|
Replying To tonguey: " Replying To MesAmis: "[quote=tonguey: "[quote=MesAmis: "You are being highly disrespectful of the people who profess a genuinely held faith. Those people have a right to profess that faith without their beliefs being insulted. Sadly in the shiny, newly inclusive, "liberal" Ireland sneering at people who profess a faith and sneering at their faith has become all too common. Your post and attitude epitomises that.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5395 - 08/06/2021 11:24:55
I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive but religious people do not have a right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at imo.
I think that a lot of what religious people believe is silly. They have the right to believe these things ( as long as they do not impinge on others' rights which we know has been a problem in the past and indeed the present with religions) and I have the right to think that they are silly beliefs." Yes you may have that right indeed but you do not have the right to insult people on their beliefs- that is bullying. So would it be ok for a religious person to sneer at you because of your beliefs?? If you did it to another religion it would be discrimination. Just because you do not believe (which is your right and nobody really cares anyway what your rights are) does not give you the "right" to sneer at other people because they do not share your view. As I said it is bullying so please mature a little bit and behave like an adult. Thank you."
You, or anyone, doesn't have an automatic right to never be offended. It's more complicated than that. Something that insults one Christian might not insult another Christian etc.
There are plenty of religious beliefs that I find insulting but that does not mean that I have some sort of right to never ever be confronted by those beliefs. Some people will find my offence to their beliefs as offensive in and of itself.
I reject the notion that everyone has a right to not be ever offended."]You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else."]You're not the best example for showing posters respect on Hoganstand yourself.
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7344 - 09/06/2021 12:15:32
2349182
Link
3
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: " Replying To MesAmis: "[quote=tonguey: "[quote=MesAmis: "You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else.
tonguey (Cavan) - Posts: 508 - 09/06/2021 09:52:01 2349152
I don't think anyone (religious or otherwise) has the right to never be offended. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that we should live in such a sanitised version of life where everyone has the right to never be offended.
If you think that lacks respect then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it seems strange to me.
I've no issue with people insulting religious beliefs.
Gay people living openly in society insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Unmarried mothers insult some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Children not being cleansed of their original sin insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Women having equal right is insulting to some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that too.
Some religious beliefs insult me too. Like the ones mentioned above and I reserve the right to be able to sneer and insult those beliefs but I can't put my hands over the ear and eyes and claim I have some sort of right to never be confronted by some people's deeply held religious beliefs." You also said you would "sneer" at people who are religious?? If you do not believe me read your previous posts- so you think it is ok to insult and sneer at people who are religious?? How very mature of you. That is ok, we have cleared that up anyway."
Do you want to respond to my last post?
My contention is that religious people (or otherwise) do not have an automatic right to never have their beliefs insulted or sneered at.
I believe that, yes it is quite a mature and reasonable assertion.
The alternative, that no one can ever be offended or challenged in their beliefs, is juvenile and immature imo."]Do we really need to have "rights" for something not to be acceptable and decent behavior ? It's perfectly fine not to agree with someone's beliefs, have no issue with that at all.
Is it perfectly fine to sneer or insult their beliefs ? Absolutely not.
You might get away with mocking other peoples beliefs in small town Dublin but if ever visit a big city and try that on, it wont be long before you're landing on your hick town a**e."]Do we really need to have "rights" for something not to be acceptable and decent behavior ? It's perfectly fine not to agree with someone's beliefs, have no issue with that at all.
Is it perfectly fine to sneer or insult their beliefs ? Absolutely not.
You might get away with mocking other peoples beliefs in small town Dublin but if ever visit a big city and try that on, it wont be long before you're landing on your hick town a**e.
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1081 - 09/06/2021 11:37:16
So it is never ok to sneer or insult someone's belief even if said belief is detrimental to the rights of others.
I find that a very strange way of thinking. If I were to contend that all red haired people were inherently evil no one is allowed to sneer or insult that belief in your world. I find that contention quite absurd. Some people hold the belief that gay couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. They are allowed to have that belief even if I do disagree with it but yet I'm not allowed to sneer at their outdated discrimination? That's a strange contention imo.
I enjoyed your last paragraph immensely though, I get off the plane at Charles de Gaulle and just start insulting the first person I see. Trés drole.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/06/2021 12:23:17
2349185
Link
3
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: " Replying To Greengrass: "[quote=MesAmis: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=MesAmis: "You are being highly disrespectful of the people who profess a genuinely held faith. Those people have a right to profess that faith without their beliefs being insulted. Sadly in the shiny, newly inclusive, "liberal" Ireland sneering at people who profess a faith and sneering at their faith has become all too common. Your post and attitude epitomises that.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5395 - 08/06/2021 11:24:55
I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive but religious people do not have a right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at imo.
