Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

atheists.. pee me off

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35 Prickly Pete


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    Haha what? Are you actually trolling or do you believe what you've just written? Because if you do, I feel sorry for how indoctrinated you are. The church is almost wholly to blame for the Magadelene Laundries. Like, let's look at what happened if you got pregnant out of wedlock.

    You had 2 options. Either a. enter the laundry or b. be shamed, have no support, be brought up as a sinner and basically be shunned by your community. Believe it or not, the church had massive sway over each and every parish at the time. It wasn't until the 70s that this power started to wane. These women had no choice.

    That's not to mention what happened in these institutions, the way dead babies were put into mass graves, how the mother would most likely never see her child again. Those weren't the fault of parents or grandparents, but the church. Finally, sexual abuse against young children by priests definitely is no-one's fault but those priests, and the cover-up is wholly on the church.

    Or the third option could be that the parents of the girl that got pregnant could stand up for her and actually look after the girl herself.

    The people who went along with the church were idiots it's just people don't want to admit the large role their parents and grandparents played in giving the church such power and allowing them to do this stuff so they just blindly blame the church for everything without ever questioning why the church could do such things in the first place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Academic wrote: »
    If you read what I wrote you'll see that I never said anything about anyone's motivations. I was talking about institutional support.

    But it went hand in hand, they were men of their time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The people who went along with the church were idiots it's just people don't want to admit the large role their parents and grandparents played in giving the church such power and allowing them to do this stuff so they just blindly blame the church for everything without ever questioning why the church could do such things in the first place.

    Maybe you should start questioning why a church which is supposed to be dedicated to love, mercy, patience and understanding, of brotherhood and sisterhood... is capable of such abuse.
    You are holding the church to a human standard, as if they were the mafia or a political party or some semi-state entity.
    They are supposed to be the representatives of an all loving moral supreme being on earth.

    If that is the best that religion can do ... we have no need of it for moral purposes.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭Academic


    But it went hand in hand, they were men of their time.

    As is everyone, at all times. So what?

    Look, I get it. You want to talk about "motivation." I'm not interested in that and won't comment further.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35 Prickly Pete


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Maybe you should start questioning why a church which is supposed to be dedicated to love, mercy, patience and understanding, of brotherhood and sisterhood... is capable of such abuse.
    You are holding the church to a human standard, as if they were the mafia or a political party or some semi-state entity.
    They are supposed to be the representatives of an all loving moral supreme being on earth.

    If that is the best that religion can do ... we have no need of it for moral purposes.

    But the priests,nuns etc are humans so they should be held to a human standard.

    The People of Ireland allowed the church the power they had in this country and nobody wants to admit it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    But the priests,nuns etc are humans so they should be held to a human standard.
    The People of Ireland allowed the church the power they had in this country and nobody wants to admit it.

    No. The priests and nuns claim to be the representatives on earth of their all loving all wise supreme being. They must be held to that standard.

    All the religious instruction they had... The Bible... None of it prevented them abusing the power that the people of Ireland placed in their hands.

    We should have been able to trust them with this power, if religion had the power to engender moral behaviour. We cannot. Because their religion must be useless for moral purposes if so many of the annointed representatives of the religion can be moral degenerates.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35 Prickly Pete


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    No. The priests and nuns claim to be the representatives on earth of their all loving all wise supreme being. They must be held to that standard.

    All the religious instruction they had... The Bible... None of it prevented them abusing the power that the people of Ireland placed in their hands.

    We should have been able to trust them with this power, if religion had the power to engender moral behaviour. We cannot. Because their religion must be useless for moral purposes if so many of the annointed representatives of the religion can be moral degenerates.

    They're human, they should be judged by that standard.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Academic wrote: »
    As is everyone, at all times. So what?

    Look, I get it. You want to talk about "motivation." I'm not interested in that and won't comment further.

    lol :pac: :rolleyes:


    Then do not comment & you dont 'get it'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    They're human, they should be judged by that standard.

    By the standards of their own religion, they were abject moral degenerates.
    That should have been the only standard that mattered to them.
    And it should have been the standard that mattered to their superiors in the church.
    Instead their superiors turned a blind eye or shuffled them off to a different place to continue abusing when too many people asked difficult questions.

