i was in goldenbridge and there is so much i can not remember but i do remember the rosey beads and i would have to sit with my pands on my head becouse i wet myself as we would not dear go to the tolit i can not remember if it was fear or not aloud out i just wish thay had educated us i was there from 1953 to 1963 i wish i could find out a bit more about how i got there all i know is i was sent there by the courts when i was 3 if anyone knows how i can find any records please let me know becouse no mater how old you are it will never go away and for thouse poeple who say it is time to forget i will never i may forgive but never forget
Re: “A Very Young Activist’s Reply”
Alaina, you are absolutely brilliant. Lord, how I wish I had half your smarts at your age (I’m 21 going on 22), but I was unfortunately very much a left-wing ideologue at that age. Of course, reality sets in for all of us eventually, so here I am applauding you!
You have very clearly proven this simple truth:
The people who sit on their fannies and let their political ideology speak for them are nearly always out of touch with what is going on, because they rely on blind faith in their ideology–they rely on what they’ve been told to think and reject everything else.
The people who are actually working to make a difference and have seen what is going on in real life for themselves do not have to rely on blind faith in political ideology; they KNOW what is going on.
Well done, kiddo. If I ever have a daughter, I want her to be just like you! ♥
Ireland had other things going on during the years after the second world war,thay fostered out many children from germany, these children were well cared for . thier ireland was a very different place . the same church organised things ,so how come that such things could happen in the closed world of the institutions.a documontaire was made by a company called shamrock
Yeah, titti, some of the ten thousand children fleeing from the nazi regime were given foster homes in England and Northern Ireland. Many of them who went to the North were looked after by foster parents but others went to the Millisle Refugee Farm (Magill’s Farm, on the Woburn Road) which took refugees from May 1938 until its closure in 1948.
Delalera took in approximately 148 children – there is a tree in Jerusalem thanking him for his good work for refugees in general.
Have you heard about the new docu-drama play “No Escape” that Mary Raftery has momentarily on at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin? I believe actors are having to receive counselling in the aftermath – because of the stress levels. The play is based solely on the Ryan/Laffoy Report. Nobody under sixteen is allowed – which is daft really as the stories are about children. But then in saying this again – if actors are not cushioned against the contents of the play – how would one expect children from ordinary sheltered loving homes to be indeed,
all of the people who went to the redress board seem to have been told the same thing about our familys. this is not true.Ithink thay had been reading frank mac court book angelas ashes.and thay used it as a reference. it is only about his family.this does not mean that the whole of ireland was populated by shoeless violent perents in fact most were ordinary working class people
Re ‘Individual Rights and Collective Responsibility’.
‘human rights arise out of our most fundamental collective moral imperative: namely, to protect the weak and vulnerable from harm’
Is that the conclusion you honestly draw when looking at the history of the human race?
I don’t have a clue what a ‘collective moral imperative’ is supposed to be, either. It sounds like theology-lite to me. I certainly feel no sense that I have a ‘moral imperative … to protect the weak and vulnerable from harm’.
A society in which the weak and vulnerable are protected from harm is a well functioning society, certainly. One day I may be weak and vulnerable so it is in my interest to support a society that in those circumstances will support me.
But, please, all this talk of ‘morality’ is mystical drivel. Human beings are fundamentally driven by self-interest, and the existence of some apparently selfless campaigners for the rights of others provides insufficient evidence for that not being the case as a general principle.
Full response here:
Thanks for reading the article and for your interesting critique.
First of all, I don’t particularly object to many of the most basic ethical tenets of Christianity, if we take those to include equality, compassion, etc. My main beef with religion is that it a) falls short of its own ideals or twists them in the interests of the powerful, b) makes morality rely on shaky self-interested premises such as “God will make it hurt if you don’t do this,” c) spreads patently laughable notions about the way the world works.
So if this is what you mean by “theology-lite” i.e. embracing compassionate moral tenets, then I have no objection to being labeled as such.
Second, I think that a purely self-interested, social contract approach to morality (i.e. “I may be weak one day myself so I need a society with rights guarantees”) is more problematic than you acknowledge. According to your argument, the only reason why any given individual would support human rights is that he would find himself better protected by them. But suppose he is some sort of superman or that his own protection doesn’t matter to him: suppose he’s a Nazi in the making who only cares about blood and iron. He might rationally conclude that, at least for him as a powerful individual, its more in line with his self-interest to oppress and exploit other people, and he would be right! A purely self-interested theory of morality gives us no reason to oppose his actions.
