Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna - Foe of Modern Ireland

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

Divorce? Didn't exist until the 80's unless you were able to wangle a church annulment(I knew of two that did).

The 80s? I knew some people who were separated back then but we couldn't legislate for divorce until after the 1995 referendum, which passed by something like half a percent.

Wibbs

iguana wrote: »

The 80s? I knew some people who were separated back then but we couldn't legislate for divorce until after the 1995 referendum, which passed by something like half a percent.

True, my mistake.

tritium

it's a measure of how much Ireland has evolved that we can have this discussion. All these things that we say are still an issue, well for the most part they wouldn't even have gotten an airing in a previous generation or so.

In reality things are very different (both for the better and worse in some respects). In another generation there will be another set if topical social issues that we pretend are the ongoing shame of Ireland but which we're only beginning to face up to now- maybe single fathers rights and male victims of domestic violence if I had my pick

Wibbs

tritium wrote: »

it's a measure of how much Ireland has evolved that we can have this discussion. All these things that we say are still an issue, well for the most part they wouldn't even have gotten an airing in a previous generation or so.

This. If Boards had been around in say the 50's it would have had a very different flavour.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tritium wrote: »

it's a measure of how much Ireland has evolved that we can have this discussion. All these things that we say are still an issue, well for the most part they wouldn't even have gotten an airing in a previous generation or so.

In reality things are very different (both for the better and worse in some respects). In another generation there will be another set if topical social issues that we pretend are the ongoing shame of Ireland but which we're only beginning to face up to now- maybe single fathers rights and male victims of domestic violence if I had my pick

Kind of - for me, we just switched one form of brainwashed non-resistance to another. We had the church, we allowed them to influence us, we never questioned. Now we have the midia - we allo the to influence and we still never question.

I'll go for a more socially liberal society where we are more acceptign and less judgemental in the years to come. It's the natural progession once the tabloids lose their influence.

hansfrei

Yes. Theres a huge amount of liberal brainwashing in the media. Too fcuking much.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

Yes. Theres a huge amount of liberal brainwashing in the media. Too fcuking much.

Ha ha! Not biting - we know "liberal media" is an oxymoron!:D

periodictable

I wonder if Una is getting the CHristian equivalent of the 72 virgins?

Pherekydes

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Nah, the differences between people born in the 40s and 50s and people born in the 70, 80s and 90s are stark, huge.

Hey, wtf? Us 60s' children want to be pigeonholed, too, you know.

Pherekydes

periodictable wrote: »

I wonder if Una is getting the CHristian equivalent of the 72 virgins?

69?

Doc Ruby

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hey, wtf? Us 60s' children want to be pigeonholed, too, you know.

Nonsense, you all emigrated.

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

it's a measure of how much Ireland has evolved that we can have this discussion. All these things that we say are still an issue, well for the most part they wouldn't even have gotten an airing in a previous generation or so.

In reality things are very different (both for the better and worse in some respects). In another generation there will be another set if topical social issues that we pretend are the ongoing shame of Ireland but which we're only beginning to face up to now- maybe single fathers rights and male victims of domestic violence if I had my pick

Yes! This is exactly what I was trying to say, in a less harbinger of doomy type way!

Absolutely we've made a lot of progress on social issues in society (there's a lot of it is just done on paper too, no, there I go again!), but basically the issues have changed, but the attitude towards dealing with these issues hasn't. It's too easy to say "Oh that'll be the grey vote conservatives", when there are people half my age who are immeasurably more conservative than I am. The reason I can't measure it is because for me the evidence is merely anecdotal, but when I'm dropping off my son to school (he's eight) in the morning, and I see two white kids younger than my son egging on two black kids to fight each other for their own amusement, that's just one example, I DO tend to think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree!