    Conclusion, given that the church ignores its own moral teachings, so the rest of society has no need of the moral standards of any religion, nor should we believe that the professed moral standards of a church has any connection to its actual behaviour. Human standards are all we need.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Or the third option could be that the parents of the girl that got pregnant could stand up for her and actually look after the girl herself.

    The people who went along with the church were idiots it's just people don't want to admit the large role their parents and grandparents played in giving the church such power and allowing them to do this stuff so they just blindly blame the church for everything without ever questioning why the church could do such things in the first place.
    In a country ruled by fear of burning in hell and being shunned by your community? Was never going to happen. The church ruled through fear and having hands in the Government, it's not as simple as standing up for the girl. Girls could be ordered to go to a laundry, or have you forgotten that?

    The blame falls almost entirely on the church for what they said. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that you are delusional and are just trying to find a reason why the church shouldn't shoulder the blame.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,166 ✭✭✭messinkiapina


    I'm an atheist but the only time I ever bother to tell anyone about it is when one of those annoying Bible bashers corner me in public or call to my door.

    If your rude enough to try and impose your beliefs on me without invitation, I'm coming back with both barrels blazing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭Academic


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I get the feeling that utmbuilder has left the building, since he hasn't posted anything to the thread since his opening post ...

    As many have observed, he's in a tough position, since he can't cite a single example of someone actually doing what he described.

    I like to think he's subsequently reconsidered his position.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35 Prickly Pete


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    In a country ruled by fear of burning in hell and being shunned by your community? Was never going to happen. The church ruled through fear and having hands in the Government, it's not as simple as standing up for the girl. Girls could be ordered to go to a laundry, or have you forgotten that?

    The blame falls almost entirely on the church for what they said. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that you are delusional and are just trying to find a reason why the church shouldn't shoulder the blame.

    People voted for the politicians who gave the church the power over and over again.

    My grandparents would almost certainly allowed their daughters sent away if they got pregnant out of marriage.

    People just don't want to admit that the people of this country allowed the church to exert the influence they had on society and it is the people of this country who should be blamed for allowing the church to have the power they had.

    The church are to blame for doing what they did but they would not have been able to do what they did if the people of this country didn't let them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭Academic


    People voted for the politicians who gave the church the power over and over again.

    My grandparents would almost certainly allowed their daughters sent away if they got pregnant out of marriage.

    People just don't want to admit that the people of this country allowed the church to exert the influence they had on society and it is the people of this country who should be blamed for allowing the church to have the power they had.

    The church are to blame for doing what they did but they would not have been able to do what they did if the people of this country didn't let them.

    While I agree with this in principle, I think that culpability is a matter of degree and varies from person to person, time to time, and place to place.

    I agree that today, given our generally higher level of education, and given everything we’ve learned in recent years about the church’s crimes, anyone who thinks they can blindly continue to follow all of the church’s teachings and public pronouncements simply isn’t thinking very clearly.


    But consider the very different circumstance, for one example, of an illiterate farmer somewhere in the west of Ireland in the 1780s who was raised in this particularly toxic religious world. For him it was just the way the world was, and he’d no more imagine that things would be different than he’d imagine that day might not follow night.


    What I’m saying is, with greater sophistication and experience goes greater ethical responsibility.


  • Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    So we can thank organised religion for one thing I suppose.

    You can also thank organised religion for educating vast swathes of the developing world where no other organisation would educate the poor for free - well, in return for some indoctrination - but it's a small price when you consider what people gain from education.

    I kind of agree with the OP on one point. I'm an atheist but it doesn't define me in the way it seems to define some. I have a lot of respect for many people I know to be highly intelligent, but who are people of faith. I don't agree with ridiculing or calling people stupid for having a religious belief system. Granted, religion doesn't affect my everyday life. I have little interest in discussing it (there isn't much to discuss when you have no belief in something), and I hate being preached to by the strident atheists as much as I do by the rigid theists.

    Religion is responsible for a lot of ills in the world, but for the sake of balance it's worth noting the contributions of religious organisations, especially to educating the worlds poorest (you can argue about it's quality but I'm talking about people who'd have no education otherwise), providing free medical care through nursing orders and religious run hospitals throughout the world, and the scholarly pursuits of clergy supported by their organizations.

