focus on the other aspects they can start their own thread, this one is about the effects of segregated religious schools.

I don't think it would make much sense to start two or three different threads for each relevant paragraph. Considering each paragraph is linked to the other.

P.S. I am not actually calling it symbolism.

I don't think it would make much sense to start two or three different threads for each relevant paragraph. Considering each paragraph is linked to the other.

P.S. I am not actually calling it symbolism.

I don't think so either, but denying he said what he said is totally dishonest.

So that's your idea of an honest debate, closing the thread?
It was suggested I do so because the debate was going nowhere. The thread was closed for a very short time. I reopened it when tomder started a new thread on the same subject, so I merged the two as I reopened this one. I was honest and left all my foot tracks visible for you to gripe about.

It was suggested I do so because the debate was going nowhere. The thread was closed for a very short time. I reopened it when tomder started a new thread on the same subject, so I merged the two as I reopened this one. I was honest and left all my foot tracks visible for you to gripe about.

And ironically you can't see you were the one taking it nowhere.

And ironically you can't see you were the one taking it nowhere.
Tal is helping me. I guess we shouldn't disagree with you.

Tal is helping me. I guess we shouldn't disagree with you.

Still avoiding the obvious (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3491768-post78.html). It's really simple, did he single out segregated religious schools as among those things that encourage division and discourage cooperation or not?

The Bible isn't very tolerant at all of other religions:

"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place."
Deuteronomy 12:2-3
Christians ARE the problem.

The Bible isn;t very tolerant at all of other religions:

Christians ARE the problem.

This is not a bible discussion, there were no Christians in the time of Deuteronomy and if you can point out which churches are sending their members out to "utterly destroy" all the heathen we can talk, but you still have that confused with radical Islam.

Yes some Catholics are tripping and some are not and some feel attacked and some do not. What's the point if everybody has a differing opinion on whatever subject? Even about birth control there are clear lines of division over procedure and policy, but to say the president hates you because of that is a stretch.

Matter of fact, I think no matter what he says there will be those who take offense at it just because he said it. That doesn't mean your right... I mean CORRECT... but you have a right to your opinion, and I have a left... oops... right to disagree with it.

Is the Bible not the word of god?

Here's more about the bible that christians follow:

Ezekiel 23:46,47 (KJV)
For thus saith the Lord GOD; "I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled. And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire."

Here is from the New Testament:

Luke 12:49-53

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed!
51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Dude, if you want to have a bible discussion there's a board for that, but thanks for demonstrating the bigotry begins with you.

What bigotry? - these are actual verses in the bible that christians follow. I didn't make them up or change them.

If you don't want to have an honest discussion about why christianity causes division then see you later.

What bigotry? - these are actual verses in the bible that christians follow. I didn't make them up or change them.

If you don't want to have an honest discussion about why christianity causes division then see ya later.

This bigotry: "Christians ARE the problem (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3491829-post88.html)." That was you, not the bible.

Yes some Catholics are tripping and some are not and some feel attacked and some do not. What's the point if everybody has a differing opinion on whatever subject? Even about birth control there are clear lines of division over procedure and policy, but to say the president hates you because of that is a stretch.

Matter of fact, I think no matter what he says there will be those who take offense at it just because he said it. That doesn't mean your right.........................I mean CORRECT.........but you have a right to your opinion, and I have a left.....oops.....right to disagree with it.

It's not about who's feeling what, it's about what Obama said. I repeat, It's really simple, did he single out segregated religious schools as among those things that encourage division and discourage cooperation or not?

Until you guys can acknowledge that much there's nothing to discuss.

It's a scary thing I know when the cracks and failures of long cherished institutions are pointed out.

This bigotry: "Christians ARE the problem." That was you, not the bible.Yes, in your situation in Northern Ireland as there are only christians there and there have been problem for decades. What else could it be?

Yes, in your situation in Northern Ireland as there are only christians there and there have been problem for decades. What else could it be?

You tell us, you're the one smearing Christians.

P.S. as I correctly pointed out in the OP that was not a religious war. It was an "ethno-nationalist conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles)."

you're the one smearing ChristiansCan't be smearing if I'm quoting verbatim from their holy book.

I mention it due to your post.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-religious-schools-cause-division-754581-9.html#post3491824

They DO encourage division and discourage cooperation.

It's not about who's feeling what, it's about what Obama said. I repeat, It's really simple, did he single out segregated religious schools as among those things that encourage division and discourage cooperation or not?

Until you guys can acknowledge that much there's nothing to discuss.
You've changed your argument. It was "Catholic schools" before this; now it's "religious schools."

The "religious" part isn't the problem; the "division" and lack of cooperation and unity is. That's why they need to have a Catholic-Protestant bake sale and a Saturday night dance.

I notice there's barely of mention of Protestant schools in this thread - I guess they are not outraged about that denomination being mentioned.

