The NMH at St. Vincents

eviltwin

Walter H Price wrote: »

that's part of the apathy i'm talking about even my own totally agnostic never brought us to mass once parents , talked my sister into making her Confo so as not to upset the nana's , my ma was a bit iffy when i said we weren't doing the church wedding thing and has brought it up more then once that even though we don't believe , we should baptize any kids to make sure we can get them into school ... allot of my mates are the same , its all just a bit sad to be honest. as a country we seem to just have a totally fcuked up relationship with this stuff.

It's just an excuse really. It's easy to say your doing it to keep granny happy but if someone really was against the idea of a church wedding or baptism they wouldn't do it.

pilly

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Just another bigoted post. Another anti Catholic bashing posters fun day.

Common theme these days.

There's a reason it's a theme though.

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

There's a reason it's a theme though.

Hard to tell the difference online (and offline sometimes), between those with a genuine grievance, and those who just love to wind people up for attention and validation. Boards appears to be particularly swarming with the latter, than the former.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hard to tell the difference online (and offline sometimes), between those with a genuine grievance, and those who just love to wind people up for attention and validation. Boards appears to be particularly swarming with the latter, than the former.

and you are basing that on what, exactly?

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and you are basing that on what, exactly?

On the evidence I've seen in enough threads on here over the years.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On the evidence I've seen in enough threads on here over the years.

that really is an amazing ability to divine motive. quite incredible.

Chuchote

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that really is an amazing ability to divine motive. quite incredible.

Divine is the word :P

nice_guy80

The state system still doffs a cap to the RCC

Just look at the school system
Why in this this day and age does'l the RCC still control most of our education system?
Paid for by the taxpayer.
Completely wrong
They even still have a major influence in the training of teachers

Sane with the health system
Religious orders should have no authority over people's health and wellbeing

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that really is an amazing ability to divine motive. quite incredible.

Genuinely it really isn't, they usually make themselves obvious through their efforts to try and be as offensive as possible and get in all the usual stuff that they imagine nobody must have heard before in the hope that their thanks will be proportionate to what they feel is the unique value of their insult, when all it really does is adds nothing to a thread, and makes someone like myself roll their eyes... well, eye.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hard to tell the difference online (and offline sometimes), between those with a genuine grievance, and those who just love to wind people up for attention and validation. Boards appears to be particularly swarming with the latter, than the former.

So where do posters who misrepresent the contents of official investigations to make it appear that the conclusions suit their own views fit in those two groups you define there?

Or could you just be trying to dismiss those who disagree with you by claiming they are motivated by a desire to wind people up?

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hard to tell the difference online (and offline sometimes), between those with a genuine grievance, and those who just love to wind people up for attention and validation. Boards appears to be particularly swarming with the latter, than the former.

That's given me the laugh of the day. :D:D:D:D:D

Genuinely, thanks for cheering me up at this late hour.

You've done nothing but wind people up all day and you've no grievance whatsoever.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Genuinely it really isn't, they usually make themselves obvious through their efforts to try and be as offensive as possible and get in all the usual stuff that they imagine nobody must have heard before in the hope that their thanks will be proportionate to what they feel is the unique value of their insult, when all it really does is adds nothing to a thread, and makes someone like myself roll their eyes... well, eye.

I know the kinds of posts you are talking about but don't see much evidence of it here. I think people are really concerned about the role of the church in this hospital given Catholic teaching around fertility issues. Whatever about existing hospitals and their patronage, I'd hoped in 2017 we had evolved to the point where a completely secular hospital was possible.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So where do posters who misrepresent the contents of official investigations to make it appear that the conclusions suit their own views fit in those two groups you define there?

Or could you just be trying to dismiss those who disagree with you by claiming they are motivated by a desire to wind people up?

