The NMH at St. Vincents

Walter H Price

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.

No its not just about avoiding religion class or lessons , just like the procedures the hospital wont do because its against their ethos (Terminations , Elective Sterilizations etc...) Catholic primary schools here teach little or no science , you wont here about evolution or the big bang , you might get to do some nature stuff , the sex ed curriculum is an absolute joke compared to programs in place in the UK , Scandinavia and Holland ( that's at primary and secondary level) again not taught properly based on ethos. The religious stuff in primary is pervasive and time wasting particularly in years with sacraments and preparation.

a hospital and a school is no place for an ethos , outside of basic medical ethics there should be nothing else at play in a hospital if a procedure is legitimate , legal and in the best interest of the patient then it should be carried out, as mentioned ethos played a direct role in the death of Savita Halapanavar ... a Maternity hospital seems a pretty obvious place to be offering proper family planning services including IVF and elective sterilization , information about and provision of contraceptives etc...

volchitsa

VinLieger wrote: »

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?

I think you can't have read my posts properly. I'm not defending it, I was actually asking someone who was defending it to explain the logic behind it, when you jumped in and told me my question was rubbish.

You've just made it clear that you didn't have a clue what I was actually tryimg to ascertain.

Now maybe I expressed it badly - though since I'd asked a question rather than expressed an opinion, it seems a bit hasty of you to have decided to shut the discussion down like that.

Who knows, maybe we'd even have got an answer by now from someone who supports the current system? :rolleyes:

VinLieger

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you can't have read my posts properly. I'm not defending it, I was actually asking someone who was defending it to explain the logic behind it, when you jumped in and told me my question was rubbish.

You've just made it clear that you didn't have a clue what I was actually tryimg to ascertain.

Now maybe I expressed it badly - though since I'd asked a question rather than expressed an opinion, it seems a bit hasty of you to have decided to shut the discussion down like that.

Who knows, maybe we'd even have got an answer by now from someone who supports the current system? :rolleyes:

I was pointing out your comparison as being ridiculous.

Also considering who you were arguing with expecting an answer from them is pretty ridiculous considering their posting history, they wont answer questions they can't. Notice they did actually reply to your post and ignored that question completely?

aloyisious

Walter H Price wrote: »

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.

Its entirely possible that (separate to the ethos issue) the SOC, due to previous or existing property deals involving St Vincent's, the further passing over of SVH property rights to a third party may NOT be legally possible. The SOC property portfolio ownership papers (bank loans) might be very enlightening in that regard.

I was thinking that, should the order wish to sell the property site needed for the new NMH to the Govt, it might have to break its charter and step away from its ethos and the church. That could end up with dissolution of the order as an RC group by the church, a withdrawal of its legitimacy & motivation.

Walter H Price

aloyisious wrote: »

Its entirely possible that (separate to the ethos issue) the SOC, due to previous or existing property deals involving St Vincent's, the further passing over of SVH property rights to a third party may NOT be legally possible. The SOC property portfolio ownership papers (bank loans) might be very enlightening in that regard.

I was thinking that, should the order wish to sell the property site needed for the new NMH to the Govt, it might have to break its charter and step away from its ethos and the church. That could end up with dissolution of the order as an RC group by the church, a withdrawal of its legitimacy & motivation.

Oh i very much agree i imagine they cant sell the land to the government , its why i believe a CPO is the best route for both parties. I very much doubt they could seel the land to government for the development of a secular hospital without be leagly instructed to via CPO, hence the "gift"

i.e we will allow you build us a €300M facility fully equipped and staffed , which we will then run to our ethos and regardless what procedures / information you deem legal we may elect not to allow them in the hospital you have built and paid for.

This is medicine its advancing all the time , the church is hardly know for being remotely progressive , this can only continue to cause issues insane that the government were so willing to get this "deal" through.

Walter H Price

Walter H Price wrote: »

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.

You do realise that CofI and presbyterian schools are also funded?

