The NMH at St. Vincents

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

You have a point for those who do not want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos.

But you ignore the fact that many people are happy to send their children to a school with a religious ethos.

The reasonable answer is for the state to build schools to accommodate parents who want E.T schools, or entirely non-denominational schools, while allowing those who are happy with the current situation the same rights, as taxpayers.

The state cannot afford to buy church owned schools - nor would some people be happy were they to do so, including those from minority faiths.

So, the only realistic answer is for the state to actually live up to it's responsibilities, and provide the type of schools that people want to send their children to. Equal rights for all.

So what if I want a school that specializes in drama, and my neighbour wants one that has a sporting ethos, do we get different schools made available to us?

Equal rights for all, you know.

Walter H Price

Deleted User wrote: »

You have a point for those who do not want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos.

But you ignore the fact that many people are happy to send their children to a school with a religious ethos.

The reasonable answer is for the state to build schools to accommodate parents who want E.T schools, or entirely non-denominational schools, while allowing those who are happy with the current situation the same rights, as taxpayers.

The state cannot afford to buy church owned schools - nor would some people be happy were they to do so, including those from minority faiths.

So, the only realistic answer is for the state to actually live up to it's responsibilities, and provide the type of schools that people want to send their children to. Equal rights for all.

Do you think most people actively want Christianity in the classroom or are they just happy enough to tolerate it .

If in the morning the government announced that religious ethos would be taken out of schools and hospitals completely, or made a small subject giving an overview of faith in general (similar to primary history / geography currently) instead of the current situation , no religious sacrament preparation etc ... with the time instead used for more practical subjects like business , science , computing , languages as it is in state schools in the UK , Canada , Japan and almost all of Western Europe... do you think most parents would be happy enough or outraged ?

Do you think a majority would be outraged at the idea of a national maternity hospital that offered proper family planning services , elective sterilization , contraception , IVF etc ... do you think that would draw the ire that the idea of handing the hospital to a religious order has ?

My firm belief is that at that point you would see the true number of devout catholic parents and it would be well in the the minority.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

So what if I want a school that specializes in drama, and my neighbour wants one that has a sporting ethos, do we get different schools made available to us?

Equal rights for all, you know.

You think a school can't provide both drama, and sports? Really?

My local school does both - and does them very well....

Walter H Price

volchitsa wrote: »

Just heard Ronan Mullan on Sean O'Rourke parading his victimhood complex.

They genuinely expect us to believe that if they don't get public money to run hospitals according to their "ethos" they're being discriminated against.

I don't see us funding Muslim schools all over the place , or Jewish / Hindu hospitals etc ... no discrimination argument can be made here at all ... in fact its the opposite by having state institutions run to the ethos of one faith you are discriminating against members of every other and no faith.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

You think a school can't provide both drama, and sports? Really?

My local school does both - and does them very well....

I'm sure they can provide classes.

So what's the difference with having a single publicly funded school providing religion classes for all religions, rather than segregating children in schools that prioritize just one religion?

VinLieger

volchitsa wrote: »

So what if I want a school that specializes in drama, and my neighbour wants one that has a sporting ethos, do we get different schools made available to us?

Equal rights for all, you know.

Its not the same and you well know it, poor attempt.

But the simple answer to people asking the same question of what if they want to send their child to a specific religion ethos school is remove all religious ethos schools from state funding then if you want to send your kid to a specific religious ethos school you need to shell out the big bucks for private education.

volchitsa

VinLieger wrote: »

Its not the same and you well know it, poor attempt.

But the simple answer to people asking the same question of what if they want to send their child to a specific religion ethos school is remove all religious ethos schools from state funding then if you want to send your kid to a specific religious ethos school you need to shell out the big bucks for private education.

I'm asking why it's not the same, though?

And I think the posters defending public money for religious schools should be able to explain what the difference is.

It seems to me they have a double discourse in this - they claim they need specifically Catholic schools because the Catholic ethos is much more than just a couple of RE classes a week, but at the same time, they satisfy any non discrimination requirements just by allowing any non Catholics not to follow religion classes.