What would you call it volchista when someone claims we have abortion on demand in this country already? Is there any point in even addressing a post like that do you think?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

I know the kinds of posts you are talking about but don't see much evidence of it here. I think people are really concerned about the role of the church in this hospital given Catholic teaching around fertility issues. Whatever about existing hospitals and their patronage, I'd hoped in 2017 we had evolved to the point where a completely secular hospital was possible.

I'd have been all for that eviltwin, but I understand too from a practical point of view why the location was chosen (even though the property does belong to the SOC and there's fannyadams the State can do about that). There are many other reasons why the agreement was made with the SVHG and there wasn't a separate hospital built somewhere else that wouldn't have had any appearance of interference from the religious orders.

That's why I said from the very beginning of this thread that the State tied itself up in constitutional knots with the RCC who were only too happy to go along with it at the time. As Walter observed earlier, about the only thing we manage to get right in this country is apathy and self-interest. We were just as good at it before the foundation of the State too, so it's really no wonder the state in which we find ourselves.

I still value secularism, but the elimination of religion from society, isn't secularism.

Mr.Wemmick

I particularly love the whingers who whinge about perceived whingers.

The never-ending passive aggressive on me high horse superior whinger..

Billy86

This proposal is as stupid as the eejit who was calling for the state to pay for a mosque a few months back.

Oh wait, this actually happened?

Absolute fecking joke, and a pretty sick one at especially that given the bodies of dead babies found in recent times.

gctest50

.



https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/block-sisters-of-chairty-as-sole-owners-of-national-maternity-hospital?bucket


Petition to block takeover

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What would you call it volchista when someone claims we have abortion on demand in this country already? Is there any point in even addressing a post like that do you think?

What's that got to do with the question here? You made a false claim on this thread about the HIQA report, and fwiw I didn't bring up the subject in the first place, so if anyone has a grievance it's certainly not me.

Now you also feel entitled to impugn other posters' motives, so I think the least you can do is be rather more upfront yourself. Did you get that wrong, accidentally, several times, or are you winding people up by posting falsehoods about what is a very serious subject, a young woman's death?

One eyed Jack

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

I particularly love the whingers who whinge about perceived whingers.

The never-ending passive aggressive on me high horse superior whinger..

At least pilly had the balls to come out and say it directly, even if she is wrong. You may want to look up the definition of passive aggressive.

Chuchote

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It wasn't some remote church that did all those atrocities. It was Irish men and women.

The Catholic Church, from the local parish and primary school right up to the Vatican conspired to shelter the rapists and abusers. Its official policy, set out by a man who would become Pope, was that abused children who reported the abuse were to be dealt with within the church, and discouraged from involving the police.

This isn't a question of individuals but a conspiracy by a truly evil organisation.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

What's that got to do with the question here? You made a false claim on this thread about the HIQA report, and fwiw I didn't bring up the subject in the first place, so if anyone has a grievance it's certainly not me.

Now you also feel entitled to impugn other posters' motives, so I think the least you can do is be rather more upfront yourself. Did you get that wrong, accidentally, several times, or are you winding people up by posting falsehoods about what is a very serious subject, a young woman's death?

Give it a rest, your insincerity is showing.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Give it a rest, your insincerity is showing.

Wait, you posted falsehoods, then first tried to defend them before attempting a outright deflection onto a completely different subject - and I'm the one that's insincere?

I think there's a word for that!

Mr.Wemmick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At least pilly had the balls to come out and say it directly, even if she is wrong. You may want to look up the definition of passive aggressive.

Didn't quote you, too busy laughing and typing.

Of course it's you.. had a run in with you doing the same thing in another thread and told you so numerous times. And again you've been whinging about posters through out this thread. What's the point? Come out and say what you mean.. or not at all. You disrespect posters all the time.





.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State outsourced the provision of education, welfare and healthcare services to religious orders in the first place because it couldn't afford it. The State also tied themselves up in Constitutional knots because they now simply can't do what you're suggesting without an amendment to the Constitution, and that would require a referendum, which there is no demand for, in spite of the way you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise from reading Boards...

and the Irish Times.