You've changed your argument. It was "Catholic schools" before this; now it's "religious schools."

The "religious" part isn't the problem; the "division" and lack of cooperation and unity is. That's why they need to have a Catholic-Protestant bake sale and a Saturday night dance.

Really? I'm not the one trying to discuss everything but the subject of the thread and making excuses for what Obama said.

What is the title of this thread?

Obama: religious schools cause division

I repeat, It's really simple, did he single out segregated religious schools as among those things that encourage division and discourage cooperation or not?

Until you guys can acknowledge that much there's nothing to discuss.

I notice there's barely of mention of Protestant schools in this thread - I guess they are not outraged about that denomination being mentioned.
Bingo! They were named in the same breath as Catholic schools.

I repeat, It's really simple, did he single out segregated religious schools as among those things that encourage division and discourage cooperation or not?

Until you guys can acknowledge that much there's nothing to discuss.
Wow! You've changed your argument!

Yes, SEGREGATED religious (Catholic AND Protestant) schools encourage DIVISION. They do in the U.S. too.

I'm glad you've come around to our point of view.

Wow! You've changed your argument!

Yes, SEGREGATED religious (Catholic AND Protestant) schools encourage DIVISION. They do in the U.S. too.

I'm glad you've come around to our point of view.

Have you no integrity at all? Just close the thread, you don't give a damn about having an honest discussion you're sole goal is to discredit me at all cost.

Have you no integrity at all? Just close the thread, you don't give a damn about having an honest discussion you're sole goal is to discredit me at all cost.
Read back on what you argued earlier and note that you finally are including Protestant schools in the mix.

I notice there's barely of mention of Protestant schools in this thread - I guess they are not outraged about that denomination being mentioned.

I already addressed that . The " Protestant schools " are the state sanctioned schools in Northern Ireland . The emperor of course favors state controlled education.

The emperor of course favors state controlled education.
And you know this how?

Well I've known that for a long time . But Wiki affirms my information

Education in Northern Ireland is heavily segregated. Most state schools in Northern Ireland are predominantly Protestant, while the majority of Catholic children attend schools maintained by the Catholic Church.
Segregation in Northern Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_in_Northern_Ireland)

Well I've known that for a long time . But Wiki affirms my information

Segregation in Northern Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_in_Northern_Ireland)
I posted that long ago in this thread. It has nothing to do with Obama hating Catholic education.

How about this? --

Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, has a different take on Obama’s remarks. He says critics have taken the words wildly out of context – if they’ve paid attention to the words at all.

“There are plenty of reasons to be critical of President Obama’s policies as they relate to the Catholic Church, and I have not been shy in stating them. But the reaction on the part of conservatives, many of whom are Catholic, over his speech in Ireland, is simply insane,” Mr. Donahue said in a Friday blog post.

“Obama was not condemning Catholic schools – he was condemning segregation,” Donahue wrote. “He was calling attention to the fact that where social divisions exist, the prospects for social harmony are dimmed. How can anyone reasonable disagree with this observation?”

Obama Catholic schools flap: Did he really call for end of religious schools? (+video) - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0622/Obama-Catholic-schools-flap-Did-he-really-call-for-end-of-religious-schools-video)

Read back on what you argued earlier and note that you finally are including Protestant schools in the mix.

It's not rocket science to see I've included both since the title. It was you who glossed over that aspect from your first post and are now trying to discredit me by confusing the difference between the subject and the source I cited.

I posted that long ago in this thread. It has nothing to do with Obama hating Catholic education.

How about this? --

Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, has a different take on Obama’s remarks. He says critics have taken the words wildly out of context – if they’ve paid attention to the words at all.

“There are plenty of reasons to be critical of President Obama’s policies as they relate to the Catholic Church, and I have not been shy in stating them. But the reaction on the part of conservatives, many of whom are Catholic, over his speech in Ireland, is simply insane,” Mr. Donahue said in a Friday blog post.

“Obama was not condemning Catholic schools – he was condemning segregation,” Donahue wrote. “He was calling attention to the fact that where social divisions exist, the prospects for social harmony are dimmed. How can anyone reasonable disagree with this observation?”

Obama Catholic schools flap: Did he really call for end of religious schools? (+video) - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0622/Obama-Catholic-schools-flap-Did-he-really-call-for-end-of-religious-schools-video)

I am looking at the body of evidence when I come to the conclusion that the emperor has a beef with Catholic education . The very decisions made by the administration regarding religious choice related to Obamacare is all the evidence I need. His main beef is that Roman Catholic church is a self governing entity that won't submit to his dicatates ,and insists that the state honor their very real
1st amendment right to religious liberty and freedom of association.

And as far as Bill Donahue goes ;I often agree with him ;but not always .As an example , he said the HHS "compromises" were a good thing.
But this time he jumped the shark.
Catholics and Protestants have their own separate parochial schools in this country.
Should that stop in the USA because Donohue alleges it to be a cause of “segregation” in Northern Ireland?

I am looking at the body of evidence when I come to the conclusion that the emperor has a beef with Catholic education . The very decisions made by the administration regarding religious choice related to Obamacare is all the evidence I need. His main beef is that Roman Catholic church is a self governing entitity that won't submit to his dicatates ,and insists that the state honor their very real
1st amendment right to religious liberty and freedom of association.

Exactly, I cited the contraception mandate and the Obamacare attempt to redefine what qualifies as a religious ministry as evidence in the OP.

Just because they are separate entities does that mean they can't do great things together for their flocks. No matter the country? I certainly hope not.

Don't you agree that them working together would be a great thing and an example of cooperation that would inspire others to greater things among us humans?

Just because they are separate entities does that mean they can't do great things together for their flocks. No matter the country? I certainly hope not.

Don't you agree that them working together would be a great thing and an example of cooperation that would inspire others to greater things among us humans?

Who says they don't work together?

Who says they don't work together?
Do they? How? What are they doing to work together?

“We Catholics should pray together, but we should also pray with other Christians. We must pray so that God may grant us all unity. Unity!.

“We shouldn't follow the path of division, nor the path of conflicts among us. No! We should all be united. All united despite our differences. Always united. That is the true path of Jesus.”


Pope Francis June 19,2013 .

Do they? How? What are they doing to work together?

The Holy See - The Roman Curia - Pontifical Councils - Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/)

What the pope or Jesus says and what Catholics do are often very different.

What the pope or Jesus says and what Catholics do are often very different.

Correct ;too many Catholics are progressives /socialists .

What the pope or Jesus says and what Catholics do are often very different.

Just look at Obama for instance. Are you under some impression that hypocrisy is exclusive to Christians?

Hmmm, there is now an island-wide all-schools choir competition, but that's all I could find. No bake sales.

Are you under some impression that hypocrisy is exclusive to Christians?Absolutely not. We agree!

too many Catholics are progressives /socialistsJesus was the first socialist... and he was very progressive.

Jesus was the first socialist...and he was very progressive.

Jesus was not a socialist and that's not the topic.

Then you better sh!t on Tom then.

Jesus was not a socialist and that's not the topic.
Mark 10:21: Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Then you better sh!t on Tom then.

Tom said "too many Catholics are progressives /socialists", not Jesus was a socialist.

In Matthew 6, Jesus instructs his disciples to give to the needy only in secret so one's philanthropy is not seen by men. He warned them that if they displayed their charity in public, they would not receive their heavenly reward.

Jesus was not a socialist or a progressive . He was an infallible, perfected being.

Mark 10:21: Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Do you really want to debate the bible with me? Start another thread.

a) Socialism is a political philosophy. Jesus did not espouse or practice any political philosophy, he emphatically stated His kingdom was not of this world.

b) Jesus asked the man to make a personal sacrifice. Nowhere did Jesus, or the early church, espouse communal ownership or cite the government as the means by which to distribute "charity" to the poor and needy - only to "render what was due" as an honorable citizen.

Nowhere did the early church espouse communal ownership
Acts 2:44-45: 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.

NKJV

Acts 2:44-45: 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.

NKJV

That was predictable.

This was a voluntary phenomenon to care for each other's needs, they shared with others as if it were their own. It is always about GIVING voluntarily in the bible.

Again, there is nowhere in the bible where Jesus or the church espouse communal ownership or cite the government as the means by which to distribute "charity" to the poor and needy - only to "render what was due" as an honorable citizen.

But thanks, at least you and NK are demonstrating the same lack of understanding of the church and its mission as Obama which tells me what I need to know.

1 John 3:17
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?


Luke 3:11
And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Luke 1:49-53
For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty.

1 John 3:17
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?


Luke 3:11
And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Luke 1:49-53
For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty.

How does that prove Jesus was a socialist or espoused socialism? All of these are encompassed by his command to love God and love others. That is what follows if you keep those commandments, you care for the needs of others from a willing heart, not forced redistribution.

P.S. You two are doing exactly what Tut and Wondergirl complained of, "cherry picking" I believe she called it - aka proof-texting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext).


Many ministers and teachers have used some version of the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting: "A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, "Then Judas went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, "Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:37b)"[6]

P.S. You two are doing exactly what Tut and Wondergirl complained of, "cherry picking"
KJV -- Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

KJV --Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

"Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

See, you were cherry-picking again.

Kind of like the cherry-picking that started this thread. More hypocrisy.

Kinda like the cherry-picking that started this thread. More hypocrisy.

You of all people know there are a) space limitations here and b) no one would read the entire speech. My citation of the source article was entirely appropriate given the circumstances but you aren't interested in discussion, all you do is attack. Why are you even here?