Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

Vivisectus

However, a quick glance at the non-Christian world will see similar attitudes to women extended there. Therefore it can be safely concluded that this attitude doesn't have its seed in Christianity. This idea has been an accepted value of most of not all societies long before monotheistic religion's of the west emerged. Of course religion add their own flavor to the pie, no disputing that.

You are using the same logic again which gave us the baby-home death rate which cannot be meaningfully compared to anything but other baby-home deathrates.

Using the same logic, we can conclude that since racism is not unique to the KKK, and was certainly not invented by it, any statements such as "The racist attitudes in areas dominated by the KKK are ultimately seeded in the KKK" are incorrect.

Apparently an organization that is not unique in propagating misogyny cannot be considered the root cause of the misogyny it propagates in a particular area in a particular time!

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

Apparently an organization that is not unique in propagating misogyny cannot be considered the root cause of the misogyny it propagates in a particular area in a particular time!

Misogyny existed before Christianity and currently exists in many parts of the world where Christianity has little or no influence. It exists in parts of the world where religion has little or no influence. Therefore it stands to reason that there is something more to misogyny than putting the entire blame of it on Christianity. Generally these answers are more nuanced.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Misogyny existed before Christianity and currently exists in many parts of the world where Christianity has little or no influence. It exists in parts of the world where religion has little or no influence. Therefore it stands to reason that there is something more to misogyny than putting the entire blame of it on Christianity. Generally these answers are more nuanced.

No-one is blaming the church for all misogyny in the world and all misogyny in history, as you are disingenuously pretending.

Just the misogyny they helped create and sustain in Ireland, a particularly unpleasant and pervasive kind.

there is still plenty of it about today: this is why the RCC is one of the few institutions that gets away with blatant discrimination against women: they are unable to get any leadership positions, cannot become priests, get treated differently if they want to pursue the monastic life, etc. etc. etc.

If we take the logic you use in your apologetics for the church, slave-owners would not be morally culpable because they did not invent slavery and are not the only ones doing it. It is beyond silly.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Misogyny existed before Christianity and currently exists in many parts of the world where Christianity has little or no influence. It exists in parts of the world where religion has little or no influence. Therefore it stands to reason that there is something more to misogyny than putting the entire blame of it on Christianity. Generally these answers are more nuanced.

History is not static jank - western society has moved on , we have had the Reformation and the Enlightment etc . The RCC has moved on also but at an infinitely slower pace .That may put it just ahead of other religions but light years behind our society.

That is why it has opposed virtually every social change for centuries. I might remind you the 'modern' church was very happy with Franco's Spain.

SpaceTime

aloyisious wrote: »

Govt Health Minister instructed that no pregnant women were to be sent to Bessborough home. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/government-banned-sending-pregnant-women-to-bessborough-in-1945-283559.html

Did the order get taken seriously or did the parallel religious government just ignore the minister entirely?

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

No-one is blaming the church for all misogyny in the world and all misogyny in history, as you are disingenuously pretending.

Well Cabal did take issue with this fact. He/she believed misogyny in the 19th and 20th century is the fault of Christianity, not withstanding the fact that if Christianity did not exist would the West be misogynist free? Any rational human being would say no.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If we take the logic you use in your apologetics for the church, slave-owners would not be morally culpable because they did not invent slavery and are not the only ones doing it. It is beyond silly.

Society is morally culpable for slavery or the mother and baby homes. However, its easier to dress many of these questions up as a monochromatic argument as one doesn't have to deal with awkward or real questions. Hence my comments in this thread. From the frying pan into the fire is the term I think

jank

marienbad wrote: »

History is not static jank - western society has moved on , we have had the Reformation and the Enlightment etc . The RCC has moved on also but at an infinitely slower pace .That may put it just ahead of other religions but light years behind our society.

That is why it has opposed virtually every social change for centuries. I might remind you the 'modern' church was very happy with Franco's Spain.

Interesting that you used Franco's Spain. It seemed for much of the 20th century many socialist and communist movements wanted to tear down the established hierarchy. "God is dead" as Nietzsche famously said. Only the left God and the church was replaced by the cult of personality of men (why do the left never have women dictators?) ideology and the authoritarian power of the state.

History moves on but only a fool would think that we actually learn from past mistakes.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Well Cabal did take issue with this fact. He/she believed misogyny in the 19th and 20th century is the fault of Christianity, not withstanding the fact that if Christianity did not exist would the West be misogynist free? Any rational human being would say no.

I would say that Cabal is largely correct: Christianity is and has been a powerful force that perpetuates, promotes and justifies misogyny and sexual inequality. You can quibble and say that it is not responsible for all misogyny, but I really do not see what difference that makes.