No they did not. Do some research.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd have been all for that eviltwin, but I understand too from a practical point of view why the location was chosen (even though the property does belong to the SOC and there's fannyadams the State can do about that). There are many other reasons why the agreement was made with the SVHG and there wasn't a separate hospital built somewhere else that wouldn't have had any appearance of interference from the religious orders.

That's why I said from the very beginning of this thread that the State tied itself up in constitutional knots with the RCC who were only too happy to go along with it at the time. As Walter observed earlier, about the only thing we manage to get right in this country is apathy and self-interest. We were just as good at it before the foundation of the State too, so it's really no wonder the state in which we find ourselves.

I still value secularism, but the elimination of religion from society, isn't secularism.

This thread isn't about removing religion from society, it's about removing it from a public service that everyone uses.

Practice your faith all you want but do it in the privacy of your home and church. And that goes for all religion before I'm accused of being anti Catholic. I don't expect people to give up their faith, I do expect my hospitals to be free of religious influence and I expect my government to have the balls to insist that any new hospital build is completely secular.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

No they did not. Do some research.

I've done my research, and plenty of it, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that we would come to different conclusions on the issue.

Mr.Wemmick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've done my research, and plenty of it, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that we would come to different conclusions on the issue.

Then why on earth do you consistently disrespect posters who come to a different conclusion than you?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

This thread isn't about removing religion from society, it's about removing it from a public service that everyone uses.

Practice your faith all you want but do it in the privacy of your home and church. And that goes for all religion before I'm accused of being anti Catholic. I don't expect people to give up their faith, I do expect my hospitals to be free of religious influence and I expect my government to have the balls to insist that any new hospital build is completely secular.

I wouldn't accuse you of being anti-Catholic at all, I just don't see why anyone should cowtow to demands that they practice their faith in private. There are fundamental rights written into the Constitution that protect those freedoms. I wouldn't expect anyone to cowtow to religion, why would they expect anyone who is religious should do the same for them?

If you want hospitals and schools free from religious influence, then by all means elect competent politicians, and not protest penguins. Meanwhile other people are just as entitled to elect politicians whom they believe will serve their interests (we're fond of our political dynasties in Ireland), as is the way it should be in a democracy.

One eyed Jack

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Then why on earth do you consistently disrespect posters who come to a different conclusion than you?

I don't disrespect anyone who comes to a different conclusion than me about anything. I'd never be so childish. Are you still laughing now?

infogiver

pilly wrote: »

There's a reason it's a theme though.

The Easter ceremonies in our church were better attended this year then the last few years.
We have a new Archbishop and he's introduced several innovations which seem to be bringing people back including a Parish Council and a general clear out of all the old "cliques".
All the 6 schools in the area were involved to some extent in the services.
The children's (both primary and post primary) involvement was entirely voluntary and was an extra curricular activity and was over subscribed in each school.
Under this new Archbishop lay people will have much more influence and power then was the norm here before.
It's unfair and untrue and unjustified to describe all these people as a "bunch of rapists" as zebra3 does but if it makes him or her feel better about themselves to rant like that then ,what harm?
If you want to convince yourself that people volunteering to take part in the running of the parish, giving up hours and hours of their spare time to sit on committees and pore over accounts etc , are all doing it to stay on the right side of "granny", or if you think that you could persuade a teenager to volunteer to participate in something they don't like, then you don't own a teenager, simple as that.
Over on A&A I read page after page of a thread trying to explain away the fact that the hugest amount of people in this country ticked the Catholic box on the census.
From what I can gather, wishful thinking amongst secularists is that more than 3/4 of the country, people of all ages levels of education and profession had their census filled in by their elderly mother!
Is that it?
If you try to tell people that the Sisters of Charity will have the same relationship with this maternity hospital as they have with St Vincent's Hospital or any of its other health care facilities or Focus Ireland and that those facilities are not over run with Bible quoting rosary toting nuns, they seem to stick their fingers in their ears and stamp their feet and I don't really understand why?