    Three of the bravest and most remarkable people I've ever met were Catholic priests from Monrovia, who stayed put during the second Liberian civil war and faced down the kind of threats I can't even imagine, to protect the orphaned children thrust into their care long after all the NGO's and UN personnel had gone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,180 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Academic wrote: »
    While I agree with this in principle, I think that culpability is a matter of degree and varies from person to person, time to time, and place to place.
    ....


    But consider the very different circumstance, for one example, of an illiterate farmer somewhere in the west of Ireland in the 1780s who was raised in this particularly toxic religious world. For him it was just the way the world was, and he’d no more imagine that things would be different than he’d imagine that day might not follow night.

    Except that there are stories of a few illiterate farmers who had the balls to stand up and say "no, not in my family". So we know that it could be done.

    Aggressive athiesm is just another way to hide from the dark shadow on the collective psyche of this country .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭Academic


    Except that there are stories of a few illiterate farmers who had the balls to stand up and say "no, not in my family"[...]

    Any that you could share?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,988 ✭✭✭jacksie66


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    gw80 wrote: »
    And don't forget those good monks at the buckfast monastery;)

    Belgian Trappist beer. Mmmmmmmmm....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,591 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    I'm athiest. Not an athiest.

    Or in your case maybe you're a dyslexic atheist and you don't believe in Dog.

    Ironic to correct grammar with wrong spelling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,733 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    Candie wrote: »
    Three of the bravest and most remarkable people I've ever met were Catholic priests from Monrovia, who stayed put during the second Liberian civil war and faced down the kind of threats I can't even imagine, to protect the orphaned children thrust into their care long after all the NGO's and UN personnel had gone.

    We're they great people because of religion? Or would they still have been great people if they never set foot in a church?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,988 ✭✭✭jacksie66


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭Academic


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    I wasn't correcting grammar. I'm drunk in ibiza do I apologise for that. What I was trying to say was that I'm atheist, not an atheist. An atheist to me means that I'm part of some movement rather than an individual..

    Huh? To you perhaps, but not to anyone else I know. :)

    In any event, "atheist" is a noun, so "an atheist" is correct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭NinetyTwoTeam


    Well OP you'd be better off if you were a real holy Joe, bc then your faith would be so strong that a non-believer would not bother you, you'd just pity them and pray for them.

    But sure we're all just half arsed Catholics round here, that's the norm


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Er...okay.

    Do you break out in hives when an atheist is nearby or something? Not really sure how merely not believing in a god is so worthy of disapprobation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,211 ✭✭✭fyfe79


    I wouldn't say bad people, probably the most boring imaginations in society though.

    Most scientists (80% approx in the western world apparently) are athiest. Do these people have boring imaginations? If so, I'd prefer someone with a boring imagination who's contributing positively to society.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    Academic wrote: »
    I don’t see the similarity.


    “God exists” is an existence claim, and thus by definition empirical at its root.


    “It’s wrong to eat animals” is a moral claim, necessarily contingent on some conceptually prior argument starting with an initial statement of ethical principle.


    The only thing the two have in common is that they often annoy many of the same people. Which is rather telling, I think.
    To simplify it for you they both don't believe in something but can't stop talking about it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,643 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    They receive a lot of state funding be it from priests automatically getting college chaplain jobs

    Jaysus, are you serious? They restrict the job of chaplin to someone who studied and qualified as a priest???

    Next you'll be telling me that they restrict the role of that fella in the student medical centre with the stethoscope around his neck, who tells people what medicine to take, to applicants who are qualified doctors.

    Oh the humanity!

    In all seriousness, what are you actually saying should be done? That colleges should hire atheists to be chaplains?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,741 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    I wasn't correcting grammar. I'm drunk in ibiza do I apologise for that. What I was trying to say was that I'm atheist, not an atheist. An atheist to me means that I'm part of some movement rather than an individual..

    You're in Ibiza and you logged into Boards?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,425 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Jaysus, are you serious? They restrict the job of chaplin to someone who studied and qualified as a priest???

    Next you'll be telling me that they restrict the role of that fella in the student medical centre with the stethoscope around his neck, who tells people what medicine to take, to applicants who are qualified doctors.

    Oh the humanity!

    In all seriousness, what are you actually saying should be done? That colleges should hire atheists to be chaplains?

    Good job showing your complete ignorance about the topic..... unsurprisingly your name fits your knowledge

    You understand Chaplains can be of any faith and don't have to be catholic?