I think that a lot of what religious people believe is silly. They have the right to believe these things ( as long as they do not impinge on others' rights which we know has been a problem in the past and indeed the present with religions) and I have the right to think that they are silly beliefs." I agree with quite a bit of what you say MesAmis. Organised religion in the past was most certainly intolerant. It did impinge upon people's lives most particularly when the way that people lived their lives was perceived to be a threat to that particular religion. That however is not a trait that is unique to organised religion. That is a trait common to societal structures in general most particularly where power was wielded. A threat to the power that individuals wielded was very seldom if ever tolerated. That is true to this day most particularly in dictatorships or indeed theocracies. Ultimately it is part of the human condition that power is to be held on to at any costs irrespective of the suffering that may inflict upon fellow human beings. It is also part of the human condition to abuse power and to inflict unspeakable suffering upon fellow human beings. That is not unique to religious institutions. That permeated all walks of life right throughout human history. Slavery is one example. Empires, conquest and systematic exploitation is another example. In today's society in Ireland institutions are still being protected at all costs. We have seen people enduring intolerable hardship as a result of measures taken to protect our financial institutions. Corruption and abuse are not the preserve of the church. It is part of the human condition. You have every right to disagree with the beliefs of people of faith. However I believe that can be done in a manner that is respectful and tolerant. To overtly sneer at someone's beliefs is intolerant and disrespectful. Sadly I believe we have replaced one intolerant orthodoxy in this country with another orthodoxy that is equally intolerant. Realdub's sentiments epitomise that."
I disagree with your last point though. The 'new orthodoxy' has a long way to go before it could ever even come close to matching the churches (and other religions) levels of real world intolerance. I also don't believe we have a new orthodoxy. We have a huge amount of differing opinions and a culture of questioning each others beliefs in the western world. It can be messy at times but I actually think it is a good thing overall. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but crucially, everyone else is entitled to their right of reply. This is often decried as 'cancel culture' but oftentimes 'cancel culture' is just a cloak that people throw up when questioned on their assertions rather than defending those assertions.
Also I don't think we can compare snide remarks with the atrocities commited by the church over the centuries. Yes, maybe snide remarks about deeply held religious beliefs are hurtful but they are nothing compared to what has gone before."]Unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of your most recent post MesAmis. The church wasn't the main force behind the building of empires nor was it the main protagonist when it came to atrocities committed in the name of empires. Power and wealth were the main motivation when it came to building empires. Religion had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of native religions and did very little to control them. Christianity contradicted the Roman belief in the divinity of the Emperor and was therefore perceived as a threat. That is why Christians were persecuted. Did Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan conquer and commit wholesale atrocities in the name of the church? No they didn't. Did Tamerlane? No. Were the more modern European empires church driven? No they weren't. They were built principally as a thirst for power and wealth. The cloak of civility was added to these obscenities by invoking divinity and by applying a veneer of "civilisation." Did Stalin, Mao or Hitler slaughter tens of millions people at the behest of the church? No they didn't. They viciously persecuted organised religions. Mankind was more than capable of inflicting appalling suffering on his fellow man without the intervention of religion.
I agree we have diversity of opinion in the country. However that diversity comes under the umbrella of an orthodoxy of thought that would look upon itself as liberal and inclusive. It has become a consensus. People whose opinions don't concur with this consensus find themselves labelled. "Conservative" is a favoured label. This consensus is highly intolerant. My understanding of this so called "cancel culture" is that it is nothing more than extremism under another name. I never attempted to equate the atrocities of the church with the new consensus nor would I. I spoke about them in terms of the fact that both orthodoxies (for want of a better word) were/are highly intolerant of those who hold contrary points of view."]Unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of your most recent post MesAmis. The church wasn't the main force behind the building of empires nor was it the main protagonist when it came to atrocities committed in the name of empires. Power and wealth were the main motivation when it came to building empires. Religion had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of native religions and did very little to control them. Christianity contradicted the Roman belief in the divinity of the Emperor and was therefore perceived as a threat. That is why Christians were persecuted. Did Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan conquer and commit wholesale atrocities in the name of the church? No they didn't. Did Tamerlane? No. Were the more modern European empires church driven? No they weren't. They were built principally as a thirst for power and wealth. The cloak of civility was added to these obscenities by invoking divinity and by applying a veneer of "civilisation." Did Stalin, Mao or Hitler slaughter tens of millions people at the behest of the church? No they didn't. They viciously persecuted organised religions. Mankind was more than capable of inflicting appalling suffering on his fellow man without the intervention of religion.