There's a major inconsistency there, either it's a global ethos, and kids staying out of religion classes is not even half of it ; or it's little more than religion classes which could easily be provided outside of school time.

But it can't be both.

VinLieger

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm asking why it's not the same, though?

And I think the posters defending public money for religious schools should be able to explain what the difference is.

It seems to me they have a double discourse in this - they claim they need specifically Catholic schools because the Catholic ethos is much more than just a couple of RE classes a week, but at the same time, they satisfy any non discrimination requirements just by allowing any non Catholics not to follow religion classes.

There's a major inconsistency there, either it's a global ethos, and kids staying out of religion classes is not even half of it ; or it's little more than religion classes which could easily be provided outside of school time.

But it can't be both.

Cus having an emphasis on sport and drama is not the same as religious ethos, a specific religious ethos involves teaching and enforcing a belief system that can massively influence children's opinions and future life decisions.

kylith

Walter H Price wrote: »

Do you think most people actively want Christianity in the classroom or are they just happy enough to tolerate it .

If in the morning the government announced that religious ethos would be taken out of schools and hospitals completely, or made a small subject giving an overview of faith in general (similar to primary history / geography currently) instead of the current situation , no religious sacrament preparation etc ... with the time instead used for more practical subjects like business , science , computing , languages as it is in state schools in the UK , Canada , Japan and almost all of Western Europe... do you think most parents would be happy enough or outraged ?

Do you think a majority would be outraged at the idea of a national maternity hospital that offered proper family planning services , elective sterilization , contraception , IVF etc ... do you think that would draw the ire that the idea of handing the hospital to a religious order has ?

My firm belief is that at that point you would see the true number of devout catholic parents and it would be well in the the minority.

If parents really want their kids to receive religious instruction then it is absolutely possible for them to do so outside of school hours.

IMO if any rukus came from removing RE from schools it probably would be from cultural Catholics who don't practise but who want their kids to make communion/confirmation for the day out but don't actually want to do a tap of work preparing for it. Much easier to focus on shopping for the dress and let the teacher do the religion bit.

Walter H Price

The crux of this whole argument is that people are welcome to believe what ever they want , and freedom of religion if you want to follow any of of the hundreds of faiths is ultimately a good thing , Though personally i despise organised religion you cannot ignore the fact that choice and freedom is always good ... but it is private and has no place in public life.

It becomes discriminatory when 1 faith is given preference over all others or none as is the case here , this hospital wont do voluntary sterilizations, it wont do IVF , it wont provide proper family planning services or provide contraceptives ... but will it provide Kosher and halal food options ? why is it ok that legitimate , legal medical procedures are not provided to secular or non catholic citizens who are paying through taxation for this hospitals building , maintenance and staffing ? I'm not sure how anyone can actually argue that this is not completely wrong in the modern world.

If the church want catholic hospitals , if they feel there is real significant demand for them and their ethos in healthcare i have no issue with them building staffing and maintaining their own hospitals , and devout Catholics paying privately to be cared for within the ethos of their faith.

volchitsa

VinLieger wrote: »

Cus having an emphasis on sport and drama is not the same as religious ethos, a specific religious ethos involves teaching and enforcing a belief system that can massively influence children's opinions and future life decisions.

That's my point, how can it be enough then to say that parents aren't being forced to accept some level of indoctrination in state funded religious schools just on the basis that they can remove the kid from religion class.

Walter H Price

volchitsa wrote: »

That's my point, how can it be enough then to say that parents aren't being forced to accept some level of indoctrination in state funded religious schools just on the basis that they can remove the kid from religion class.

Never mind the pressure on kids from there peers , friends etc.. when it comes to sacraments and they have to be the odd one out , that's not easy as a 7-8 year old... I've mentioned before in a previous thread , my friends son was baptized at 8 so he could make his communion because he was finding it so tough being the odd one out in school so much (it was rural school and he was the only one not making it) . That's simply not right for kids or secular parents to have that kind of pressure on them, with no alternative available in most places. They communion meant nothing to him other then he didn't want the other kids thinking he was "wierd".