    They can be Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Catholic etc. it doesn't matter.

    The point the poster is making is that catholic priests always get these jobs above any other faiths


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭Academic


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    To simplify it for you they both don't believe in something but can't stop talking about it.

    And as I and others have observed, there's no reason why they should 'stop talking about it'. If that bothers other people, well, that's just tough.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    I'm with the monkeys, they don't give a fcuk about any of that crap.

    The Monkees on the other hand. . .


  • Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭_Roz_


    I'm an atheist, and I've no problem with people believing what they want to. I also don't go round shouting about atheism, because I think it would be rude. However, I also find it immensely rude when I'm walking round Cork city and I see people reciting passages from the bible into microphones or gathering in Daunt Square in groups to say the Rosary around a statue of Mary. But at the very least, if they're allowed throw their beliefs in my face like that, I should be allowed to stand in the street and talk about atheism. Muslims should be allowed stand in the street and talk about Islam, or pray in public places like the Christians. That inequality annoys me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭henryporter


    I'm with the monkeys, they don't give a fcuk about any of that crap.

    The Monkees on the other hand. . .

    "Then I saw her face, now I'm a believer" :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    The simple fact is that as a non-Catholic parent of a non-Catholic child I am in fact subject to daily discrimination. There is no public secular schooling option in this country and even if there was it would amount to segregated education and my child being marked out as different in ways that he shouldn't be because we don't belong to the majority faith. I'm not particularly ok with being a discriminated against minority and I'm really, really not okay with my son being. And I get that it's hard for people to get their heads around the fact that people like me and my family are minorities being discriminated against. We tend to be, on average, well educated, middle-class people who live lives loaded with privilege. Most people look at us as kicking up a fuss and we tend to see ourselves that way and find it very difficult, often impossible, to ask for even our own children to be treated as equals in state institutions. Especially when we know that if they are treated as equals, they are held up as different in a social setting where it's very, very difficult to be different and increases the chances of the child being subject to social exclusion and bullying.

    I see it all the time with parents forced to choose between baptism or not having a school place if their area is over-subscribed. Applying for school places for newborns if they are lucky enough to live near an ET that the commute is feasible. Then having to choose between a daily school commute to a school where their child will be closer to equal (but not necessarily equal as multi-dom rarely includes no religion) or letting their child go to the local school with their neighbourhood friends but where they will never be equal no matter how nicely they are treated. Choosing between whether to opt out of religion which isn't really possible due to the integrated curriculum or to just keep the head down and have their 4 year olds taught that you should let the stranger who visits you alone in bed at night do what they want to your body even if you are scared. Or maybe be told by the school that they have no right to remove them from religion even though that's unconstitutional, so they are forced through deceit or fear of repercussions if they fight it, to have their kids sit through learning other people's beliefs as facts. Or they have to fight and fight for their rights and even deal with teachers who out and out bully their kids and make them do all sorts of religious work that they know damn well their parents don't want them doing. It's ****ed up, it's not right and it's (part of) why so many of us are so pissed off and angry.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    Thank God I'm an atheist.

    I dunno. How many people do the church employ directly / indirectly.

    Let's not try to damage an industry.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,741 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    _Roz_ wrote: »
    I'm an atheist, and I've no problem with people believing what they want to. I also don't go round shouting about atheism, because I think it would be rude. However, I also find it immensely rude when I'm walking round Cork city and I see people reciting passages from the bible into microphones or gathering in Daunt Square in groups to say the Rosary around a statue of Mary. But at the very least, if they're allowed throw their beliefs in my face like that, I should be allowed to stand in the street and talk about atheism. Muslims should be allowed stand in the street and talk about Islam, or pray in public places like the Christians. That inequality annoys me.

    Nobody is stopping muslims doing anything, in fact we have a Government who seems to be falling over itself trying to accommodate them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭Academic


    ToddyDoody wrote: »
    I dunno. How many people do the church employ directly / indirectly.

    Let's not try to damage an industry.

