pearcider wrote: » Easy there with the bold chief. I care not one jot what any atheist thinks of my post nor am I here for a debate. I only came here because the topic was moved here for some inexplicable reason presumably just another meddling moderator on a power trip. I won’t be reading any atheistic charter and you can keep your echo chamber of anti Christian sentiment to yourselves. I’m not here to persuade or debate with atheists for faith is a personal journey and I don’t like to waste my time. I will say this. That western civilization is built upon the foundation of Christianity is not in dispute. The fact that the west has very recently fallen into the evils of atheistic socialism (as Hegel would put it the state is God walking on the earth) does not trouble me in the slightest. For the rotten bureaucracy of the atheistic world system will destroy itself and sooner than most might think. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
pearcider wrote: » Modern Ireland is just as miserable and even more-so when you adjust for
pearcider wrote: » that’s where bankrupt moral relativism and communism have led us.
pearcider wrote: » Which of course was the plan all along.
pearcider wrote: » nor am I here for a debate.
pearcider wrote: » I will say this. That western civilization is built upon the foundation of Christianity is not in dispute.
pearcider wrote: » The fact that the west has very recently fallen into the evils of atheistic socialism
pearcider wrote: » For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
pearcider wrote: » Anti religious are the same all over. They want to ridicule the notion of faith, sin and redemption so they can justify their sin with no guilt.
pearcider wrote: » “Do what thou wilt” is their creed.
pearcider wrote: » I doubt they will scoff so vigorously when the mystery of faith draws close to them on their deathbed.
pearcider wrote: » Easy there with the bold chief. I care not one jot what any atheist thinks of my post nor am I here for a debate. I only came here because the topic was moved here for some inexplicable reason presumably just another meddling moderator on a power trip. I won’t be reading any atheistic charter and you can keep your echo chamber of anti Christian sentiment to yourselves. I’m not here to persuade or debate with atheists for faith is a personal journey and I don’t like to waste my time.
Hubertj wrote: » You should probably go easy on the drink. I know this is a stressful time for all. Perhaps you should consider talking to someone. Perhaps your employer, if you have a job, has an EAP. Many have online or phone access during these difficult times.
pearcider wrote: » People like you give me a good laugh. How old are you exactly that you can state the old Ireland was so miserable?
pearcider wrote: » Same sex marriage give me a break. In most civilizations homosexuals would be put to death.
pearcider wrote: » Women’s rights. Women had no rights anywhere in the world and in any culture until enlightened Christians made it so.
pearcider wrote: » Fact is your entire western civilization was built by Christianity and would not exist without it. Go read a book. I will say this. That western civilization is built upon the foundation of Christianity is not in dispute.
pearcider wrote: » The fact that the west has very recently fallen into the evils of atheistic socialism (as Hegel would put it the state is God walking on the earth) does not trouble me in the slightest. For the rotten bureaucracy of the atheistic world system will destroy itself and sooner than most might think.
Mark Hamill wrote: » How old are you? The Catholic Church abused, raped, murdered and sold children in old Ireland. The Church and Old Ireland were (and are) not some bastion of morality. Are you saying that homosexuals should be put to the death? While claiming to be more civilised than the rest of us? Historically, women had better rights than Christian women in a few cultures (e.g. traditionally, Muslim women had far more financial equality than christian women, such as retained ownership of property after marriage). The West may have overtaken such cultures relatively recently, but it started from a worse position than many. We are still waiting for a referendum in Ireland to remove the part of the constitution that says a woman's place is in the home. I thought democracy was ancient greek? The basis of laws (don't steal, don't kill) are even older. Which positive part of modern western civilization are under the impression could only have come from Christianity? Is all socialism atheistic or is catholic socialism different?
pearcider wrote: » nor am I here for a debate.... I’m not here to persuade or debate .
carq wrote: » wow this thread went down hill fast. Move topic to another forum and then mod every post to shut down discussion! Im out.
Bannasidhe wrote: » And the Greeks liberally (see what I did there...) borrowed from the Persians. Code of Hammurbi dates back to about 1754 BCE - it's the laws of Mesopotamia all written down. In writing. Writing that the people of Babylon who could read could read and know what actions were going to be sanctioned. All the available evidence demonstrates that long before Patrick- or indeed Palladius who was Rome's official representative to cater to the Christians in Ireland, and pre-dated Patrick - the Gaelic Irish had a complex legal system. A legal system older than the Code of Hammurbi, parts of it date to the Bronze Age. When the Christians arrived the Gaelic Irish merely wrote down what was already in existence. And you should see the rights women had!
Bannasidhe wrote: » Poor Pookie. Are the bold Moddy Woddies not letting posters rant, rave, make unsupported claims, insult other posters, while also saying they are not here to discuss? Evil Godless Mods are like that. I should know.
carq wrote: » Ive got no bone in this fight, was watching thread with interest. I am an athiest myself. Prefer open discussion though rather than self important mods jumping in every second post, something unique to Boards.ie. Over and out.
pearcider wrote: » Modern Ireland is just as miserable and even more-so when you adjust for the economic progress in the intervening period. You only have to look at the rampant and vacuous materialism, the poverty and homelessness, the wealth inequality in both capital and education which is far more pronounced than the past, the drugs and alcohol addictions. Broken families, suicide and a mental health crisis that’s where bankrupt moral relativism and communism have led us. Into infantile servitude to the socialist state. Which of course was the plan all along.
pearcider wrote: » People like you give me a good laugh. How old are you exactly that you can state the old Ireland was so miserable? You know it all. You’re just parroting the usual communist inspired rubbish. Same sex marriage give me a break. In most civilizations homosexuals would be put to death. Women’s rights. Women had no rights anywhere in the world and in any culture until enlightened Christians made it so. People like you are the pinnacle of hypocrisy basking in the glory of western civilization since birth, a civilization which was literally built from a pagan and illiterate jungle culture with the life blood and dedication of devout Christians. And you have the temerity to think you know better. Fact is your entire western civilization was built by Christianity and would not exist without it. Go read a book.
splinter65 wrote: » Oh dear indeed. You seem to be a little bit lost. Let me explain. Lots of Irish catholic’s attend mass every day in Lent.
As well over 80% of citizens identified as Catholic in the last census then this would have seemed reasonable to any sensible person.
Bannasidhe wrote: » There already is a dedicated Roman Catholic radio station - I happened upon it while using my remote control to search for Radio One. It's called Radio Maria. It can be found on radio, saorview, on-line, and via an App.
maestroamado wrote: » I agree, so we buy the schools back from them?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Since when was 78% well over 80%? If you're going to quote figures then at least use accurate ones.But we all know that many of those 78% are merely box-tickers who culturally identify with catholicism but never see the inside of a church from one end of the year to the other. It's disingenuous at best to use that census figure of an indicator of anything, really.... except the proportion of the population who whether in a serious fashion, or in a mere cultural sense, identify as catholic. It's certainly not a good basis for determining policy in relation to broadcasting, education or anything else really.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Seeing as most of them were built with public funding and all have been maintained with public funding, why would we be buying what we've already paid for?
Peregrinus wrote: » Because we don't own it? The state provides grant funding for all kinds of things on all kinds of terms and conditions, but it doesn't thereby acquire ownership of them, unless that is stated as one of the terms and conditions. The state doesn't get to retrospectively and unilaterally decide that the grant it gave to X to undertake a particular project was actually the purchase price of property belonging to X.
Peregrinus wrote: » Most national schools have never been owned by the State and, of the few that were owned by the State, I think the majority still are. I don't know if there are any national schools at all which were once in state ownership but are now owned by churches. For a long time the funding model was basically - the patron acquired and provided a site, the state paid to put up a school building; the state paid to run the school. This didn't on the face of it confer any financial benefit on the patron; it's true that the site they owned had a building erected on it at no cost to them, which would normally enhance the value of the site very considerably, but on the other hand they couldn't benefit from that - they had to allow the school to use the site; they got no rent from the site; they couldn't raise money by mortgaging it; they couldn't sell it. In financial terms, they effectively wrote off the cost of acquiring and providing the site; they never expected any financial return from it. (And, as we know, that wasn't their motivation; what they got in return for providing the site was influence over the running of the school.) In later years, the funding model became more sophisticated, and I think in the case of newer schools there is a condition that, if the property ceases to be used as a school, the capital grant money must be repaid. I don't know what arrangements there are about interest. The upshot of all this is that the state doesn't own most of the school properties, and it can't simply expropriate them on the grounds that it has invested money in them. Even if an Irish government were to try that, they'd be shot down in flames, if not in the Irish courts then in the European Court of Human Rights. A democratic states with pretensions to respecting the rule of law cannot behave like this. Setting the value of schools owned by diocesan trusts againt liablities owned by religious orders is also a non-runner, for much the same reason. The good news is that the real issue here is not who owns schools; its how schools are run. Any campaign that focusses on bringing school properties into public ownership is basically a campaign to put truckloads of taxpayers' money in the trouser pockets of bishops. Focussing instead on facilitating the withdrawal of churches from school patronage, and I think the whole problem becomes a lot easier to solve. The good news here is that the real issue is not who owns schools; it's how schools are run.