I see no reason why the same couldn't be done for Hindu and Muslim schools? Also secular, where required.

Removing a religious ethos from all schools discrimintes against those who want a religious ethos, irrespective of faith. Just as refusing to provide secular schools discriminates against those of no faith.

The logical answer is to provide choice.

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Cost.

As I explained earlier in the thread, a huge number of primary schools are church owned.
The parents who are happy to have their children attend these schools pay taxes the same way you do.

Hence, those who want secular schools need to persuade the Government to fund the type of education they desire - not impose it on everyone else, while using their property to do so....

Walter H Price wrote: »

No its not just about avoiding religion class or lessons , just like the procedures the hospital wont do because its against their ethos (Terminations , Elective Sterilizations etc...)1: Catholic primary schools here teach little or no science , you wont here about evolution or the big bang , you might get to do some nature stuff ,2: the sex ed curriculum is an absolute joke compared to programs in place in the UK , Scandinavia and Holland ( that's at primary and secondary level) again not taught properly based on ethos. The religious stuff in primary is pervasive and time wasting particularly in years with sacraments and preparation.

a hospital and a school is no place for an ethos , outside of basic medical ethics there should be nothing else at play in a hospital if a procedure is legitimate , legal and in the best interest of the patient then it should be carried out, 3:as mentioned ethos played a direct role in the death of Savita Halapanavar ... a Maternity hospital seems a pretty obvious place to be offering proper family planning services including IVF and elective sterilization , information about and provision of contraceptives etc...

1: ? Citation needed. Science is just one of the subjects that follows the Dept of Education Curriculum.

2: Also part of the curriculum - agreed with the Dept of Education.

3: Galway University Hospital is not, to my knowledge, owned by a Religious order?

lawred2

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.

?

Yes it is obvious.

Inculcating a religious ethos is not the same as teaching a child how to play the clarinet or how to play squash.

Can't see why that would need any level of 'unpicking'.

Geuze

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.

The state funds both. What is your point apart from an anecdote?

Osgoodisgood

Removing a religious ethos from all schools discrimintes against those who want a religious ethos, irrespective of faith. Just as refusing to provide secular schools discriminates against those of no faith.

The logical answer is to provide choice.


So how can that choice be best achieved? Clearly a plan to replicate the assets of church owned schools just to provide the secular options would be prohibitively costly and also largely unnecessary as the demand is for secular education not for twice the supply.
Perhaps a more efficient model might be to transfer ownership of 50% of the schools back to the state for the purposes of delivering a range of educational models which better reflect Ireland's modern demographics.

volchitsa

lawred2 wrote: »

?

Yes it is obvious.

Inculcating a religious ethos is not the same as teaching a child how to play the clarinet or how to play squash.

Can't see why that would need any level of 'unpicking'.

So what's with the claim that children can just not attend religion class for there to be no religious indoctrination then?

Both claims can't be true, can they?

BlinkingLights

Don't worry, the Dail is having a good pray about it...

lawred2

volchitsa wrote: »

So what's with the claim that children can just not attend religion class for there to be no religious indoctrination then?

Both claims can't be true, can they?

You tell me.. I never made such a stupid and utterly untrue claim. That's usually made by those willing to defend the status quo. Exclusion is what those people see as the solution.

Not sure why you're asking me.

volchitsa

lawred2 wrote: »

You tell me.. I never made such a stupid and utterly untrue claim. That's usually made by those willing to defend the status quo. Exclusion is what those people see as the solution.

Not sure why you're asking me.

Because you joined in. I was actually asking someone entirely different, and got told off. Then you asked if I was serious. I am.

Not because I don't think there can possibly be any difference, but because the supposed difference only ever seems to apply when it suits supporters of publicly-funded religious education. As soon as that doesn't suit them, suddenly their much-vaunted religious ethos becomes no more than a couple of religion classes a week, nothing to worry about.