    Depends on the industry, surely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,643 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    iguana wrote: »
    The simple fact is that as a non-Catholic parent of a non-Catholic child I am in fact subject to daily discrimination. There is no public secular schooling option in this country and even if there was it would amount to segregated education and my child being marked out as different in ways that he shouldn't be because we don't belong to the majority faith. I'm not particularly ok with being a discriminated against minority and I'm really, really not okay with my son being. And I get that it's hard for people to get their heads around the fact that people like me and my family are minorities being discriminated against. We tend to be, on average, well educated, middle-class people who live lives loaded with privilege. Most people look at us as kicking up a fuss and we tend to see ourselves that way and find it very difficult, often impossible, to ask for even our own children to be treated as equals in state institutions. Especially when we know that if they are treated as equals, they are held up as different in a social setting where it's very, very difficult to be different and increases the chances of the child being subject to social exclusion and bullying.

    I see it all the time with parents forced to choose between baptism or not having a school place if their area is over-subscribed. Applying for school places for newborns if they are lucky enough to live near an ET that the commute is feasible. Then having to choose between a daily school commute to a school where their child will be closer to equal (but not necessarily equal as multi-dom rarely includes no religion) or letting their child go to the local school with their neighbourhood friends but where they will never be equal no matter how nicely they are treated. Choosing between whether to opt out of religion which isn't really possible due to the integrated curriculum or to just keep the head down and have their 4 year olds taught that you should let the stranger who visits you alone in bed at night do what they want to your body even if you are scared. Or maybe be told by the school that they have no right to remove them from religion even though that's unconstitutional, so they are forced through deceit or fear of repercussions if they fight it, to have their kids sit through learning other people's beliefs as facts. Or they have to fight and fight for their rights and even deal with teachers who out and out bully their kids and make them do all sorts of religious work that they know damn well their parents don't want them doing. It's ****ed up, it's not right and it's (part of) why so many of us are so pissed off and angry.


    You see, that's what I should have told all those moaning about the recent Charlottesville events. People moaning about those celebrating the historical and on-going "discrimination" of Blacks and Jews. Don't they know who the real victims of discrimination are? That group who have suffered the most and continue to suffer the most on a daily basis? Those middle-class non-Catholics in Ireland who each want the educational system and local schools to be designed precisely to suit their, and only their, idea of what it should be like.

    In all seriousness, get over yourself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    Academic wrote: »
    Depends on the industry, surely.

    The charity sector is one.

    The legal professional gets a lot of business from the church.

    People dress up for weddings, communions, confirmations, baptisms, funerals, novenas etc.

    All this feeds into the hotel, clothing, gifts etc. sector.

    The buildings themselves make use of the construction sector.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,643 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Good job showing your complete ignorance about the topic..... unsurprisingly your name fits your knowledge

    You understand Chaplains can be of any faith and don't have to be catholic?

    They can be Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Catholic etc. it doesn't matter.

    The point the poster is making is that catholic priests always get these jobs above any other faiths


    If only I could find examples of non-Catholic Chaplains then I could prove your statement wrong. But what is the likelihood of that? I mean surely yourself and the original poster are experts in the area and monitor the appointments of all chaplains to any institution in the country? Surely you wouldn't be just talking bullshit without any actual facts could you?

    I mean if only I could find even one example but I suppose that it would be impossible. I can only dream about such a thing

    ( https://www.tcd.ie/Chaplaincy/ )


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    You see, that's what I should have told all those moaning about the recent Charlottesville events. People moaning about those celebrating the historical and on-going "discrimination" of Blacks and Jews. Don't they know who the real victims of discrimination are? That group who have suffered the most and continue to suffer the most on a daily basis? Those middle-class non-Catholics in Ireland who each want the educational system and local schools to be designed precisely to suit their, and only their, idea of what it should be like.

    In all seriousness, get over yourself.

    So why should it suit Catholics' idea of what it should be like instead?

    Why can people who are so flippin' insistent that their child make communion and confirmation not do it themselves, outside of school time, so that months aren't wasted in 2nd and 6th class preparing for it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,643 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    kylith wrote: »
    So why should it suit Catholics' idea of what it should be like instead?

    Why can people who are so flippin' insistent that their child make communion and confirmation not do it themselves, outside of school time, so that months aren't wasted in 2nd and 6th class preparing for it?


    If Catholics want to come together, fundraise and build a school then let them. If Protestants want to do it them more power to them. If "Flying spaghetti moster-ians" want to get together and do it then let them.