And before anyone suggests "Fcuk me you're one gloomy bastard", the thing is, as my wife often points out - "You're quiet when things are going well, but when somethings wrong with you, you kick off like a bull being castrated with a blunt scissors!". I mean, that's no different from anyone else - when things are going our way, we're grand, when things aren't going our way - we kick up! I just happen to think that yes, we've made some progress, but as Wibbs pointed out - we've a hell of a long way to go yet, and I put this down to attitudes in society needing to change rather than hoping legislation will change anything.

That's what I mean by a sinister undercurrent that we can't see and yet it's rampant. Because we just don't see it, or recognise it, or even some people refuse to acknowledge it still exists, and that's why I wonder when the influence of the church is diluted to be absolutely meaningless in a multi-cultural society, what excuse will people come up with then? And that's why I think of the UK as it is now as the best example of Ireland in 20 years time. Granted we won't have the same extremism, but the attitude will be there on an individual and anecdotal level.

Nobody's stupid enough to be so vocally homophobic, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, etc, but that doesn't mean these issues don't and won't exist, and no amount of legislation changes that. It's like the way legislation says employers can't discriminate, and yet, they still do, they're just more underhanded about it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Kind of - for me, we just switched one form of brainwashed non-resistance to another. We had the church, we allowed them to influence us, we never questioned. Now we have the midia - we allo the to influence and we still never question.

I'll go for a more socially liberal society where we are more acceptign and less judgemental in the years to come. It's the natural progession once the tabloids lose their influence.

Ahh, I see, we've moved on to blaming the media now, that would be the same media that has given us the broader outlook on the world, but now you're suggesting that they're trying to control how we view that world. I'm not saying I completely disagree with you, but I do think it's just another convenient explanation / excuse, rather than force ourselves to take a good hard look at ourselves and see that if we want society to change, we have to start with ourselves first and work our way outwards.

Dyr

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Still sore over getting your arse kicked in the lefties abandoning the unemployed thread?

eh? Last I saw of you horse, you were backpedalling out of the jobsbridge thread at speed

So is she dead or what? Grew up in the neighbourhood, know people who would have known UBMM, an odd fish by all accounts

Annasopra

Bambi wrote: »

So is she dead or what?

No

Femme_Fatale

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Still sore over getting your arse kicked in the lefties abandoning the unemployed thread?

I didn't see him getting his arse kicked whatsoever...

Pherekydes

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Nonsense, you all emigrated.

Ah, that's better.

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

The church hasn't been relevant in Irish society for the last 20 years

They still control 96% of publically funded primary schools, and some of them still think they should be able to control what treatments are offered in public-funded hospitals. They still have huge political influence, just look at how hard it was to get an extremely limited abortion law passed, and look at how they've got away with everything up to and including murder in relation to the slave laundries and institutionalised sex abuse with practically no consequences or compensation paid. Some individuals have been prosecuted, many more won't be and the RCC is still suppressing evidence and covering up and being allowed to do so by those in power.

Doc Ruby

Bambi wrote: »

eh? Last I saw of you horse, you were backpedalling out of the jobsbridge thread at speed

The fact that lefties, and the group which politically represents the vast majority of the left were not only silent while the unemployed were trampled, but were actually responsible for setting up institutionalised slavery at the behest of IBEC must gall, eh.

Now stop threadjacking this thread, because I for one was otherwise quite enjoying it and frankly I'm finding this a bit stalkerish.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I didn't see him getting his arse kicked whatsoever...

I do not care.

Czarcasm

ninja900 wrote: »

They still control 96% of publically funded primary schools, and some of them still think they should be able to control what treatments are offered in public-funded hospitals.

Have you ever asked yourself ninja how they're able to do this? Because they own most of the properties and lands on which these educational institutions and hospitals are built is why. They're not just going to give that up. The government would have to raise taxes to astronomical levels if they wanted to build schools and hospitals that had no association with the RC, and the same people who cry foul of the RC having patronage over schools and hospitals are the same people who are unwilling to fund the building of new schools and hospitals themselves (apart from a very small few people). Me personally I would like to see more privatisation of education and health, but again, people would have a problem with that too as they'd have to pay for it (corporate entities aren't known for their philanthropy), so you're kinda caught between a rock and a hard place there -

People will complain, but they're reluctant to do anything themselves that might contribute to solving the problem. It's not that we lack the resources, it's that we lack the will.

