nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

[Deleted User]

JeffKenna wrote: »

Maybe read the post first before twisting it into something else. The discussion was in relation to mother and baby homes.

The reasons that families placed their daughters in the mother and baby homes was due to the social stigma influenced by the church. ****ty I know but the family would have been orchestrated by most of their neighbors etc.
In some cases where fathers were left with the children due to the death of the mother the church actively looked to have children taken into “care”, similar enough to when the father died or abandoned their family.

Graces7

volchitsa wrote: »

This is a disgusting allegation.
Can you suggest any reason why a family would knowingly let its children be molested by priests?
People didn't believe it was possible for a priest to do something evil. Because they were brainwashed by the church. Not because they didn't care about their children.

I took the meaning not as you did but speaking of after the abuse?

While they did not allow if that is what you mean, if they did try to report it they were not believed and the family would suffer.
Certainly no one believed the priest never did evil. They all knew! Just not wise to accuse is all. And many protected the children as best as they could. One grandmother who cleaned the church, warned her grandchildren not to go into one side f the three door confessional. "as the priest can get at you there."
No brainwashing.

Graces7

[QUOTE=DubInMeath;107173291]The reasons that families placed their daughters in the mother and baby homes was due to the social stigma influenced by the church.
In some cases where fathers were left with the children due to the death of the mother the church actively looked to have children taken into “care”, similar enough to when the father died or abandoned their family.[/QUOTE]

Not entirely true. eg one man on Great Blasket had 12 children and when his wife died he could not look after them so he handed them over to the homes.
It was his decision. What choice did he have?

Graces7

JeffKenna wrote: »

Maybe read the post first before twisting it into something else. The discussion was in relation to mother and baby homes.

Thank you. I have responded separately.

[Deleted User]

Graces7 wrote: »

Not entirely true. eg one man on Great Blasket had 12 children and when his wife died he could not look after them so he handed them over to the homes.
It was his decision. What choice did he have?

Sure some may hand over their kids believing that they were doing the best for them, didn’t work out that way for a lot however did it?

Graces7

end of the road wrote: »

and what about society's part in it? society were happy for the church to take care of these women and children. families put these people into homes and shunned them. the church's behaviour was contemptible but guess what, apart from the other children of these families who are completely innocent, society was not blameless.

or perhapse most people in ireland aren't actually catholic these days?
i have no time for the church myself but if following the teachings of a religion is being out of touch then perhapse people are just no longer interested in being part of that specific religion and they should therefore stop using the church when it suits them.
yet people will put catholic down on the census, and use the church when it suits them for weadings, christenings, communions, confirmations, funerals." end quote

It has been posted earlier in the thread that many "catholics" voted for repeal knowing they were voting against one of the core commandments. The utmost in hypocrisy . They call them cafeteria catholics. Far better if they stop using the name. Social catholics Meaningless .

[Deleted User]

Graces7 wrote: »

I took the meaning not as you did but speaking of after the abuse?

While they did not allow if that is what you mean, if they did try to report it they were not believed and the family would suffer.
Certainly no one believed the priest never did evil. They all knew! Just not wise to accuse is all. And many protected the children as best as they could. One grandmother who cleaned the church, warned her grandchildren not to go into one side f the three door confessional. "as the priest can get at you there."
No brainwashing.

No plenty didn’t believe that a priest would do any evil. If everyone knew that they were as you said there would have been no issue reporting it, unless the majority of the population were religiously brainwashed.

Graces7

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

You don't get it they weren't cheering abortion or maybe that's the way you prefer to see it. They were cheering relief, relief that in such difficult circumstances Ireland agreed unanimously we'll respect and aid what people deem best for themselves. I personally had a few scoops that night thoroughly enjoyable as the outcome.

The cheering was appallingly inappropriate and offensive. What was being voted on WAS abortion. Sounded like a football crowd.

Overheal

[/quote] dear. [/quote].

Graces7

DubInMeath wrote: »

No plenty didn’t believe that a priest would do any evil. If everyone knew that they were as you said there would have been no issue reporting it, unless the majority of the population were religiously brainwashed.

You need to look up what brainwashing is and how it is achieved.

Many did report; please read the Ryan and Murphy reports in detail

The Church had great social power. They controlled health care, education, which child went to a punitive home etc.

Everyone knew. No one dared rock the boat any more then they do now in other areas.

GoneHome

We're a couple in our 40s with no kids, we both voted yes, just because why should we take away the choice from our young nieces on what they should do, the Pro-life lobby would seriously want to get over themselves at this stage, the nation has decided so leave it at that

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don’t think the cheering was half as offensive as people knocking on doors of homes unsolicited calling people’ murderers for voting yes and spewing lies, or campaigning with graphic images outside maternity hospitals and schools.