    In short, if you and sufficient other people want to set up a school with a particular, or no, ethos, then you are more than welcome to. If you want to sit on the floor crying and whinging "waa waa waa ..... but but the bad Catholics built a school, why I can't I forcefully take it from them, erase their ethos and superimpose my own on it without doing any work" then don't expect any sympathy.

    I'm not sure what type of school you went to but in the one that I went to months weren't wasted on preparing for Communion and Confirmation. Perhaps your school had a preponderance of "special" kids that needed more time?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,382 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    Haha what? Are you actually trolling or do you believe what you've just written? Because if you do, I feel sorry for how indoctrinated you are. The church is almost wholly to blame for the Magadelene Laundries. Like, let's look at what happened if you got pregnant out of wedlock.

    You had 2 options. Either a. enter the laundry or b. be shamed, have no support, be brought up as a sinner and basically be shunned by your community. Believe it or not, the church had massive sway over each and every parish at the time. It wasn't until the 70s that this power started to wane. These women had no choice.

    That's not to mention what happened in these institutions, the way dead babies were put into mass graves, how the mother would most likely never see her child again. Those weren't the fault of parents or grandparents, but the church. Finally, sexual abuse against young children by priests definitely is no-one's fault but those priests, and the cover-up is wholly on the church.

    But all of this power was based on popular support. Which is all that Prickly Pete is saying- the church was able to do these things because most people were in agreement.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    If Catholics want to come together, fundraise and build a school then let them. If Protestants want to do it them more power to them. If "Flying spaghetti moster-ians" want to get together and do it then let them.

    In short, if you and sufficient other people want to set up a school with a particular, or no, ethos, then you are more than welcome to. If you want to sit on the floor crying and whinging "waa waa waa ..... but but the bad Catholics built a school, why I can't I forcefully take it from them, erase their ethos and superimpose my own on it without doing any work" then don't expect any sympathy.

    I'm not sure what type of school you went to but in the one that I went to months weren't wasted on preparing for Communion and Confirmation. Perhaps your school had a preponderance of "special" kids that needed more time?
    But they dont' build schools, not any more. The government builds and pays them them, funded by all tax payers regardless of religious affiliation, then religions feel that they should be given the schools, and children not of that religion are discriminated against.

    If the RCC wants to build a school, pay the staff, pay the overheads, then they can teach their religion, but if the STATE builds the school, pays the wages, pays the bills, then it is not acceptable for one religious group to then take over and use it as a place to indoctrinate children who, for the large part, have no other option but to go there, or to discriminate against what teachers can be hired there on religious grounds.

    Want a religious school? No worries: your religion can fund it 100%.
    Don't want to fund it? Grand, then it's a secular school.


  • Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If Catholics want to come together, fundraise and build a school then let them. If Protestants want to do it them more power to them. If "Flying spaghetti moster-ians" want to get together and do it then let them.

    Catholics in Ireland didn't 'come together'. The State, in partnership with the Church that dictated both spiritual and cultural life in Ireland, imposed Catholic schools on all citizens bar a very few private, and some public schools founded by other religious organisations.

    Considering that an Irish citizens right to a State education is held so dear, it's surprising that the power is given to agents of a religion to decide whether or not those entitled citizens are going to avail of that right, if they don't jump through the hoops of their making.

    You have a bizarrely simplistic way of seeing things, but then I get the impression that the current set up suits you, and you see no reason why it should change to suit anyone else.
    In short, if you and sufficient other people want to set up a school with a particular, or no, ethos, then you are more than welcome to. If you want to sit on the floor crying and whinging "waa waa waa ..... but but the bad Catholics built a school, why I can't I forcefully take it from them, erase their ethos and superimpose my own on it without doing any work" then don't expect any sympathy.

    I don't imagine many people are interested in your sympathy. Interesting how you characterize people who don't agree with you, and put words in their mouths. The State supported the foundation of religious run schools, it's not an equal playing field if they don't also support the foundation of schools without a religious ethos. You know that though, right?
    I'm not sure what type of school you went to but in the one that I went to months weren't wasted on preparing for Communion and Confirmation. Perhaps your school had a preponderance of "special" kids that needed more time?

    Snideness never made a flimsy argument sound more substantial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,643 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    kylith wrote: »
    But they dont' build schools, not any more. The government builds and pays them them, funded by all tax payers regardless of religious affiliation, then religions feel that they should be given the schools, and children not of that religion are discriminated against.