Bannasidhe wrote: » . . . In 1850 less than 4% of the NS had direct RCC control over their boards, by 1900 that figure was 85% . . .
Bannasidhe wrote: » Those little NS where you had 2 rooms and a boys and girls doors were built under the auspices of what is known as the Stanley Letter(1831). Their primary aim was to make Irish children good little subjects of the Empire = control and assimilation plus basic literacy/numeracy to try and combat the dire poverty. All very 'improving'. Making good little Catholics was not part of the agenda.
Peregrinus wrote: » I think this is the key to it. I don't know what the total number of national schools contructed by 1850 was but I'd be reasonably confident that it was very small, since the system was only legislated for in 1837, and they had Other Priorities for much of the 1840s, what with the Famine and all. And, of the schools constructed by 1850, I seriously doubt that many are still in service as schools. And they would be small, old schools in remote/depopulated areas, so as a percentage of the, um, national school estate by value, they'd be trivial. Which is why I say that the great bulk of national schools that we have today have never been in state ownership, and have never been governed under the Stanley system (which collapsed fairly quickly, because it was not well-adapted to Irish conditions to begin with). You can lament the fact that the Stanley system did not survive, or that a better-designed system that might have survived wasn't put in place to begin with. But it's a historical what-if; the situation we are in now with regard to the ownership of school properties is not a product of the Stanley system, and virtually all of the the state funding that went into building up the present system was not paid in with any understanding or expectation, on either side, that it would build schools operating under the Stanley system. I don't think the fact that the Stanley system was once contemplated provides either a moral or a political argument for expropriating school properties now. (And I've already said that I think legal arguments for expropriation are a complete non-runner.)
In time bigger schools were built - capital funded by the Irish State. These were often built on lands owned by religious orders and so became the property of the RCC.
Bannasidhe wrote: » . . . The RCC says it owns the schools - it does. But only because the original NS schools were replaced with schools built on land it owns - and the taxpayers paid.
Peregrinus wrote: » Most national schools have never been owned by the State and, of the few that were owned by the State, I think the majority still are.
This didn't on the face of it confer any financial benefit on the patron
(And, as we know, that wasn't their motivation; what they got in return for providing the site was influence over the running of the school.)
Even if an Irish government were to try that, they'd be shot down in flames, if not in the Irish courts then in the European Court of Human Rights. A democratic states with pretensions to respecting the rule of law cannot behave like this.
Setting the value of schools owned by diocesan trusts againt liablities owned by religious orders is also a non-runner, for much the same reason.
Focussing instead on facilitating the withdrawal of churches from school patronage, and I think the whole problem becomes a lot easier to solve.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Anglicans were not considered to be in need of indoctrination into the ways of the British Empire so COI schools remained outside the NS System.
They then educated people to believe that the RCC were the liberators of the Irish people, had been the main victims of British laws, and the instigators of free education. They did not tell students how the RCC had campaigned for the Act of Union, how the Penal Laws were aimed at all non-Anglicans (and indeed were enacted across the UK), or that the original NS were set up and paid for by the British State.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » They didn't need government funds for their schools when they still had tithe income, presumably after disestablishment their stance changed. And we still have any number of posters on boards peddling those myths as fact... :rolleyes: Don't forget their opposition to 1916, and the War of Independence until it looked like the Brits might lose... Christian Brothers were very quiet about that...