They still have huge political influence, just look at how hard it was to get an extremely limited abortion law passed, and look at how they've got away with everything up to and including murder in relation to the slave laundries and institutionalised sex abuse with practically no consequences or compensation paid. Some individuals have been prosecuted, many more won't be and the RCC is still suppressing evidence and covering up and being allowed to do so by those in power.

I see all that, and I also see how Enda cried a few crocodile tears and told the RC to piss off and the nation thought he was a great lad and finally we might see some change in this country, but when it came down to the wire, Enda like every other politician knew which side his bread was buttered and we ended up with some more cock-eyed, half-arsed legislation that cleared up nothing, same as the half-hearted "you must be separated for four out of five years before you can be divorced" nonsense.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ahh, I see, we've moved on to blaming the media now, that would be the same media that has given us the broader outlook on the world, but now you're suggesting that they're trying to control how we view that world. I'm not saying I completely disagree with you, but I do think it's just another convenient explanation / excuse, rather than force ourselves to take a good hard look at ourselves and see that if we want society to change, we have to start with ourselves first and work our way outwards.

Not intending to blame at all - but when you look at the likes of tabloid jounalism, Fox news et al, there most certainly is an attitude of "trust us, we know best and don't ask questions". This is a porblem on both sides of the political specturm, but the right-wig tends to be more prominent in it's public actions than the left. Now, this may or may not be a good thing, but it most certainly is the same attitude that the church had.

The problem is the publics attitude to actually go along with it. Again, very similar to the Caholic Church era.

Femme_Fatale

hansfrei wrote: »

Yes. Theres a huge amount of liberal brainwashing in the media. Too fcuking much.

"Brainwashing"? How?

Acceptance of things you don't like rather than condemning them/pretending they're not real... isn't brainwashing.

It's only opinion/commentary pieces that can push an agenda, and there are plenty of right-wingers at the forefront of the Irish media too.

Dyr

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The fact that lefties, and the group which politically represents the vast majority of the left were not only silent while the unemployed were trampled, but were actually responsible for setting up institutionalised slavery at the behest of IBEC must gall, eh.

Now stop threadjacking this thread, because I for one was otherwise quite enjoying it and frankly I'm finding this a bit stalkerish.


I do not care.

I'm threadjacking eh? You're the one who started dragging other threads into this thread me ould flower

Czarcasm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not intending to blame at all - but when you look at the likes of tabloid jounalism, Fox news et al, there most certainly is an attitude of "trust us, we know best and don't ask questions". This is a porblem on both sides of the political specturm, but the right-wig tends to be more prominent in it's public actions than the left. Now, this may or may not be a good thing, but it most certainly is the same attitude that the church had.

The problem is the publics attitude to actually go along with it. Again, very similar to the Caholic Church era.

Exactly, this is what I'm saying and I've been saying for a long time now - people aren't and weren't brainwashed, they CHOSE, WILLINGLY, to defer authority to the RCC, for numerous different reasons.

They are now choosing to believe what they are being told by media (and in that I also include social media and the internet), because it suits them to do so.

The problem with that again is, that people are blaming anyone or anything else for the ills in society, rather than seeing that THEY are a part of that society and so they can play a part in changing it into the society they want it to become. It's all well and good to wax lyrical on the internet about it and put forward ideas about what direction we would like society to take, but how much do we really buy into our own ideology offline?

Femme_Fatale

Bambi wrote: »

I'm threadjacking eh? You're the one who started dragging other threads into this thread me ould flower

Yeh you're the one who's a bit stalkerish, even though he's the one who started going on about you getting your ass kicked (you didn't) in that other thread...