Same as we're expected to believe that the SOC order's religious ethos might possibly allow them to see abortions carried out if those are legal (but let's not look too closely at those assurances, just in case) but still, it's a religious ethos that is significant enough to ensure they control hospitals and schools in the first place, and get tax exemption status because their work is so extra special.

I just think it's totally hypocritical and it needs to be pointed out. But clearly it's so ingrained in people's minds that many don't even really notice.

That's all.

lawred2

volchitsa wrote: »

Because you joined in. I was actually asking someone entirely different, and got told off. Then you asked if I was serious. I am.

Not because I don't think there can possibly be any difference, but because the supposed difference only ever seems to apply when it suits supporters of publicly-funded religious education. As soon as that doesn't suit them, suddenly their much-vaunted religious ethos becomes no more than a couple of religion classes a week, nothing to worry about.

Same as we're expected to believe that the SOC order's religious ethos might possibly allow them to see abortions carried out if those are legal (but let's not look too closely at those assurances, just in case) but still, it's a religious ethos that is significant enough to ensure they control hospitals and schools in the first place, and get tax exemption status because their work is so extra special.

I just think it's totally hypocritical and it needs to be pointed out. But clearly it's so ingrained in people's minds that many don't even really notice.

That's all.

Ooops I picked you up all wrong. Yeah I agree.

Osgoodisgood

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Removing a religious ethos from all schools discrimintes against those who want a religious ethos, irrespective of faith. Just as refusing to provide secular schools discriminates against those of no faith.

The logical answer is to provide choice.


So how can that choice be best achieved? Clearly a plan to replicate the assets of church owned schools just to provide the secular options would be prohibitively costly and also largely unnecessary as the demand is for secular education not for twice the supply.
Perhaps a more efficient model might be to transfer ownership of 50% of the schools back to the state for the purposes of delivering a range of educational models which better reflect Ireland's modern demographics.

The state could quite simply honour it's obligations to those who want a secular education, by building schools for them.

It is not realistic to expect people to give up ownership of their schools, to impose an ethos they do not want.

Nor, for that matter, can the state afford to purchase the religious ethos schools, even if those whose children attend them were happy to accept a secular ethos. Many are not.

The only answer, then, that respects all parents wishes, is to ascertain where there is a demand for non-denominational schools (I believe some work has been done on this - I don't have time to check the details right now) - cross reference it with where new schools need to be built, and proceed from there.

This idea that anyone should be forced to hand over their property is a non-runner, if there is any objective thought on the matter at all, imo.

I have no idea where you get this idea that church owned schools should be transferred "back to the state"- since the state never owned them in the first place....
As I explained earlier in the thread, in my own area, like many others, the Church collected donations for the purchase of a site, and the raw materials for the schools. Locals then donated their labour for free, to ensure an education for their children. An education that the state could not have provided at that time.

In fact, as recently as the 1950s and 60s, in my own area, the state didn't even pay for adequate heating for the schools. The parents did. In my own National school, parents contributed a load of turf, per family, to heat the school.

I'm old enough to remember horses, dragging cartloads of turf into the schoolyard in early September, while the long-suffering teachers tried in vain to stop the children looking out the windows to see their own fathers arrive...

None of which, btw, has anything to do with the new Maternity hospital, apart from the fact that when the state failed to provide hospitals, as well as schools, in the past - it was the Church, through its members, who stepped up to provide the service that the State could not provide, for obvious historical reasons.

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

So what's with the claim that children can just not attend religion class for there to be no religious indoctrination then?

Both claims can't be true, can they?

I think, and it can be verified, it's the supervision issue. if you tell the kids they can leave the classroom while the religious instruction is going on, you have to provide a supervisor for them. None available? huh, stay put and ignore what you are hearing.

Edit. I agree with Lochlach that while we're talking about housing religion V secular in ref to state services, education is not the service the planned hospital is for.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

The state could quite simply honour it's obligations to those who want a secular education, by building schools for them.