I agree we have diversity of opinion in the country. However that diversity comes under the umbrella of an orthodoxy of thought that would look upon itself as liberal and inclusive. It has become a consensus. People whose opinions don't concur with this consensus find themselves labelled. "Conservative" is a favoured label. This consensus is highly intolerant. My understanding of this so called "cancel culture" is that it is nothing more than extremism under another name. I never attempted to equate the atrocities of the church with the new consensus nor would I. I spoke about them in terms of the fact that both orthodoxies (for want of a better word) were/are highly intolerant of those who hold contrary points of view.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5399 - 08/06/2021 20:55:41 2349086
Just because monstrous things have been done by someone other than the church doesn't change the fact that monstrous evil has been done by the church over the centuries."]I think you'll find I've already said that MesAmis. The capacity to inflict suffering on fellow human beings is part of the human condition. That has been clearly illustrated throughout history. Members of the church have demonstrated that. So too have lay people. Slavery is a very stark example. What was done to slaves in the southern states of the USA was barbaric. What was inflicted on native Americans was also barbaric. People be they members of the church or not are capable of inflicting monstrous cruelty. I wouldn't defend what the church has done for one second. I have spent my working life working with children. I think you will also find that members of the various churches have also suffered unspeakable cruelty at the hands of their fellow man.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 09/06/2021 12:49:29
2349188
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: " Replying To MesAmis: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=MesAmis: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=MesAmis: "You are being highly disrespectful of the people who profess a genuinely held faith. Those people have a right to profess that faith without their beliefs being insulted. Sadly in the shiny, newly inclusive, "liberal" Ireland sneering at people who profess a faith and sneering at their faith has become all too common. Your post and attitude epitomises that.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5395 - 08/06/2021 11:24:55
I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive but religious people do not have a right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at imo.
I think that a lot of what religious people believe is silly. They have the right to believe these things ( as long as they do not impinge on others' rights which we know has been a problem in the past and indeed the present with religions) and I have the right to think that they are silly beliefs." I agree with quite a bit of what you say MesAmis. Organised religion in the past was most certainly intolerant. It did impinge upon people's lives most particularly when the way that people lived their lives was perceived to be a threat to that particular religion. That however is not a trait that is unique to organised religion. That is a trait common to societal structures in general most particularly where power was wielded. A threat to the power that individuals wielded was very seldom if ever tolerated. That is true to this day most particularly in dictatorships or indeed theocracies. Ultimately it is part of the human condition that power is to be held on to at any costs irrespective of the suffering that may inflict upon fellow human beings. It is also part of the human condition to abuse power and to inflict unspeakable suffering upon fellow human beings. That is not unique to religious institutions. That permeated all walks of life right throughout human history. Slavery is one example. Empires, conquest and systematic exploitation is another example. In today's society in Ireland institutions are still being protected at all costs. We have seen people enduring intolerable hardship as a result of measures taken to protect our financial institutions. Corruption and abuse are not the preserve of the church. It is part of the human condition. You have every right to disagree with the beliefs of people of faith. However I believe that can be done in a manner that is respectful and tolerant. To overtly sneer at someone's beliefs is intolerant and disrespectful. Sadly I believe we have replaced one intolerant orthodoxy in this country with another orthodoxy that is equally intolerant. Realdub's sentiments epitomise that."
I disagree with your last point though. The 'new orthodoxy' has a long way to go before it could ever even come close to matching the churches (and other religions) levels of real world intolerance. I also don't believe we have a new orthodoxy. We have a huge amount of differing opinions and a culture of questioning each others beliefs in the western world. It can be messy at times but I actually think it is a good thing overall. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but crucially, everyone else is entitled to their right of reply. This is often decried as 'cancel culture' but oftentimes 'cancel culture' is just a cloak that people throw up when questioned on their assertions rather than defending those assertions.
Also I don't think we can compare snide remarks with the atrocities commited by the church over the centuries. Yes, maybe snide remarks about deeply held religious beliefs are hurtful but they are nothing compared to what has gone before."]Unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of your most recent post MesAmis. The church wasn't the main force behind the building of empires nor was it the main protagonist when it came to atrocities committed in the name of empires. Power and wealth were the main motivation when it came to building empires. Religion had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of native religions and did very little to control them. Christianity contradicted the Roman belief in the divinity of the Emperor and was therefore perceived as a threat. That is why Christians were persecuted. Did Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan conquer and commit wholesale atrocities in the name of the church? No they didn't. Did Tamerlane? No. Were the more modern European empires church driven? No they weren't. They were built principally as a thirst for power and wealth. The cloak of civility was added to these obscenities by invoking divinity and by applying a veneer of "civilisation." Did Stalin, Mao or Hitler slaughter tens of millions people at the behest of the church? No they didn't. They viciously persecuted organised religions. Mankind was more than capable of inflicting appalling suffering on his fellow man without the intervention of religion.
