Crib Controversy at Beaumont Hospital

tomwaterford

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why should the religion of secularism get precedence over all other religions?

Secularism is a religion?

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why should the religion of secularism get precedence over all other religions?

That sentence literally makes no sense

DickSwiveller

tomwaterford wrote: »

Secularism is a religion?

Of course. Its adherents are far more fanatical than most religious people I know.

tigger123

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why should the religion of secularism get precedence over all other religions?

Why can't religion be taught at home by parents? Why can't religion be celebrated at home and in church, and not in schools and hospitals?

Why does catholicism have to be inserted everywhere regardless of whether people are catholic or not?

tomwaterford

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Of course. Its adherents are far more fanatical than most religious people I know.

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries



This is bad??how?

kylith

server down wrote: »

That’s a straw man. I’m in favour of all those religions being represented. And I’m an atheist. I guess however that the kind of people oppressed by a crib would cry bigot at those who opposed some other religious symbolism.

Not in my experience, because they tend to be the type of people who are of the "Ireland is a Catholic country" frame of mind. I could be wrong, I suppose.

server down wrote: »

Why not? Let’s find Muslim, Anglican, Jewish and catholic schools. However a strict curriculum.

That could be good, but is unfortunately not financially feasible. There's also concerns about sectarianism.

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Of course. Its adherents are far more fanatical than most religious people I know.

You've lost the plot now.

DickSwiveller

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You've lost the plot now.

It's true.

end of the road

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You just said you want all state schools to be secular. Is that inclusive f people who want their children to have a Catholic education?

yes, as it gives them an education based on what, for the most part is needed to go forward in terms of third level education or employment, free from the byass of 1 religion.

Bubbaclaus

tomwaterford wrote: »

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries



This is bad??how?

Because "Ireland is a Catholic Country" apparently and we must be ruled and governed by the Vatican.

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's true.

How can a factually incorrect statement be true?

Either you are trolling or you don't know what secular means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the 2nd option for now.

Perhaps you can Google it before your next post.

DickSwiveller

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

How can a factually incorrect statement be true?

Either you are trolling or you don't know what secular means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the 2nd option for now.

Perhaps you can Google it before your next post.

Stalin said Soviet Russia was a free Democracy. Definitions aren't always accurate.

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Stalin said Soviet Russia was a free Democracy. Definitions aren't always accurate.

Groan.

I could tell you 'happy' actual means 'sad'. That doesn't change the definition of happy.

Clearly you are just having a troll.

splinter65

baylah17 wrote: »

The self same words that condemned Savita Hallapanavar to death in an Irish state funded hospital.

Ms Halapanavaar died as a result of medical neglect and mismanagement.
But No one decent who gave a damn about Ms Halapanavver would be scraping the barrel by dragging a dead woman into an argument like this in a pathetic attempt to justify themselves.

server down

tomwaterford wrote: »

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries



This is bad??how?

It’s Americanised bollocks that doesn’t work there and wouldn’t work with say socialised housing for instance. Those are owned by the state and therefore you would need an army of angry new atheist stormtroopers to investigate an octogenarian with a sacred heart picture in the kitchen.

Instead let’s embrace plurality. I wouldn’t bring religious statues into courthouses but comforting religious imagery for all faiths in hospitals makes sense.

splinter65

jh79 wrote: »

Keep the cathedrals could be converted into nice gastro pub or a nightclub.

Might as well get some use out of them.

You can turn our Cathedral into a gastro pub putting on discos at night.
I’ll come around to wherever your living and throw your family and all your stuff out into the street and have it as a house for my dogs .
Deal?

splinter65

tomwaterford wrote: »

The state shouldn't be spending any money on it??


Esp the health service....the state of it,with waiting lists...they hardly can justify any waste?

But the HSE doesn’t own the crib, didn’t pay for the crib, or anything in it.

server down

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

How can a factually incorrect statement be true?

Either you are trolling or you don't know what secular means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the 2nd option for now.

Perhaps you can Google it before your next post.

Ireland isn’t a secular state. The constitution mentions God, makes no division between church and state or prohibits religious use of secular buildings. It used to explicitly mention the Catholic Church but that was removed.