It is not realistic to expect people to give up ownership of their schools, to impose an ethos they do not want.

Nor, for that matter, can the state afford to purchase the religious ethos schools, even if those whose children attend them were happy to accept a secular ethos. Many are not.

The only answer, then, that respects all parents wishes, is to ascertain where there is a demand for non-denominational schools (I believe some work has been done on this - I don't have time to check the details right now) - cross reference it with where new schools need to be built, and proceed from there.

This idea that anyone should be forced to hand over their property is a non-runner, if there is any objective thought on the matter at all, imo.

I have no idea where you get this idea that church owned schools should be transferred "back to the state"- since the state never owned them in the first place....
As I explained earlier in the thread, in my own area, like many others, the Church collected donations for the purchase of a site, and the raw materials for the schools. Locals then donated their labour for free, to ensure an education for their children. An education that the state could not have provided at that time.

In fact, as recently as the 1950s and 60s, in my own area, the state didn't even pay for adequate heating for the schools. The parents did. In my own National school, parents contributed a load of turf, per family, to heat the school.

I'm old enough to remember horses, dragging cartloads of turf into the schoolyard in early September, while the long-suffering teachers tried in vain to stop the children looking out the windows to see their own fathers arrive...

None of which, btw, has anything to do with the new Maternity hospital, apart from the fact that when the state failed to provide hospitals, as well as schools, in the past - it was the Church, through its members, who stepped up to provide the service that the State could not provide, for obvious historical reasons.

Well this is one version of history , another might be that the RCC blocked every attempt both by the British and Irish governments to create any education system that was not to the satisfaction of said church .

This notion that we would have had no education without the RCC is just not founded on facts . However that is all in the past - lets just stick to the current situation for now

In your epistle you studiously ignore the elephant in the room , while lecturing us on the rights of private property owners , and that is - who pays for all the costs associated with the running of these schools ?

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

Well this is one version of history , another might be that the RCC blocked every attempt both by the British and Irish governments to create any education system that was not to the satisfaction of said church .

This notion that we would have had no education without the RCC is just not founded on facts . However that is all in the past - lets just stick to the current situation for now

In your epistle you studiously ignore the elephant in the room , while lecturing us on the rights of private property owners , and that is - who pays for all the costs associated with the running of these schools ?

The state does, just as it would pay the costs of running secular schools - minus the capital costs.

Thus, the religious ethos schools are actually a cost benefit to the state.

Which should satisfy most people - unless, of course, you want to deny others the right to the type of education they want for their children?

By the way, you might explain to the parents of a local school, built in 1929, who have been waiting for 15 years for a new school to be built, how the Irish state wants to "create an education system" for them, without a building...

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

The state does, just as it would pay the costs of running secular schools - minus the capital costs.

Thus, the religious ethos schools are actually a cost benefit to the state.

Which should satisfy most people - unless, of course, you want to deny others the right to the type of education they want for their children?

By the way, you might explain to the parents of a local school, built in 1929, who have been waiting for 15 years for a new school to be built, how the Irish state wants to "create an education system" for them, without a building...

This is just more self serving rationalisation , why not just have a core education system that caters for ALL our children and then tack on the extra bits that individual parents or religious communities or any other grouping require ?

That way we can have schools in every area that cater for all and end the codology that we actually have choice in this country .

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more self serving rationalisation , why not just have a core education system that caters for ALL our children and then tack on the extra bits that individual parents or religious communities or any other grouping require ?

That way we can have schools in every area that cater for all and end the codology that we actually have choice in this country .

We do have a core education system, approved by the Dept of Education.

Some people want entirely secular schools.

I think they should get them - just as I think that those of us who want schools with a religious ethos should get them, too.

How do you see the religious "extra bit" as being any different to what actually happens , anyway?

After all, the curriculum is set by the Dept of Education.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

We do have a core education system, approved by the Dept of Education.