Doc Ruby

Bambi wrote: »

I'm threadjacking eh? You're the one who started dragging other threads into this thread me ould flower

Bambi wrote: »

youd probably have thave been born in the 20s or 30s to really know what life was like in ireland back the 40s or 50s. when were you born? 80s? 90s? please do tell us all about life back in the 40s, im sure it will be fascinating stuff

You came into the thread spoiling for a fight, and after it was highlighted why you did so, you proceeded to try and win the argument you lost by threadjacking. I'll say it once more, stop threadjacking.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh you're the one who's a bit stalkerish, even though he's the one who started going on about you getting your ass kicked (you didn't) in that other thread...

You are also threadjacking.

Foxhound38

Poisonous individual - the sooner society moves on from this creepy, ultra-conservative ethos (and the source YD's funding is finally investigated), the better.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Czarcasm wrote: »

Exactly, this is what I'm saying and I've been saying for a long time now - people aren't and weren't brainwashed, they CHOSE, WILLINGLY, to defer authority to the RCC, for numerous different reasons.

They are now choosing to believe what they are being told by media (and in that I also include social media and the internet), because it suits them to do so.

The problem with that again is, that people are blaming anyone or anything else for the ills in society, rather than seeing that THEY are a part of that society and so they can play a part in changing it into the society they want it to become. It's all well and good to wax lyrical on the internet about it and put forward ideas about what direction we would like society to take, but how much do we really buy into our own ideology offline?

True, but if an organisation is going to appoint itself as some sort of societal guardians, as both the church and the tabloid have done, their first goal should really be to protect the weak, not exploit them.

Czarcasm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

True, but if an organisation is going to appoint itself as some sort of societal guardians, as both the church and the tabloid have done, their first goal should really be to protect the weak, not exploit them.

That would be the right thing to do, yes, but there's no profit in protecting the weak. Their intentions (both the RCC and the media) were never to protect the weak, but to exploit them. Who gave the church that moral authority? We did, or at least, Irish society at the time did, in the same way as we're now giving the media the authority to control what we see and hear.

Can we take back that authority? Absolutely, it's as easy as just not buying into it, and encouraging other people to think for themselves too, and not be so taken up with being told what to think by those whom we have allowed to appoint themselves moral guardians in our society.

We can either sit behind our keyboards and be bitter about it and lament the spiralling downward moral decay in our society and the lack of care and understanding for vulnerable and marginalised people in our society, or we can get out and start building the sort of society that we want to be part of.

I choose to build a society I want to be part of by my actions and how I treat other people. I know not everyone agrees with my philosophy, but if people want change, they have to start with themselves first, and work from the ground up, because it'll never work, and has never worked, from the top down.

The RCC Hierarchy, the media, and the politicians can politely go and fcuk themselves for all I care tbh. If you start with the people around you, that's how you start to change people's attitudes and that's who the next generation are learning from. That, in my opinion at least, is how a society grows and evolves to be more socially inclusive and caring for each other as opposed to judging each other and trying to be better than their neighbours.

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

Have you ever asked yourself ninja how they're able to do this? Because they own most of the properties and lands on which these educational institutions and hospitals are built is why....
People will complain, but they're reluctant to do anything themselves that might contribute to solving the problem. It's not that we lack the resources, it's that we lack the will.

That's perilously close to the "if they don't like it, they should build their own schools" argument.

The last thing we need in this country is yet more balkanisation of schools, needlessly split up on gender and religion grounds, wasting money, tearing children away from their local school because it is the 'wrong' type, and cutting minorities off from their community.

If change can only come about when new schools are built then change will be extremely slow (as we are seeing) and only in certain areas e.g. expanding suburbs. Those living in mature suburbs will continue to have no choice, those in small towns or rural areas will continue to have no choice, other than to suck up religious indoctrination for their kids in violation of their constitutional rights. The Department of Education will not sanction a new Educate Together or similar school in an area which doesn't have a shortage of school places overall.