It was a historic day, and women were happy that they finally had a say over their own body. It’s sad that that wasn’t a given and it’s sad that people were so excited about actually having rights. I wouldn’t like to think people were cheering about how many abortions they plan on having, because the 8th amendment is about so much more than abortion

Overheal

Graces7 wrote: »

The cheering was appallingly inappropriate and offensive. What was being voted on WAS abortion. Sounded like a football crowd.

Really? Vuvuzelas and Ole' Ole' Ole' ? :rolleyes: such contrived outrage.

Overheal

Graces7 wrote: »

You need to look up what brainwashing is and how it is achieved.

Oh goodness. :rolleyes:

Brainwashing need not be 'mind control', brain rays, drugs, HAARP, poisoned well water, or anything of the sort.

brain&#183;wash
&#712;br&#257;n&#716;w&#244;SH,&#712;br&#257;n&#716;w&#228;SH/Submit
verb

gerund or present participle: brainwashing

make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.

"the organization could brainwash young people"
synonyms:	indoctrinate, condition, reeducate, persuade, influence, propagandize, inculcate
"the evidence is compelling that these cult members were indeed brainwashed"

Certainly, the Catholic Church in Ireland through forceful and systematic pressure exerted serious controls over what the people of Ireland heard and saw and were allowed to express and to discuss. In a word, it was certainly brainwashing, anyone who spoke out was a sinner, an outcast, they could be ostracized by society, have their businesses boycotted, even have agents of the state involved on their behest. Members of the church are also inherently deputized to convert others to the faith, call out and shame others for sin, report things to the church via confession etc. and the priesthood were in an immeasurable position of power, knowing every person's dirty little secrets by design:

Graces7 wrote: »

The Church had great social power. They controlled health care, education, which child went to a punitive home etc.

See if this sounds like some steps that the Church could and did take against people, and is systematically designed to do so:

Assault on Identity (You don't know yourself only Jesus does etc.)
Guilt (Original Sin, etc. etc.)
Self-Betrayal (Acknowledge your sins)
Breaking Point (Save me, Jesus, etc.)
Leniency (Jesus/The Church offers salvation)
Compulsion to confess (QED)
Channeling of guilt (QED)
Releasing of guilt (QED)
Progress and harmony (QED)
Final confession and rebirth (Ding Ding Ding)

No mind control raybeams required. But, it was most definitely Brainwashing, the RCC excels in the practice and has done so for centuries.

LionelNashe

Water John wrote: »

Ah, FFS
http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-ref-4051212-Jun2018/

She's out to act the maggot again. We have a system that let's any fool, hold up clear decisions.

This shows why Dublin City Council were correct not to fund the book festival with Una Mullally & other speakers who were advocating a 'yes' vote. If they had funded it, it could have been grounds for people to challenge and delay the result.

end of the road

GoneHome wrote: »

the Pro-life lobby would seriously want to get over themselves at this stage, the nation has decided so leave it at that

so what? the nation decided to implement the 8th in 1983 also. just because the nation decides something it does not mean those who disagree will go away or "get over themselves"

spookwoman

Graces7 wrote: »

It has been posted earlier in the thread that many "catholics" voted for repeal knowing they were voting against one of the core commandments. The utmost in hypocrisy . They call them cafeteria catholics. Far better if they stop using the name. Social catholics Meaningless .

:rolleyes: hypocrisy, you know all about that.

Matthew 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

You don't love your neighbours much especially the yes voters, sure you'd like to see women who had abortions have their wombs removed.

You may want to stop calling yourself a catholic as well.

nozzferrahhtoo

Graces7 wrote: »

The cheering was appallingly inappropriate and offensive. What was being voted on WAS abortion. Sounded like a football crowd.

It was offensive to YOU, but you are not the meter by which offence should ever be measured. You want to pretend they were cheering for abortion, just so you can high horse them and tut from on high..... then by all means pretend that. More power to you.

As one of the people who cheered, and is STILL cheering, I can however tell you why we did and why we do. And I generally think it better to ask people why they do something, rather than go to some third party like you to have you invent it for us. Why not go direct to the source, rather than have someone who spins a yarn from her own imaginations?

The reason we are cheering is because we did the right thing. The reason we are cheering is some of us have been working towards the right thing for a year, some for 5 years, some for a decade, and some even since the day the stupid, contrived, biased, agenda driven amendment was done in the first place.

We were, and still are, cheering because we have seen the fruits of our long and hard work come to flower. And when people who genuinely mean well work hard and celebrate.... that is never inappropriate, and never offensive. Except for those who are sore about the result, or those who contrive to be offended because playing the offence card is all they got. Which is, sadly, more and more often in the current Age Of Offence we appear to be living through.