Neither is the U.K. a secular state. It has an explicit reference to an established church. The US has a dis-establishment clause and that has been read differently by different supreme courts over time. France is more explicitly anti religious.

baylah17

DickSwiveller wrote: »

baylah17 wrote: »

The self same words that condemned Savita Hallapanavar to death in an Irish state funded hospital.

Oh are you back to using a dead woman as ammo for your political agenda?

The truth is the truth
Those are the words that sent her to her death

baylah17

server down wrote: »

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

How can a factually incorrect statement be true?

Either you are trolling or you don't know what secular means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the 2nd option for now.

Perhaps you can Google it before your next post.

Ireland isn’t a secular state. The constitution mentions God, makes no division between church and state or prohibits religious use of secular buildings. It used to explicitly mention the Catholic Church but that was removed.

Neither is the U.K. a secular state. It has an explicit reference to an established church. The US has a dis-establishment clause and that has been read differently by different supreme courts over time. France is more explicitly anti religious.

Wrong
The Constitution clearly states that the state shall not endow any Religion
And the people of this secular Republic voted in a referendum to remove the special place of the Roman Catholic Church from the Constitution.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

baylah17 wrote: »

The self same words that condemned Savita Hallapanavar to death in an Irish state funded hospital.

Ms Halapanavaar died as a result of medical neglect and mismanagement.
But No one decent who gave a damn about Ms Halapanavver would be scraping the barrel by dragging a dead woman into an argument like this in a pathetic attempt to justify themselves.

The record of herinquest clearly states that when she asked for life saving medical treatment it was denied with the words "this is a Catholic country"

server down

baylah17 wrote: »

Wrong
The Constitution clearly states that the state shall not endow any Religion
And the people of this secular Republic voted in a referendum to remove the special place of the Roman Catholic Church from the Constitution.

That’s an anti establishment clause. It’s not secular or atheist, or anti-theist. And I did mention that the catholic special place was removed from the constitution.

That doesn’t make the constitution hostile to religion, as evidenced by the fact that new atheist puritans are only now imposing iconoclasm on the country as best they can. There would be no need for this debate if the constitution disallowed religious iconography in public buildings in the first place.

server down

baylah17 wrote: »

The record of herinquest clearly states that when she asked for life saving medical treatment it was denied with the words "this is a Catholic country"

I thought you said it was a secular country. Make up your mind.

Bubbaclaus

server down wrote: »

That’s an anti establishment clause. It’s not secular or atheist, or anti-theist. And I did mention that the catholic special place was removed from the constitution.

That doesn’t make the constitution hostile to religion

A secular state isn't hostile towards religion. In fact, it invites people to believe in any religion they wish. Or none if they wish. Nobody's life is affected negatively by a religion they don't subscribe to.

That's the beauty of it

tomwaterford

splinter65 wrote: »

But the HSE doesn’t own the crib, didn’t pay for the crib, or anything in it.

So long as it's not paying anyone to put it up....what harm

Bubbaclaus

tomwaterford wrote: »

So long as it's not paying anyone to put it up....what harm

I wonder are the people putting it up paying the HSE for the advertising space?

DickSwiveller

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

A secular state isn't hostile towards religion. In fact, it invites people to believe in any religion they wish. Or none if they wish. Nobody's life is affected negatively by a religion they don't subscribe to.

That's the beauty of it

You're pretending that we live in a world of puppies and picnics, and that everything you define as secular is the truth. It isn't.

splinter65

baylah17 wrote: »

The truth is the truth
Those are the words that sent her to her death

No that’s not the truth.
I understand that you were disappointed when the report into her death didn’t conclude that she had died because she didn’t have an abortion.
I know you invested a lot of time and energy following her death peddling the line that an abortion was the only thing that could have saved her life in order to further your agenda.
That expression was used.
You need to read the whole report into her death
Mrs Halapanavaar died of sepsis caused by neglect.
You want to persist in using a dead woman to make your point.

splinter65

tomwaterford wrote: »

So long as it's not paying anyone to put it up....what harm

I asked earlier if anyone could explain how the crib inconvenienced them in any way.
You have no explanation either.
So yes, indeed, what harm?

splinter65

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I wonder are the people putting it up paying the HSE for the advertising space?

But what is the crib advertising exactly?
What is it enticing you to buy?