    If the RCC wants to build a school, pay the staff, pay the overheads, then they can teach their religion, but if the STATE builds the school, pays the wages, pays the bills, then it is not acceptable for one religious group to then take over and use it as a place to indoctrinate children who, for the large part, have no other option but to go there, or to discriminate against what teachers can be hired there on religious grounds.

    Want a religious school? No worries: your religion can fund it 100%.
    Don't want to fund it? Grand, then it's a secular school.


    You need to realise that your problem is with the state. That is if your issue is actually the availability of schools. Of course you could just be a typical anti-Catholic which most people who try to use the subject as a vehicle to disguise their motives are.

    If the Catholics/Protestants/Jews/Scientologists built a building 50 years ago, they still own it. If you want to build a different one with your friends then build it yourself or ask the state to do so. Obviously since you will have a school that is individually tailored to each of the "majority" then you will of course attract all the students. All those parents will now have the option not to send their kids to the evil Catholics. And as capitation grants are given on per-head basis, you will get all that lovely money to pay teachers rather than the evil Catholics.

    But you don't want to do that. It would be analogous to me deciding that I want my kid doesn't want to play sport so I'm going to demand that the local GAA grounds and clubhouse are seized and that no Gaelic games can be played any more and that it can be converted to a community space (for me and whatever I like)

    For the record, plenty of Catholic schools buildings are still being built and even more are being renovated. As are other denominations and educate togethers etc. It is stupid to suggest otherwise.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,643 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Candie wrote: »
    Catholics in Ireland didn't 'come together'.
    Yes they did. Most Catholic primary schools are set up and run by local parish groups which fundraise in conjunction with that parish.
    Candie wrote: »
    The State, in partnership with the Church that dictated both spiritual and cultural life in Ireland, imposed Catholic schools on all citizens bar a very few private, and some public schools founded by other religious organisations.
    Hmm, and how did those other religious schools manage to survive? I mean there are plenty of Protestant schools at least. Did they disguise themselves as factories or maybe revert to the earlier (ironically Catholic) methodology of hedge schools?
    Candie wrote: »
    Considering that an Irish citizens right to a State education is held so dear, it's surprising that the power is given to agents of a religion to decide whether or not those entitled citizens are going to avail of that right, if they don't jump through the hoops of their making.
    I know. It is terrible the way that so many atheist, protestant. and jewish people on the Ireland of Ireland are denied access to any form of education by the Catholics. You should get the UN onto that.
    Candie wrote: »
    You have a bizarrely simplistic way of seeing things, but then I get the impression that the current set up suits you, and you see no reason why it should change to suit anyone else.
    Who said anything suits me? I never said it suited me. Why should it? I don't expect it to. People who moan about things not being set up to suit themselves are going to forever moan.
    Step 1: They get to commandeer the local catholic school
    Step 2: They remove all aspects of religion from the curriculum
    Step 3: Mother A wants her angel to study Chinese
    Step 4: Mother B wants her angel to study French so that she can use it on the holidays instead and not to be wasting time studying stupid Chinese
    Step 5: Whoever loses the popular argument above immediately takes umbrage and want to remove all languages from all school curricula
    Step 6: Rinse and repeat
    Candie wrote: »

    I don't imagine many people are interested in your sympathy.
    Quite frankly, I don't care.
    Candie wrote: »
    Interesting how you characterize people who don't agree with you, and put words in their mouths. The State supported the foundation of religious run schools, it's not an equal playing field if they don't also support the foundation of schools without a religious ethos. You know that though, right?
    get the bodies and the support together and they will support you. instead of getting in your excuses first why you don't bother trying. Same as all those people we know who live their lives on the dole complaining about how "ah shure I wouldn't have been given a chance to do college" or whatever. Put made up obstacles obstacles in your own way all you want
    Candie wrote: »
    Snideness never made a flimsy argument sound more substantial.

    Maybe you also went to one of those schools where they had special students that needed months of training for Communion and Confirmation.

    The days of having to learn the Catechism by rote went out donkey's years ago.

    At most it takes a few hours here and there over the course of a week or so. And the most part of that is in the training for how to prepare and how to behave at a formal occasion. Which is general training for life. Some might have little jobs to do. They are still learning.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement