Death of 25-year-old Peggy McCarthy of Listowel, 1946

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I didn't say I believed it but its what they are saying, so why is the state not taking them up on it?

oceanman wrote: »

I didn't say I believed it but its what they are saying, so why is the state not taking them up on it?

Here's an example of one of the 'schools' offered :

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0827/723822-schools/

A derelict building 8km outside the town it's supposed to serve which was empty for about 20 years. Thanks but no thanks.

Actual schools offered, i.e. ones with, y'know, teachers and pupils not empty shacks, have been vigorously opposed at parish level and it's easy to exploit fear of change for parents who already have their kids enrolled in a school (while totally ignoring the demand for change from the parents of future pupils.)

And so the game drags on and on. They will be resisting this for decades to come, if the government let them. Same as the 8th there can be no change until the people force politicians into it. The last few years have shown definitively that our politicians are way more socially conservative than the electorate.

So if you desire an education for your kids with no religious indoctrination you're probably screwed, unless you live in an area with an expanding school population where a new school can be built. And even then, you're out of luck if the Dept of Education just decide to expand the existing religious schools - like they did in my area a few years ago with no consultation with parents.

BTW I'm not sure "the church" has said they are willing to offload schools, Diarmuid Martin has. But talk is cheap and he has done nothing. For a man who likes to talk a lot about injustice, he could have ended the injustice of baptism barrier in all RC Dublin schools with a stroke of his gold pen, but he refused to even do that.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh FFS.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

...
What sort of people took a woman to a hospital, knowing full well she wouldn't get admitted there?

Where should they have taken her, the local vets. :mad:

jaysus fook I do hope you are just trying to act the agent provocateur because if you are for real you really have some odious outlooks.

You are attacking the one man who showed some true humanity towards this woman. :mad:

BTW he took her to two hospitals and a home AFAIK.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not quite sure where you're getting that from: the man I'm attacking ran away to England and was never heard from again (apparently - I bet he went home to mammy again after the trouble "died down").

Men got away with shyte like this because society let them.

I wonder where the hackney driver was from, that he was prepared to take Peggy in his taxi. Obviously was wasnt concerned about what the church-hierarchy might say.

Bullshyte.
See above.
You actually had a go at the man, the hackney driver, that took her to two hospitals and eventually a home.

Yes you had a go at the guy that got her pregnant, but you also called into question why anyone would have the decency to take her to a hospital.

And that was the one man, John Guerin, that led the fight for her to be allowed into the church.
That man had courage and was the one true christian in this poor woman's last hours.

Granted some of the locals stood with him in order for her to get a christian burial.

gozunda wrote: »

The 'tax' (For that is what it was) I refer to was the weekly mass 'collection'

So not a tax then. Glad we cleared this up.

with those who did not contribute being named and damned from the alter.

Eh, no just no.

Is there any historical peer-reviewed evidence that this occurred right across parishes and churches in Ireland on a regular level. Nope.

Stop making things up.

Who said anything of 'official religion'.

You did. There is no official or state religion in Ireland.
Best read the constitution for yourself.

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/DOT/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/Constitution_of_Ireland_-_Bunreacht_na_h%C3%89ireann.html

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you can't refute what another poster is saying, so just accuse them of making it up. Uhuh.

A+ for anecdotal stories, but an F for actual facts.

Wanting an education where my kids' constitutional right to freedom of religion is respected is not bigotry

.


Missing the main point, yet again. The issue is funding, are you going to advocate the state spends billions purchasing land from religious institutions or is ranting like a one tooth bigot all you have? (The bigot remark stems from previous comments you made about Catholics by the way, all there on the record.)

Depends entirely on where you live. Some religious ethos schools are very nasty towards parents opting their kids out (a constitutional right, BTW) it all depends on the principal - and of course that can change for the better or worse during your kids' time there

Yet, more anecdotal fairy stories.