It has been shown fairly clearly what role that same catholic ethos played in the death of Savita Halapanavar , a Hindu woman in an Irish hospital. How removing the RCC from state run institutions can even be a debate at this stage is beyond me to be honest.

Boggy Turf

Walter H Price wrote: »

How removing the RCC from state run institutions can even be a debate at this stage is beyond me to be honest.

+1

The debate is over, now we need to see action from our cowardly politicians.

volchitsa

Boggy Turf wrote: »

+1

The debate is over, now we need to see action from our cowardly politicians.

I won't be holding my breath on that.

Ruth Coppinger TD‏Verified account @RuthCoppingerTD

Now it seems I cant ask question to minister about TDs being unable to move Bill to remove Bishop from #nationalmaterityhospital board #dubw

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/859705138843459585/photo/1

kylith

kylith wrote: »

For me, TBH, it's not even about the order's record. There is simply no way that 300m of public funds be handed over to a private group who can then refuse to carry out medical procedures because they disagree with them.

Walter H Price wrote: »

How removing the RCC from state run institutions can even be a debate at this stage is beyond me to be honest.

I've tried, but I can't see what the problem is with state funded, owned and run public health and education.

It really begs the question, why religious orders are not only clinging onto the existing institutions but actively trying to take over new ones.

Well, to be fair, it begs a rhetorical question for most.

kylith wrote: »

if a religious group wants to impose their ethos on a public service (schools/hospitals) they can pay for it themselves, from construction to staffing and upkeep.

They're frickin' loaded thanks to the generosity of the Irish people and the State, they can certainly afford to!

Walter H Price

volchitsa wrote: »

I won't be holding my breath on that.

Ruth Coppinger TD‏Verified account @RuthCoppingerTD






https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/859705138843459585/photo/1

i cant stand Ruth Coppingers politics but to be fair she is spot on with this stuff ... i think Fianna Fail and Finna Gael are too afraid of p!ssing off the grey vote to do anything other than fudge this stuff , change is coming but more likely in the next 18 years then 18 months.

jimmycrackcorm

Walter H Price wrote:

i cant stand Ruth Coppingers politics but to be fair she is spot on with this stuff ... i think Fianna Fail and Finna Gael are too afraid of p!ssing off the grey vote to do anything other than fudge this stuff , change is coming but more likely in the next 18 years then 18 months.

Send she was trying to direct a question to the Tanaiste that was outside the remit. Why doesn't she simply bring a bill forward?

But I agree it will take time to change.

Boggy Turf

Honest question - will there be any nuns left in 20 years time?
And if they are all gone, who gets their assets?

Walter H Price

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Send she was trying to direct a question to the Tanaiste that was outside the remit. Why doesn't she simply bring a bill forward?

But I agree it will take time to change.

some of it is gamesmanship she knows she'll get more likes and re-tweets and air time from not being allowed ask a question then she will from actually trying to change something. its a major part of the problem with politics in general here its all about soundbites and no substance from all sides.

You can see that pretty clearly with Harris handling of this hospital issue , the radio silence on the baptism barrier, the fudging around repealing the 8th and the number of them that voted for retaining the prayer purely for optics among older voters . Hard to see change coming when there is such little political will.

Geuze

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Honest question - will there be any nuns left in 20 years time?
And if they are all gone, who gets their assets?

CBS schools have been transferred to trusts.


http://www.erst.ie/

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

I've tried, but I can't see what the problem is with state funded, owned and run public health and education.

I have very briefly taught children from a VEC/ETB school, followed the same day with children from a Convent of Mercy.

The apathy from the VEC pupils was palpable.

When I asked a question of the Mercy girls, multiple hands were raised.

It would be a big effort to convince me to send my child to a State school.

Walter H Price

Geuze wrote: »

CBS schools have been transferred to trusts.


http://www.erst.ie/

when the orders go that's what will happen all the assets will remain within "trusts" controlled by the RCC

ohnonotgmail

Geuze wrote: »

I have very briefly taught children from a VEC/ETB school, followed the same day with children from a Convent of Mercy.

The apathy from the VEC pupils was palpable.

When I asked a question of the Mercy girls, multiple hands were raised.

