Laws influenced by religious opinion

Leftist wrote: »

tbf I assumed it was a religious protest based on an earlier comment. If it was a feminist protest I would respect that a lot more.

They can't stop us from using contraception anymore. Or eating meat on fridays, or divorcing. So I have far more objection to the anti-homosexual agenda by the religious groups these days. Not because I am gay, I don't dig dudes, I've never had a broseph chuck his junk all up in my grill and it's not something I would like, but how some priest botherer can tell them what to do is just beyond my comprehension.

It doesn't really matter how much respect you have for a protest. The fact of the matter is that the law gives people the right to assembly and freedom of speech in public places (with the exception of the ridiculous Section 5 of the Public Order Act in the UK and Ireland).

If I'm a resident and I disagree strongly with a strip club opening right by my house, I have every right to raise that objection with my MP / council. They might ignore it, or they might take heed to the fact that many residents simply wouldn't want it there.

Leftist wrote: »

I have no objection to that. Preventing customers from entering the premises and sabotaging business through physical presence is not the same though.

Either way, It's a moot point if the protest was not religious based.
Not becaues it makes it any less significant, just that it is off-topic.

They have the right to protest if they feel that the council isn't listening to their concerns for sure.

Obstruction is already prohibited in protest, so if there was genuine reason as to why they would be obstructing street traffic then the Gardaí could have been involved.

Your OP and subsequent posts aren't making a whole lot of sense. If people can lobby on the behalf of any other position, why can't Christians lobby? Why is that meant to be precluded in a secular state? It seems like your misunderstanding what secularism and church-state separation actually mean in practice.

Shenshen wrote: »

They weren't blocking the street, they were blocking the entrance to the premisses.
They were doing it to force the company out of business.
The guards did become involved a few times if I remember correctly, but they could not spare a guard to stand by the shop 24/7, whereas the old biddies had their sleeping bags and flasks of tea, and seemed to work a rota.

That is not a democratic protest and form of expression, it's essentially mob tyranny.

How is it not a democratic protest? - These people were letting their voices be heard. There was no reason why others couldn't come along to protest against them. Western society has a tradition of freedom of expression and conscience. These people as far as I remember were residents in the local area who were genuinely concerned about this. Why shouldn't they protest if they genuinely feel that this was wrong?

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Now that was dirty pool.
I didn't say that did I?

The fact that you have adopted the accomodationist position is hardly surprising and neither is your blinkered view of the creation of the Establishment Clause.

Honestly the positions that you'll contort yourself into for your god is alarming.

American history and the writings if the founding fathers make it clear that church-state separation was to ensure religious freedom. Look to Washington's letter to the Jews at Newport the first Jewish congregation in the US.

That's just historical fact. I can't honestly see your real objection to church - state separation being intended to bring better religious freedom in New England at that time given the history of each state having an established religion under the British bar Maryland I think.

Feathers wrote: »

Agreed, which is why secularism protects the right of people to vote for someone on the basis of their religion if they so choose, even though this logic would be rejected by the majority.

Secularism ensures there is no undue influence of religion on politics, its not about removing all religious voices from the room (as the idea the OP put forward with his open question). A religious person choosing to back a like-minded candidate isn't undue influence, it's simply democracy (unless there's gerrymandering involved, which is a different story).

Good understanding of it. Some of the atheist posters think that secularism means that if you are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc that you should shut up. Rather all it means is that proposals are considered on merit rather than which holy book they came from. It's not that faith-based views are banished, but rather that all views are considered on merit, and with no due deference to any particular religion.

Which in the US case clearly encouraged religious freedom rather than establishment Anglican led oppression.

Leftist wrote: »

Nope.

I don't recall saying that and if I did it wasn't my intention.

I specifically mean laws which are dictated by religious views.

I think I cleared that about a dozen times. If a christian has an opinion on divorce or gay marraige then they have a right to voice it, but if their opinion is based on a religious law, it should be discounted and that opinion should never influence democracy.
They can lie or they may even have another solid reason why they object, and that is perfectly fine.

PS anyone who thinks ireland is a secular country is kidding themselves. It's swiftly moving away from the influence of the church but you only have to look at the schools to see the old theocracy is still dwelling within our infrastructure.

You might want to read the OP. This could be useful for people who claim it is a misconception that atheists often confuse secularism with shutting people of faith out of politics.

Are there any current laws in irish society that are influenced specifically by a religious group?

for instance we all know about the former ban on contraception and divorce, the former was obviously a religious law.

And should religious groups be banned from lobbying the government on law making decisions?

The answer is of course not any more than Atheist Ireland shouldn't be banned from lobbying on the basis of atheism.

I don't think you understand the concept of secularism very much. It doesn't mean that people can't advocate X or Y even on the basis of a religious text, what it does mean is that all political decision making should be based on merit not no holy book X or Y.

As for schools, I'd be an advocate of the Irish system making more secular schools as is the case in Britain (66% secular 33% faith schools) to allow choice to parents.

The problem is when some atheists insist that secularism means stamping out faith from society when it clearly never has done if we look back to the early years of the United States for example.