Most people don't live within distance of an ET and for most of those who do, they won't be able to get in due to the demand.

Again, an issue with funding...

Yes, he could. He was the man who instructed all RC schools in Dublin to incorporate the baptism barrier into their admission policies in the first place.

We both know that is not true but if it makes you feel better to believe in nice good and evil fairy stories (oh the irony) go right ahead.

havent heard or seen programme but how anyone could be shocked or surprised by the contents surprises me.
that's the way the country was then. im betting many other countries were the same.
regurgitating this stuff changes nothing but just allows the terminally offended to be 'shocked' and 'horrified' and given an opportunity to attack a religion that is no worse than any other.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

No, the Church got away with shyte like this because society let them.

I don't disagree with that at all.

But this all started with a lay man, who impregnated a woman and then was allowed to disappear to England. And the problem were continued by Church officials.

Both equally to blame.

jmayo wrote: »

Bullshyte.
See above.
You actually had a go at the man, the hackney driver, that took her to two hospitals and eventually a home.

Yes you had a go at the guy that got her pregnant, but you also called into question why anyone would have the decency to take her to a hospital.

The hackney driver made the decision on where to take her? Not the midwife. Not her mother. Not a chance that happened.

The midwife, at very least, had a responsibility to refer her to someplace that could help. Not to a maternity hospital (sic) that wasn't going to do so - and whose policies would have been well known at the time.

Manach wrote: »

Looking at the wider historic context of a Europe that was on its knees with Millions of displaced people and being kept afloat by the Marshall plan, the financial resources where not in place to support any wide scale social schemes. As one of the few solvent institutions it was Church charity that keep at least some families, including my own, from having to emigrate.

Where do you think the church got the money from? Manna from heaven? I don't think so.

Graces7 wrote: »

They were taught NO.

Which coupled with the lack of sex education and the withholding of contraceptives bred some very unhealthy attitudes in society towards sex.

People were ill equipped with knowledge and the consequences were enormous.

Ireland suffered a major famine beginning in 1845 and many people lived on the edge of starvation up until the 1960s'. I come from Listowel where my mother operated and owned a store for over 50 years. The people there are little different from those in the rest of the country. I would go so far as to say the Irish at that time were consumed with trying to survive both their living conditions and an ideological indoctrination that would make the Saudi Arabian Wahabbis look reasonable. A brutalised people who turned on each other at every opportunity. Prosperity since the 1960s' has allowed progress to be made for which we should all be grateful. I might add that the EU took our Govt. kicking and screaming into the 20th century in the 1970s'.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We should have a constitutional amendment and seize all national schools without compensation.

LOL. Sure thing. Let's turn Ireland into a greener version of Stalin's Russia while you are at it. You complained earlier about being called a bigot, well here is an example of you being one.

Calling for a constitutional amendment to seize all the private property, owned by various religious orders and institutions, without compensation is certainly motivated by being an anti-religious bigot.

You also said earlier you do not trust ANY priest or nun, tarring them all with one brush. Its fine that you hate the people in the Catholic church, I am no thought police but at least own it and stop the faux outrage at being called out at your behavior.

By the way, your plan would also be against the ECJ AND the UNCHR, but I guess you don't think past your foaming hatred of religion.

It's not an issue with funding

Then why does the state not provide more money to a) fund more educate together schools or b) buy the property of national schools owned by religious bodies?

Why not seize schools via payment? Why do you want the state to seize this land without compensation if the issue is not funding?

Mod-Banned

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The simpler solution is to ban any teaching of religion in state funded schools. No need to buy schools from religious orders or seize them. If parents want their children to learn about religion they can teach them themselves or send them to sunday. Expect religious participation to fall off a cliff if the state were brave enough to do that.

I would not be against that idea per say, but it would be wildly unpopular with the majority of parents. And parents vote.

I sympathise with parents who want to put their kids into an ET school and cannot get a place but to turn the blame from the government to religious-run schools is just idiotic.