I agree we have diversity of opinion in the country. However that diversity comes under the umbrella of an orthodoxy of thought that would look upon itself as liberal and inclusive. It has become a consensus. People whose opinions don't concur with this consensus find themselves labelled. "Conservative" is a favoured label. This consensus is highly intolerant. My understanding of this so called "cancel culture" is that it is nothing more than extremism under another name. I never attempted to equate the atrocities of the church with the new consensus nor would I. I spoke about them in terms of the fact that both orthodoxies (for want of a better word) were/are highly intolerant of those who hold contrary points of view."]Unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of your most recent post MesAmis. The church wasn't the main force behind the building of empires nor was it the main protagonist when it came to atrocities committed in the name of empires. Power and wealth were the main motivation when it came to building empires. Religion had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of native religions and did very little to control them. Christianity contradicted the Roman belief in the divinity of the Emperor and was therefore perceived as a threat. That is why Christians were persecuted. Did Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan conquer and commit wholesale atrocities in the name of the church? No they didn't. Did Tamerlane? No. Were the more modern European empires church driven? No they weren't. They were built principally as a thirst for power and wealth. The cloak of civility was added to these obscenities by invoking divinity and by applying a veneer of "civilisation." Did Stalin, Mao or Hitler slaughter tens of millions people at the behest of the church? No they didn't. They viciously persecuted organised religions. Mankind was more than capable of inflicting appalling suffering on his fellow man without the intervention of religion.
I agree we have diversity of opinion in the country. However that diversity comes under the umbrella of an orthodoxy of thought that would look upon itself as liberal and inclusive. It has become a consensus. People whose opinions don't concur with this consensus find themselves labelled. "Conservative" is a favoured label. This consensus is highly intolerant. My understanding of this so called "cancel culture" is that it is nothing more than extremism under another name. I never attempted to equate the atrocities of the church with the new consensus nor would I. I spoke about them in terms of the fact that both orthodoxies (for want of a better word) were/are highly intolerant of those who hold contrary points of view.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5399 - 08/06/2021 20:55:41 2349086
Just because monstrous things have been done by someone other than the church doesn't change the fact that monstrous evil has been done by the church over the centuries."]I think you'll find I've already said that MesAmis. The capacity to inflict suffering on fellow human beings is part of the human condition. That has been clearly illustrated throughout history. Members of the church have demonstrated that. So too have lay people. Slavery is a very stark example. What was done to slaves in the southern states of the USA was barbaric. What was inflicted on native Americans was also barbaric. People be they members of the church or not are capable of inflicting monstrous cruelty. I wouldn't defend what the church has done for one second. I have spent my working life working with children. I think you will also find that members of the various churches have also suffered unspeakable cruelty at the hands of their fellow man."]I agree 100%
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/06/2021 13:11:16
2349190
Link
3
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: "But why were these views of unmarried women popular in society?" Yes the church played a big part in attitudes to single mothers but the basic attitudes would likely have been there anyway. Similar attitudes traditionally were common across the world across different cultures.
Ultimately I think the reason for these views is associated with the resources/ effort associated with bringing up children, people didn't think single mothers could do it on their own.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1347 - 10/06/2021 09:34:47
2349320
Link
1
|
|
Replying To realdub: " Replying To bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1347 - 10/06/2021 09:54:03
2349321
Link
1
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: " Replying To realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8589 - 10/06/2021 19:19:07
2349445
Link
2
|
|
Replying To realdub: " Replying To bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1705 - 10/06/2021 20:07:41
2349453
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Galway9801: " Replying To realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8589 - 10/06/2021 21:16:39
2349458
Link
3
|
|
Replying To realdub: " Replying To Galway9801: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 10/06/2021 22:46:32
2349482
Link
0
|
|
the last few posts show exactly why the forum needs to be modernised. the site looks a complete mess if you just quote multiple posts unless you embolden the posts like i do and that isnt workable either...
KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 3510 - 10/06/2021 23:25:24
2349496
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: " Replying To realdub: "[quote=Galway9801: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8589 - 10/06/2021 23:28:24
2349498
Link
2
|
|
Replying To realdub: " Replying To Greengrass: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=Galway9801: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 11/06/2021 14:19:05
2349594
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: " Replying To realdub: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=Galway9801: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8589 - 11/06/2021 14:28:55
2349595
Link
3
|
|
Replying To realdub: " Replying To Greengrass: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=Galway9801: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 11/06/2021 15:30:25
2349616
Link
1
|
|
The last few posts show why an update to forum is needed. you cant multi quote posts properly unless you bold the text of posts you are quoting..
KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 3510 - 11/06/2021 17:16:43
2349633
Link
2
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: " Replying To realdub: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=Galway9801: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8589 - 11/06/2021 18:21:40
2349644
Link
1
|
|
Replying To KillingFields: "The last few posts show why an update to forum is needed. you cant multi quote posts properly unless you bold the text of posts you are quoting.." Fair point.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 11/06/2021 19:27:29
2349650
Link
0
|