The churches don't fund the running of the schools, in many cases they didn't fund the construction, and in some cases the land was paid for by the state as well.

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

That would be the right thing to do, yes, but there's no profit in protecting the weak. Their intentions (both the RCC and the media) were never to protect the weak, but to exploit them. Who gave the church that moral authority? We did, or at least, Irish society at the time did, in the same way as we're now giving the media the authority to control what we see and hear.

Hardly fair to judge people for going along with the RCC's dictates when they were brainwashed from birth, and threatened with eternal hellfire in the 'next life' and social ostracism in this one if they did not conform. Irish society was not in a position to make a free choice.

The media has far less power than before, it has never been easier to inform oneself or to spread ideas through non-traditional-media channels, as this site and many others demonstrate.

Czarcasm

ninja900 wrote: »

That's perilously close to the "if they don't like it, they should build their own schools" argument.

Perilously close? Being honest ninja that's exactly what I was suggesting, is that people come together and dig into their own pockets to fund exactly the sort of school they want.

It's not exactly a novel concept.

The last thing we need in this country is yet more balkanisation of schools, needlessly split up on gender and religion grounds, wasting money, tearing children away from their local school because it is the 'wrong' type, and cutting minorities off from their community.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from and all, but that's why I'm suggesting that where there's a will, there's most definitely a way! I wouldn't consider it a waste of money if I wanted to have my child educated in a school whose ethos I agreed with. I'd consider it more of a waste of money to contribute to a school and send my child to a school whose ethos I didn't agree with tbh.

If change can only come about when new schools are built then change will be extremely slow (as we are seeing) and only in certain areas e.g. expanding suburbs. Those living in mature suburbs will continue to have no choice, those in small towns or rural areas will continue to have no choice, other than to suck up religious indoctrination for their kids in violation of their constitutional rights.

There's the thing - there is always, always a choice. The alternative may be inconvenient initially, but that doesn't mean it should be discounted out of hand just because "it's too hard", etc. Now as for the religious indoctrination bit, children aren't forced either to do religious education or Irish if their parents object to them being taught these subjects.

The Department of Education will not sanction a new Educate Together or similar school in an area which doesn't have a shortage of school places overall.

Lets be honest, the Dept. of Education doesn't have a pot to piss in in terms of a budget for new schools, so you'll be a long time depending on them if you were to wait around for change. Successive Irish governments aren't known for their long term strategies either. So rather than depending on government to do anything, we could get it done a lot more efficiently and it'd have a much bigger benefit to the community if a community were to build a self-funded community school. Difficult, idealistic even, but not impossible.

The churches don't fund the running of the schools, in many cases they didn't fund the construction, and in some cases the land was paid for by the state as well.

Tell me about it, being on the board of management at my son's school I get to be constantly frustrated by the amount of bureaucracy that goes on. We couldn't even get a leaky roof fixed for months even though I knew people, professional tradesmen with papers, that would do it for nothing, had to wait for a capitation grant or some such. There was also a conflict of interest in that because I'm on the BOM of the school, I couldn't shave €5k off their IT spending by offering my services for free as opposed to paying somebody else to do it.

I think if we all really wanted to, we could change how things are done in this country, leading by example as opposed to adopting the defeatist "it can't be done" attitude. If I listened to people who tell me "it can't be done" on a daily basis, then nothing would get done, and I'm only one person.


Wibbs mentioned earlier if Boards had been around 50 years ago, but Boards wouldn't exist at all if Dev had listened to people who told him at the time he couldn't register Boards.ie as a domain name... and yet he did it

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

Perilously close? Being honest ninja that's exactly what I was suggesting, is that people come together and dig into their own pockets to fund exactly the sort of school they want.