Society is morally culpable for slavery or the mother and baby homes. However, its easier to dress many of these questions up as a monochromatic argument as one doesn't have to deal with awkward or real questions. Hence my comments in this thread. From the frying pan into the fire is the term I think

How handy! If the blame threatens to fall where we do not find it comfortable, we just come up with a convenient "society" to take the wrap for us.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

Well Cabal did take issue with this fact....rable rable

Junk, I was going to post a response but in all honesty I couldn't be arsed.

You are unable to listen to any critical comments against the catholic church, you are all about the misdirection and frankly anyone reading this thread can see that plain as day.

Of course I never blamed the catholic church for all misogyny, but in the case of Ireland it is by far a large contributing factor in the past decades. Thankfully that is changing, even if the church has fights all these changes.

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

I would say that Cabal is largely correct: Christianity is and has been a powerful force that perpetuates, promotes and justifies misogyny and sexual inequality. You can quibble and say that it is not responsible for all misogyny, but I really do not see what difference that makes.

Cabal took issue with the word 'western' that I used, instead he thinks the more apt word would be 'Christian'. Again, it is interesting to note, pontificating aside that you do not reject the notion that a) Christianity is not the root or the seed of western misogyny b) if Christianity did not exist said misogyny would not have magically disappeared.

Just look at the quote again.

A symptom of Western society? I think you'll find is very much a symptom of the Christian based religion and its negative view towards all women

This reads like what I said. Misogyny is not a western ill, it is a Christian one, dare I say it 'solely' a Christian one. Of course it ignores logic, that there was a western civilization about one thousand years before Christianity even gained roots here and no it was not utopia for women.

Vivisectus wrote: »

How handy! If the blame threatens to fall where we do not find it comfortable, we just come up with a convenient "society" to take the wrap for us.

Well, if a common denominator across all civilizations known to man throughout the whole of recorded history shows women for the vast majority of it to be treated 'differently' to men, don't you think that says more about humans than about a particular church on a rock off the west coast of Europe?

Indeed, it is handy to find a scapegoat in an old and crumbling institution but the truth about the mother and baby homes was that many brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins sent their female relatives to these places knowingly. How many people do you think want to really look at their grandparents in a different light? Not many, so instead they can blame some institution that 'kidnapped' these women. People want the truth to come out, but do they really want to know that their grandfather/granduncle/an old cousin raped a neighbor in the 1930's? Because that is the real big part of the truth that nobody wants to even talk about. People are interested in a convenient truth.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Cabal took issue with the word 'western' that I used, instead he thinks the more apt word would be 'Christian'. Again, it is interesting to note, pontificating aside that you do not reject the notion that a) Christianity is not the root or the seed of western misogyny b) if Christianity did not exist said misogyny would not have magically disappeared.

Nor do you reject the notion that the church promotes, legitimizes and perpetuates misogyny and sexism, and that it was the inherent misogynistic atavism of Christianity that was the main contributor to the attitude that led to the circumstances in those homes. Glad we cleared that up!

This reads like what I said. Misogyny is not a western ill, it is a Christian one, dare I say it 'solely' a Christian one. Of course it ignores logic, that there was a western civilization about one thousand years before Christianity even gained roots here and no it was not utopia for women.

No-one is blaming Christianity for ALL misogyny. Just the plentiful misogyny they keep perpetuating and justifying. You seem to be having difficulty remembering this.

Well, if a common denominator across all civilizations known to man throughout the whole of recorded history shows women for the vast majority of it to be treated 'differently' to men, don't you think that says more about humans than about a particular church on a rock off the west coast of Europe?

There was racism before the KKK existed. So really, we should not see the racism that the KKK espouses as a KKK problem: it is a human problem, and it is unfair the way they keep getting blamed for espousing racism and encouraging violence.

Or, we could use a double standard and only apply this kind of apologetic for organisations that we like.

Indeed, it is handy to find a scapegoat in an old and crumbling institution but the truth about the mother and baby homes was that many brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins sent their female relatives to these places knowingly. How many people do you think want to really look at their grandparents in a different light? Not many, so instead they can blame some institution that 'kidnapped' these women. People want the truth to come out, but do they really want to know that their grandfather/granduncle/an old cousin raped a neighbor in the 1930's? Because that is the real big part of the truth that nobody wants to even talk about. People are interested in a convenient truth.

Sure, people like to blame the wide-spread kluklux klan for the lynchings that happened in post-civil war southern USA. But the truth was that these people were just racist, and racism is a human problem... saying that the KKK was a massive contributor to the atmosphere of racism and violence is just scapegoating, finding convenient simple truths.