Some people want entirely secular schools.

I think they should get them - just as I think that those of us who want schools with a religious ethos should get them, too.

How do you see the religious "extra bit" as being any different to what actually happens , anyway?

After all, the curriculum is set by the Dept of Education.

More rationalisation , but what you really mean is what we have we hold .

Of course those who want a religious ethos should have it , just not out of general taxation .

As for your religious 'extra bit' faux naïve question , I think this has been pointed out already - what is a religious ethos school exactly ?

-is it a standard school with religious education classes that those pupils may avoid if they so desire ( provided supervision is available ), or

- is a school with where not only is a major part of the day taken up with specific religious education classes but a specific ethos runs through all other classes be they history , science , civics, etc ?

So which is it - you can't have it both ways ?

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

More rationalisation , but what you really mean is what we have we hold .

Of course those who want a religious ethos should have it , just not out of general taxation .

As for your religious 'extra bit' faux naïve question , I think this has been pointed out already - what is a religious ethos school exactly ?

-is it a standard school with religious education classes that those pupils may avoid if they so desire ( provided supervision is available ), or

- is a school with where not only is a major part of the day taken up with specific religious education classes but a specific ethos runs through all other classes be they history , science , civics, etc ?

So which is it - you can't have it both ways ?

What on earth do you mean by "What we have, we hold"?

Are you suggesting that parents who own a school, through their common membership of a Church, should have the ethos of that school forcibly changed, and ownership of the building ceded to secularists, because people who do not have the same religious beliefs, and probably don't even live in the area - think some arbitrary percentage of schools should be secularist?

Not out of general taxation? Why not?
Catholics, (and Protestants, for that matter!) pay taxes, too.

So, why shouldn't their taxes contribute to the type of ethos they want their school to have? Particularly since in many cases, they've already saved the state the cost of the building, and, in that sense, would actually be contributing more of their taxes to fund secular schools?

I went to a Catholic ethos school. At that time, there were no non-Catholics in the catchment area.

I don't recall any "Catholic" sentiment being applied to history classes, or any other class, apart from religion.

My children went to a Catholic ethos school, too.

There were non-Catholics in attendance, too. I heard no objections from any parents about the ethos of the school. Some removed their children from Religion class. Some didn't.

The "ethos" of the school was about moral behaviour. Any parents I've spoken to about it were quite happy with the morals being taught. Some non-Catholic parents chose that school over one, a similar distance from their home, that was of a different religious ethos. Clearly, they had no difficulty with, or hatred of, the morals that were a normal part of acceptable school behaviour.

Currently, that school also has Hindu students. Their parents chose that school precisely because it has a very inclusive ethos, which is part of Catholicism.

One family may be Muslim - I'm not sure.
I do know they work near an educate together school, with afterschool activities for children with working parents. Again, their choice is the Catholic ethos school.

I have absolutely no idea where this idea that schools with a religious ethos should be treated as "different" from the very limited number of secular schools the State has built.
Particularly since, in many/most rural areas, there is no demand for anything else.

Hence, my belief that the State should provide secular schools for those who want them - and be grateful to the Religious ethos schools for saving the taxpayer a fortune in Capital costs.

What is so hard to understand about that? It's basic common sense, if you believe in freedom of choice. With the added bonus of saving on Capital costs for the Religious ethos schools, while still honouring the State's obligations to educate children.

Bear in mind, the State, through the Dept of Education, sets the Curriculum.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

What on earth do you mean by "What we have, we hold"?

Are you suggesting that parents who own a school, through their common membership of a Church, should have the ethos of that school forcibly changed, and ownership of the building ceded to secularists, because people who do not have the same religious beliefs, and probably don't even live in the area - think some arbitrary percentage of schools should be secularist?

Not out of general taxation? Why not?
Catholics, (and Protestants, for that matter!) pay taxes, too.