I don’t actually believe that there is a philosophical basis for morality: I’m sorry if I indicated there was one in the article. I believe that morality is a question of what we each value. I have no way to prove categorically that my moral beliefs are better or more accurate than yours, but I still value them. I have to say that a purely self-interested life would be a rather empty and hollow existence for me. Most of what makes life worth living for the majority of humanity is solidarity with other people: in that sense, we can see some “collective moral imperatives” operating in history, despite all the crimes and abuses along the way.
Joshua, if I may come in here: a morality of self-interest would give me a very good reason to oppose the actions of someone if I didn’t like those actions, if they weren’t in my own interests. So short of continual bloody conflict we would end up having to compromise, and sooner or later morality would not be one of mere self-interest but of having to make allowances, being considerate, and so forth.
However, I think I am largely in agreement with your main points. It does seem to me that we are not purely self-interested, that we do have genuine care for others, but the two considerations are intertwined to the extent that they move in and out of one another and are difficult to separate. And maybe they can’t be separated — after all, they are intimately bound up with our social nature.
“Solidarity with other people”. I think that one of the things we are witnessing in modern society is a continual enlargement of the group of people with whom we feel a sense of solidarity (perhaps that should be: people we come to accept on their own terms). Rights are not self-evident, but every new claim makes a moral demand, makes us question ourselves, and maybe forces one to discover a widening of regard for others. Of course, for a right to be upheld, to become regarded as such, requires that there be a majority of people to uphold it. But at some point in the process we each have to examine what it is that we value.
To the Editor,
I stumbled upon this blog while reading the Guardian, where a link to one of the articles was provided. I had a few questions about the blog which I was hoping you could clarify:
1. What constitutes ‘fashionable nonsense’ and how do you decide this? Also, why is the fashionable followed by ‘nonsense’? Is this meant to indicate that that those truth claims which don’t agree with the bloggers of this website are nonsense? I am curious about the use of this phrase because it seems entirely too dismissive of anything the bloggers might disagree with – and I just wanted to check if this is actually the case or not.
2. Since the blog is very obviously concerned with religious issues (a cursory look at even the recent articles illustrates this point), then in ‘phenomena’ numbers one and three, might it not make sense to insert ‘religious’? I am curious as to why this particular sort of ‘commitment’ and ‘motivation’ has been left out. I only ask this because I think including this would make the goals of the blog quite a bit clearer.
3. I am not sure if this is true, but it seems to me that most, if not all, of the bloggers subscribe to an atheistic worldview. In this case, given the importance allocated to ‘truth claims’ in the blog, might it not be appropriate to clarify the above? So that, just in case, a reader feels that some truth claims being discussed aren’t quite devoid of preexisting perceptions, s/he might gain some inkling of why this might be.
4. Following from the above, and if the above is true, then I am interested in knowing how the bloggers reconcile their specific worldviews with the idea ‘…that to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour.’ (Let me point out that I quite agree with the notion of putting aside preconceptions – I am just not sure to what extent this is actually possible).
Thanks, and look forward to your response on this!
AHR, 1) the phrase “fashionable nonsense” is borrowed from the title of a book by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. I tend to agree with you about the implications though, and I might decide to drop the phrase now…It has perhaps outlived its usefulness.
2) This isn’t a blog; it includes a blog, but the site as a whole is more than a blog. The site has evolved, or at least changed, since the About page was written; I plan to re-write it.
3) I don’t know what you mean by most or all of the bloggers. I’m the only blogger here. Are you talking about the authors of articles? But the articles are articles, not blog posts. The authors are independent.
4) See above. There are no bloggers, apart from me. The authors of articles don’t have to sign up to anything before they submit an article, and I accept or reject articles individually.
Clearly your overall point is that I’m an explicit atheist and that you consider that a worldview and a preconception, indeed a bias. It may (or may not) be in my case, but I don’t agree that it necessarily is. I hope that’s helpful.
Ophelia – yes that does thanks! I was under the impression that it’s a collective blog (in case that’s unclear, I thought something along the lines of: http://kafila.org/about/).
hi there – i was just getting into a discussion on amy clare’s piece on feminism and religion and some bugger shut down the comments, i don’t really know why. anyway, if you could possibly inform amy clare that i’ve continued with the discussion on my own blog, i’d be delighted to hear more from her on this subject. my response is here: