Ask Me Help Desk - Obama: religious schools cause division

“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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

“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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

“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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

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'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

text is here ..
Obama?s Speech in Belfast to Youth of Northern Ireland | IIP Digital

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No, there are other solutions.

Like despite differences we can cooperate for a common good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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, :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

now you are questioning the contributions that Catholic Schools bring to the table ?

Huh? WHO is questioning Catholic school contributions??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

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<

Is freedom of association destructive and divisive?

>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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

>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 .

Quote:

No, there are other solutions.

So he wants to keep them in separate schools?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

>thread closed, then reopened<

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

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.