So, why shouldn't their taxes contribute to the type of ethos they want their school to have? Particularly since in many cases, they've already saved the state the cost of the building, and, in that sense, would actually be contributing more of their taxes to fund secular schools?

I went to a Catholic ethos school. At that time, there were no non-Catholics in the catchment area.

I don't recall any "Catholic" sentiment being applied to history classes, or any other class, apart from religion.

My children went to a Catholic ethos school, too.

There were non-Catholics in attendance, too. I heard no objections from any parents about the ethos of the school. Some removed their children from Religion class. Some didn't.

The "ethos" of the school was about moral behaviour. Any parents I've spoken to about it were quite happy with the morals being taught. Some non-Catholic parents chose that school over one, a similar distance from their home, that was of a different religious ethos. Clearly, they had no difficulty with, or hatred of, the morals that were a normal part of acceptable school behaviour.

Currently, that school also has Hindu students. Their parents chose that school precisely because it has a very inclusive ethos, which is part of Catholicism.

One family may be Muslim - I'm not sure.
I do know they work near an educate together school, with afterschool activities for children with working parents. Again, their choice is the Catholic ethos school.

I have absolutely no idea where this idea that schools with a religious ethos should be treated as "different" from the very limited number of secular schools the State has built.
Particularly since, in many/most rural areas, there is no demand for anything else.

Hence, my belief that the State should provide secular schools for those who want them - and be grateful to the Religious ethos schools for saving the taxpayer a fortune in Capital costs.

What is so hard to understand about that? It's basic common sense, if you believe in freedom of choice. With the added bonus of saving on Capital costs for the Religious ethos schools, while still honouring the State's obligations to educate children.

Bear in mind, the State, through the Dept of Education, sets the Curriculum.

This is just more self serving rationalisation . For example take out the RCC and insert Sharia and tell how you would feel about it .

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more self serving rationalisation . For example take out the RCC and insert Sharia and tell how you would feel about it .

Is it? Or is it quite simply rational to treat people equally?

Why do you have an issue with Catholics attending schools with a Catholic ethos?

Your comment about replacing the RCC with Sharia is very disingenuous.

Sharia is a legal system. The RCC is a religion.

Walter H Price

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it? Or is it quite simply rational to treat people equally?

Why do you have an issue with Catholics attending schools with a Catholic ethos?

Your comment about replacing the RCC with Sharia is very disingenuous.

Sharia is a legal system. The RCC is a religion.

Make no mistake her the ethos of Catholicism is just as ignorant, repressive, blinkered and irrational as that of Islam and Judaism.

I agree Sharia is more extream then cannon law and thankfully other than in the Vatican cannon law is not used to govern any sovereign states unlike Sharia

Walter H Price

Walter H Price wrote: »

Make no mistake her the ethos of Catholicism is just as ignorant, repressive, blinkered and irrational as that of Islam and Judaism.

I agree Sharia is more extream then cannon law and thankfully other than in the Vatican cannon law is not used to govern any sovereign states unlike Sharia

In your opinion, to which you are quite entitled, just as Catholics are entitled to theirs.

Walter H Price

Deleted User wrote: »

In your opinion, to which you are quite entitled, just as Catholics are entitled to theirs.

Absolutely 100% supportive of freedom of choice and freedom of religion, if you want to believe there magic unicorns living in your shoes that's great in my view, i don't buy it but i'm not here to p!ss on your parade ... just don't tell me to go bare foot so as to not upset the unicorns.

Religion is private , its a private matter keep it out of public life it has absolutely no place in government , legislation , education or Heathcare. If you want to Brainwash you kids absolutely be my guest just do it on your own time , if your bring them to mass , temple or mosque and are teaching them about Jesus or Mohammed or whichever one you believe in , why does it have to be done is school too ?

Similarly if you never want to use a johnny or get a vasectomy because your god says its against the rules that's great good for you go bare back and have all the kids you want , but don't dictate that a €300m maternity hospital has no proper family planning service for the rest of us.