Can we really say that this had anything to do with some old organisation cobbled together out of disgruntled civil war veterans had anything to do with it?

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

Nor do you reject the notion that the church promotes, legitimizes and perpetuates misogyny and sexism, and that it was the inherent misogynistic atavism of Christianity that was the main contributor to the attitude that led to the circumstances in those homes. Glad we cleared that up!

Well I did say that they added their own flavour to the pie, but you seem to like repeating yourself multiple times.

Vivisectus wrote: »

No-one is blaming Christianity for ALL misogyny. Just the plentiful misogyny they keep perpetuating and justifying. You seem to be having difficulty remembering this.

Only misogyny in the West so...

Vivisectus wrote: »

There was racism before the KKK... blah blah..

Yes, KKK = RCC, understood. Anymore false equivalencies?

aloyisious

Public vote = Oireachtas, Oireachtas gender ratio = misogynistic tendency, misogyny = Irish Republic, Irish Republic uses religious to school children, children grow into public voters... logical thought process?

Excepting for the hiccup caused by the priests who wanted what the public had (sex - but weren't allowed) and grabbed it, the wheel would never have come off the waggon and broken the faith-link (pun) between the churches and the public.

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

Well I did say that they added their own flavour to the pie, but you seem to like repeating yourself multiple times.

Only misogyny in the West so...

Quite a bit of it, yes. To such an extent that we would be hard-pressed to distinguish the background misogyny which you claim exists from good old-fashioned Christian misogyny, your "added flavor". How innocent that sounds... all they did was slightly alter the flavor, and look what a big deal people make of it!

Yes, KKK = RCC, understood. Anymore false equivalencies?

That is of course not even close to the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out that your apologetic for the church works equally well for the KKK, thus demonstrating how silly it is. It seems the only way you can deal with that argument is by pretending it was a different one entirely.

Misrepresentation is a key part of the "defence" I've noticed.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Interesting that you used Franco's Spain. It seemed for much of the 20th century many socialist and communist movements wanted to tear down the established hierarchy. "God is dead" as Nietzsche famously said. Only the left God and the church was replaced by the cult of personality of men (why do the left never have women dictators?) ideology and the authoritarian power of the state.

History moves on but only a fool would think that we actually learn from past mistakes.

So what has 20th century 20th century many socialist and communist movements got to do with anything I said ? jank can you please stick to the point.

There is a correspondence from the Dept.Foreign Affairs written in the 30's that was release a number of years ago ( I will try to find it if I can ) musing on Ireland developing more connections with the catholic dictators of Spain Italy and Portugal as those countries were more like us than the western democracies .

It is the Catholic faith that comes first in those types of mind set and they governed Ireland for the first 70 years . Not just the elected politician but the civil servants doctors lawyers the lot. Home Rule turned out to be Rome Rule after all or as much as made no difference.

Going Strong

marienbad wrote: »

So what has 20th century 20th century many socialist and communist movements got to do with anything I said ? jank can you please stick to the point.

There is a correspondence from the Dept.Foreign Affairs written in the 30's that was release a number of years ago ( I will try to find it if I can ) musing on Ireland developing more connections with the catholic dictators of Spain Italy and Portugal as those countries were more like us than the western democracies .

It is the Catholic faith that comes first in those types of mind set and they governed Ireland for the first 70 years . Not just the elected politician but the civil servants doctors lawyers the lot. Home Rule turned out to be Rome Rule after all or as much as made no difference.

They were in negotiations with the French Vichy regime as well to formalise relations and trade with each other but the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943 put everything on hold. Admiring comments were made that Pétain's patriarchal "Travail, Patrie, Famille" approach was the sort of thing Ireland agreed with. Spain's Franco and Portugal's Salazar were running the type of staunchly Catholic, economically Corporatist and determinedly anti-Communist countries that Ireland wanted most to be like.

marienbad

Going Strong wrote: »

They were in negotiations with the French Vichy regime as well to formalise relations and trade with each other but the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943 put everything on hold. Admiring comments were made that Pétain's patriarchal "Travail, Patrie, Famille" approach was the sort of thing Ireland agreed with. Spain's Franco and Portugal's Salazar were running the type of staunchly Catholic, economically Corporatist and determinedly anti-Communist countries that Ireland wanted most to be like.

Indeed , it is no accident that we ended up as we did . As we now know the Mother & Child Scheme was only the tip of the iceberg.

aloyisious

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed , it is no accident that we ended up as we did . As we now know the Mother & Child Scheme was only the tip of the iceberg.

No mistaking that the two Christian churches were determined that they would be the guiding light in the marital bedroom, no "Reds under the beds" socialism here, thank you.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMother_and_Child_Scheme&ei=wxELVLaqLe-y7AaPzoGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHx16GAerJ-6mODSKCXeQwG4HGkng

Going Strong

aloyisious wrote: »

No mistaking that the two Christian churches were determined that they would be the guiding light in the marital bedroom, no "Reds under the beds" socialism here, thank you.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMother_and_Child_Scheme&ei=wxELVLaqLe-y7AaPzoGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHx16GAerJ-6mODSKCXeQwG4HGkng

When house-sitting my maternal grandmother's house in the early 1990's, there were a number of anti-Communist books from the 1920's and 1930's written by priests. All of them were of the opinion that, as Communism was Godless, then nothing that Communism/Socialism came up with was worth considering no matter how "appealing" it might sound in theory and let that be an end to the matter.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed , it is no accident that we ended up as we did . As we now know the Mother & Child Scheme was only the tip of the iceberg.

This has been discussed already and unsurprisingly the accepted truth here is maybe not what it seems. Reality seems more nuanced.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90741695&postcount=1191

marienbad

jank wrote: »

This has been discussed already and unsurprisingly the accepted truth here is maybe not what it seems. Reality seems more nuanced.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90741695&postcount=1191

Again jank ,this contradicts nothing of what I have said. Indeed in reinforces it.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Again jank ,this contradicts nothing of what I have said. Indeed in reinforces it.

Reinforces what? That the general view why the Mother and Baby scheme failed was because of the clergy?

Cabaal

marienbad wrote: »

Again jank ,this contradicts nothing of what I have said. Indeed in reinforces it.

It doesn't have to, with Junk its all about misrepresentation, misdirection and veiled attempts to excuse the despicable decisions taken by the catholic church in the past.

Child welfare was low on the priority's when it came to children, that is well documented and its backed up when you look at how the church picked suitable parents to sell children to.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Reinforces what? That the general view why the Mother and Baby scheme failed was because of the clergy?

Jank this is what I said

''Not just the elected politician but the civil servants doctors lawyers the lot.''

In addition if you own the education systems and the health system you can get others to do your bidding. This is not to say the consultants didn't have their own agenda - they did, but the opposition of Mcquaid and the church was crucial to getting the whole thing underway. After that it was all down hill for Browne and he didn't help either

jank

marienbad wrote: »

Jank this is what I said

''Not just the elected politician but the civil servants doctors lawyers the lot.''

In addition if you own the education systems and the health system you can get others to do your bidding. This is not to say the consultants didn't have their own agenda - they did, but the opposition of Mcquaid and the church was crucial to getting the whole thing underway. After that it was all down hill for Browne and he didn't help either

That is the accepted view of course, but with the link I posted by someone who would be very much in your camp, that their anecdotal personal and professional experience that it was not the church who stopped that scheme in its track. I merely pointed this out as we should always be examining our history and where accepted truisms are merely axioms. Make a big deal of it if you want.

That A didn't object to stopping X doesn't imply a single thing about A's view on the original creation of X, several years earlier.

There's no logical connect you can infer there.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

That is the accepted view of course, but with the link I posted by someone who would be very much in your camp, that their anecdotal personal and professional experience that it was not the church who stopped that scheme in its track. I merely pointed this out as we should always be examining our history and where accepted truisms are merely axioms. Make a big deal of it if you want.

The main initial opposition did come from the church,there were other forces at play also,no one ever disputes that. Similarly no one disputes the contrary nature of the Minister either which played a huge part in his inability to rally any kind of support. But the opposition of the Archbishop was more than enough to stop it in its tracks and enable those other forces to gain traction and finish the job.

It was ever thus , the church rarely does its own dirty work , they usually have the school board of management or the likes of the Iona institute for that.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

The main initial opposition did come from the church,there were other forces at play also,no one ever disputes that. Similarly no one disputes the contrary nature of the Minister either which played a huge part in his inability to rally any kind of support. But the opposition of the Archbishop was more than enough to stop it in its tracks and enable those other forces to gain traction and finish the job.

It was ever thus , the church rarely does its own dirty work , they usually have the school board of management or the likes of the Iona institute for that.

Not according to that persons Phd. You are proving my point regarding truisms and axioms with every post.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

Not according to that persons Phd. You are proving my point regarding truisms and axioms with every post.

I don't follow . what are you saying exactly ? That McQuaid et al were not opposed to the scheme ?