Yes, it's an option, it's a very difficult one, and (let's face it) outside of comfortable middle-class suburbs anything that requires substantial parental/community funding just isn't going to happen.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from and all, but that's why I'm suggesting that where there's a will, there's most definitely a way! I wouldn't consider it a waste of money if I wanted to have my child educated in a school whose ethos I agreed with.

I was talking about the waste of state money, not the parents who may be funding the school.

I'd consider it more of a waste of money to contribute to a school and send my child to a school whose ethos I didn't agree with tbh.

We all contribute to state funded schools even if we don't have kids. And many people sending their children to religious schools just don't have any other option.

There's the thing - there is always, always a choice. The alternative may be inconvenient initially, but that doesn't mean it should be discounted out of hand just because "it's too hard", etc.

I don't think it's fair or reasonable to tell anyone objecting to state-funded religious indoctrination that they should either suck it up or set up their own.

Now as for the religious indoctrination bit, children aren't forced either to do religious education or Irish if their parents object to them being taught these subjectat they should just set up another school if they don't like it. Is.

In theory there is a right to opt out. In practice, often no other supervision is provided making it impossible. And religious instruction in primary is integrated throughout the syllabus.

Lets be honest, the Dept. of Education doesn't have a pot to piss in in terms of a budget for new schools, so you'll be a long time depending on them if you were to wait around for change. Successive Irish governments aren't known for their long term strategies either. So rather than depending on government to do anything, we could get it done a lot more efficiently and it'd have a much bigger benefit to the community if a community were to build a self-funded community school. Difficult, idealistic even, but not impossible.

It's one thing to build a school or find a premises, but to expect parents to pay for the entire running costs in perpetuity is unrealistic. It's also unfair, because it's only because of religious discrimination/indoctrination that there was the need to set up a new school in the first place.

Tell me about it, being on the board of management at my son's school I get to be constantly frustrated by the amount of bureaucracy that goes on. We couldn't even get a leaky roof fixed for months even though I knew people, professional tradesmen with papers, that would do it for nothing, had to wait for a capitation grant or some such.

The system is fundamentally broken, Quinn has said and done nothing to indicate he'll do anything other than tinker with it by handing over a few schools to ET here and there.

Femme_Fatale

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You came into the thread spoiling for a fight, and after it was highlighted why you did so, you proceeded to try and win the argument you lost by threadjacking.

Why have you convinced yourself he lost an argument? You said "lefties" support/don't condemn JobBridge, which is simply not true. It's mostly those to the right economically who support JobBridge, not to the left. Then you clarified that by lefties you meant the Labour Party, which is one party, not all lefties, and yeh, it's in government so it is going to support a government initiative like JobBridge - that's politics for ya.

LordSutch

JupiterKid wrote: »

Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna - Foe of Modern Ireland

Then it/they should be defeated.

JupiterKid wrote: »

Most boardies won't have heard of Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna.

No, never heard of it before.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

LordSutch wrote: »

Then it/they should be defeated.

She was.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

No, never heard of it before.

G’way ye wife-swapping sodomites

Femme_Fatale

LordSutch wrote: »

Then it/they should be defeated.
No, never heard of it before.

Why are you pretending not to know that refers to a woman?

Nodin

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why are you pretending not to know that refers to a woman?

...because its as gaeilge.

LordSutch

Daar Lord, what a narrow minded stale old dinoasur she was!

LordSutch

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why are you pretending not to know that refers to a woman?

Read the title, but I didn't read the thread, so I asked the question.

She's bloody awful too.

as gaeilge, or otherwise.

LordSutch

Mena Cribben was just as bad, and she doesn't have a very Irish name

I'm with Vicar in a Tutu on this one > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80120733&postcount=5

Insect Overlord

LordSutch wrote: »

Mena Cribben was just as bad, and she doesn't have a veryr Irish name

There was a great radio documentary done about her a few months ago. I think her granddaughter narrated it. Well worth checking out if you can find a podcast.

http://www.rte.ie/presspack/2012/09/29/documentary-on-one-mine-bean-ui-chribin-my-granny/