Walter H Price

Walter H Price wrote: »

Absolutely 100% supportive of freedom of choice and freedom of religion, if you want to believe there magic unicorns living in your shoes that's great in my view, i don't buy it but i'm not here to p!ss on your parade ... just don't tell me to go bare foot so as to not upset the unicorns.

Religion is private , its a private matter keep it out of public life it has absolutely no place in government , legislation , education or Heathcare. If you want to Brainwash you kids absolutely be my guest just do it on your own time , if your bring them to mass , temple or mosque and are teaching them about Jesus or Mohammed or whichever one you believe in , why does it have to be done is school too ?

Similarly if you never want to use a johnny or get a vasectomy because your god says its against the rules that's great good for you go bare back and have all the kids you want , but don't dictate that a €300m maternity hospital has no proper family planning service for the rest of us.

Where did I say that?

One eyed Jack

Walter H Price wrote: »

Make no mistake her the ethos of Catholicism is just as ignorant, repressive, blinkered and irrational as that of Islam and Judaism.

Nothing whatsoever ignorant, repressive, blinkered and irrational about that statement of course.

Walter H Price wrote: »

Absolutely 100% supportive of freedom of choice and freedom of religion, if you want to believe there magic unicorns living in your shoes that's great in my view, i don't buy it but i'm not here to p!ss on your parade ... just don't tell me to go bare foot so as to not upset the unicorns.

Not like you and many before you haven't tried Walter, but God does love a trier.

Religion is private, its a private matter keep it out of public life it has absolutely no place in government , legislation , education or Heathcare.

All the evidence suggests otherwise Walter. Religion is very much a part of public life in almost every country, culture and society across the globe, and it's in almost every facet of public life in those countries. That's a fact. Your opinion, for what it's worth, regarding the status of religion and whether it should or shouldn't influence public life, is quite something else entirely. It's just an opinion.

If you want to Brainwash you kids absolutely be my guest just do it on your own time , if your bring them to mass , temple or mosque and are teaching them about Jesus or Mohammed or whichever one you believe in , why does it have to be done is school too ?

Scientifically speaking, heavens even socially speaking, 'brainwashing' as you put it, number one - has been scientifically proven to be ineffective, and number two - as is evident in prevailing social morality, clearly isn't an effective method of achieving control over either an individual or a group of individuals as you might appear to want to believe.

As to the question of why it has to be done in school, well, religion is a way of life for it's adherents, and so the religious schools are part and parcel of a religious education, so the idea of taking religion out of schools with a religious ethos, just shows a misunderstanding of both religion and education, on the part of those people who would want to take religion out of schools which have a religious ethos.

Similarly if you never want to use a johnny or get a vasectomy because your god says its against the rules that's great good for you go bare back and have all the kids you want , but don't dictate that a €300m maternity hospital has no proper family planning service for the rest of us.

Walter you appear to be under the misguided impression that only you can dictate people's choices for them, which goes against your earlier proclamation that you are absolutely 100% supportive of freedom of choice and freedom of religion? The real problem for you is that people who are religious have just as much a say in the affairs of the State as you do, and so to that end, they don't need your permission for the choices they make for themselves or their children. They're already guaranteed that by the Irish Constitution. It'd be nice if they had your support, they are just people after all, the same as you or I, but your support isn't necessary, whereas in order for you to achieve your aims, the support of people who are religious is absolutely necessary.

I'm 100% fully supportive of your choice to want to believe otherwise though.

aloyisious

Keeping away from the SVH ethos debate when it comes to the proposed new NMH replacing the current NMH (which actually serves women of more than one creed/belief) - If we're going to continue to discuss the separate matter of whether our "national" schools, (apparently owned mostly by the Catholic faith) can have religion as defined and taught by it as part of the curriculum to all the students, should we not add the other faith beliefs practiced here to it, instead of just the one creed, in a one nation - one people fashion?