It would be a big effort to convince me to send my child to a State school.

it is unwise to extrapolate from a single data point.

lawred2

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm asking why it's not the same, though?

Seriously?

aloyisious

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Honest question - will there be any nuns left in 20 years time?
And if they are all gone, who gets their assets?

Three Nuns orders, Sisters of Charity, Bon Secours and the Sisters of Mercy controlling hospitals here have it in their charters that should the order cease to exist, the hospitals MUST be handed on to bodies with the same ethos. This includes the Mater, SVH, and Temple St, National Rehab Hospital and St Michael's Hospital D/Laoghaire & the Bon Secours and Mercy Uni Hospitals in Cork.

St John of God (Brothers Hospitallers of St John of God) on the Stillorgan Rd is run by an order of brothers with others service locations around Ireland.

On a bye the bye, one property valuation for the car park at St Vincent's values it @ €23 million. I don't know whether that valuation is the current valuation though, given how the market is in flux.

volchitsa

lawred2 wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes. Everyone seems to think it's obvious, nobody seems to want to unpick it.

It seems to be one those unspoken things that nobody can quite explain. Like "abortions are bad", even when you're pro choice.

If it's that obvious (about religious ethos), then for example, why can't someone explain the apparent inconsistency I queried in the next post.

Walter H Price

aloyisious wrote: »

Three Nuns orders, Sisters of Charity, Bon Secours and the Sisters of Mercy controlling hospitals here have it in their charters that should the order cease to exist, the hospitals MUST be handed on to bodies with the same ethos. This includes the Mater, SVH, and Temple St, National Rehab Hospital and St Michael's Hospital D/Laoghaire & the Bon Secours and Mercy Uni Hospitals in Cork.

St John of God (Brothers Hospitallers of St John of God) on the Stillorgan Rd is run by an order of brothers with others service locations around Ireland.

On a bye the bye, one property valuation for the car park at St Vincent's values it @ €23 million. I don't know whether that valuation is the current valuation though, given how the market is in flux.

Given that land isn't zoned for housing and the council controls the zoning rights the property market wont affect its valuation at all , land is only as valuable as what can be built or planted on it. €23m would be a small price to pay for secular healthcare to be honest , baring in mind under the current agreement we are gifting them a €300m hospital fully staffed and equipped in return for land valued at a fraction of that cost that they cant build anything on without the states permission.

VinLieger

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes. Everyone seems to think it's obvious, nobody seems to want to unpick it.

It seems to be one those unspoken things that nobody can quite explain. Like "abortions are bad", even when you're pro choice.

If it's that obvious (about religious ethos), then for example, why can't someone explain the apparent inconsistency I queried in the next post.

I unpicked it for you teaching sports or drama to children is not the same as teaching a specifics religious beliefs.

IF they were being taught about religions then there would be a similarity but they aren't, what is taught in schools is basically "how to think like and be a good catholic"

volchitsa

VinLieger wrote: »

I unpicked it for you teaching sports or drama to children is not the same as teaching a specifics religious beliefs.

IF they were being taught about religions then there would be a similarity but they aren't, what is taught in schools is basically "how to think like and be a good catholic"

Which is why I asked how it also possible to claim that to avoid suspicions of indoctrination, it is enough just to allow children not to attend religion classes in such schools?

That's where I have a problem. Well, it's one of the problems.

VinLieger

volchitsa wrote: »

Which is why I asked how it also possible to claim that to avoid suspicions of indoctrination, it is enough just to allow children not to attend religion classes in such schools?

That's where I have a problem. Well, it's one of the problems.

And it was pointed out to you the situation it leads to where children end up feeling left out and potentially bullied. If you had any experience of how badly that excemption is practiced in most schools you would also understand how much of a cop out it actually is and that many schools actually just ignore the wishes of the parent under the excuse they sent their child to a catholic school.

Then there are the cases where the teacher basically makes the child sit in the corner with their back to the class during religious teachings turning the child into a pariah to the rest of the class and pointing them out as different. Tell me how do you think 20-30 children are gonna react to a child who the teacher specifically identifies as being different?