GoneHome

end of the road wrote: »

so what? the nation decided to implement the 8th in 1983 also. just because the nation decides something it does not mean those who disagree will go away or "get over themselves"

That was 1983, this is now and to use a cliche it's a different country and thank christ it is that we're not in that backward Catholic controlled country that we were living in back then. As someone living on the border of North Cork/South Limerick in what was always one of the most conservative areas voting wise over the years (Cork North West) I have to say I was over the moon to see the yes vote being the majority here this time round, our country is changing and all for the better

Fighting Tao

Those who claim to be the most Christian are those who are least Christian. Funny that.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

It has been posted earlier in the thread that many "catholics" voted for repeal knowing they were voting against one of the core commandments. The utmost in hypocrisy . They call them cafeteria catholics. Far better if they stop using the name. Social catholics Meaningless .

I think it would be far better if a select group of Catholics would refrain from molesting a very vulnerable other group of Catholics.

Don't talk about hypocrisy when you have the highest echelons and representatives of the Catholic Church protecting some of the most prolific and serial child rapists known to man. That is the utmost of hypocrisy.

robarmstrong

Overheal wrote: »

Not literally anyhow.

Quite perplexing, given how often you call it murder.

But you already call them murderers, how isn't that treating them as lesser people?!

Haha brilliant, on the phone so can't see if you got a response, I doubt you did though. Never seen anyone on this site get so destroyed in a single post but gloss over it as if it never happened. Madness.

Mumha

Graces7 wrote: »

The cheering was appallingly inappropriate and offensive. What was being voted on WAS abortion. Sounded like a football crowd.

For you, yes it was abortion. For them, it was about choice. In the midst of lie after lie from the No side, rebutted on the day with a 2 to 1 ass kicking from the Irish people, no doubt a load of them then went onto get pissed on pinot grigio. I would have too, well maybe not the pinot grigio. The No side went out of their way to make it a dirty campaign, with those bloodied fetus photos, to frighten voters into a No vote. They went all in. It's to be completely expected that they would now be classless bitter losers. That's ok too.

Mumha

robarmstrong wrote: »

I think it would be far better if a select group of Catholics would refrain from molesting a very vulnerable other group of Catholics.

Don't talk about hypocrisy when you have the highest echelons and representatives of the Catholic Church protecting some of the most prolific and serial child rapists known to man. That is the utmost of hypocrisy.

And sell a few churches and estates, to pay the reparations that are years overdue.

It wasnt me123

Water John wrote: »

Her boast is, that she delayed the Childrens Ref implemantation by two and a half years. Will Mattie walk by her side again?

Not on my watch. Can someone let me know if he does and I'll be contacting the local media to complain.

railer201

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Those who claim to be the most Christian are those who are least Christian. Funny that.

And those who are judged to be the least Christian and may be not all, appear to be the most Christian.

Maybe there's something to be said for 'a la carte' Christianity or whatever other dismissive term the 'holier than thou' types come up with.

Mumha

railer201 wrote: »

And those who are judged to be the least Christian and may be not all, appear to be most Christian.

Maybe there's something to be said for 'a la carte' Christianity or whatever other dismissive term the 'holier than thou' types come up with.

This 'a la carte' is a constant theme from the hardliners (even that Bishop was talking about a smaller better Church), but if they meant that, why do they make it so hard for people to leave the Church, and why are they swinging the lead in reducing the Catholic ethos from schools ?

AllForIt

Taytoland wrote: »

This is all fine and well but pretend Catholics should stop having weddings in Catholic Churches then, stop having funerals in Catholic Churches, stop associating with the Catholic church. Do Catholics in the Republic not see how hypocritical that is?
Abortion is a big no in the Catholic Church. How any Catholic can support abortion reform and be a Catholic while disobeying such a big fundamental principle in the Church in beyond me. Do not call yourself a Catholic, do not attend Catholic church, do not have a wedding in a Catholic church. Then you won't be a hypocrite.

The framework for weddings and especially funerals is only currently provided for by the Catholic infrastructure.

This issue is not as simple as you make out when some ppl in an extended family are a mix of true Catholics or fake Catholics or Atheist or Agnostic.

And in reality most ppl couldn't care less about all of this. Ppl will just go with the flow, get on with it, get over the event and not worry too much about anyone who thinks they are being hypocritical.

Pherekydes

one world order wrote: »

Abortion is killing a baby, no need to be embarrassed, it was voted for, now own it.

Why is this dumb sh1t still allowed to be posted?

An embryo is not a baby!

JeffKenna

DubInMeath wrote: »

The reasons that families placed their daughters in the mother and baby homes was due to the social stigma influenced by the church. ****ty I know but the family would have been orchestrated by most of their neighbors etc.
In some cases where fathers were left with the children due to the death of the mother the church actively looked to have children taken into “care”, similar enough to when the father died or abandoned their family.

Obviously the church has a lot to answer for concerning their behaviour around the mother and baby homes. However going back to my initial point we tend to neglect the role that society played in letting this happen. It's easy to say that the stigma around unmarried mothers was orchestrated by the church (which it was)...however that's a convenient narrative as it abdicates responsibility from those that left it happen.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Best Of