Atheist Ireland, pick your battles, will ya?

12Phase · 28-03-2016 2:05pm

Can we be a bit careful here not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think Michael has played a very important role in facilitating debate and calling the state to account on issues where they've been actively discriminating against non religious (and religious minorities).

I hate this kind of in fighting that develops in movements.

The guy has done huge work on actually highlighting the plight of atheists and others here.

I think myself that AI is too narrow to be the only voice on secularism though. That's not in any way taking from the work they've done to put these issues on the agenda.

It's important and healthy to have those views put across. It's something that was lacking it sidelined from Irish debate for decades.

Samaris · 28-03-2016 2:12pm

To be honest, I really don't care if people want to celebrate Easter, Christmas, Halloween and St. Brigid's Day. I don't really approve of the Good Friday alcohol ban, mostly because it leads to an almost embarrassing build-up to buy out the offies on Holy Thursday and then people probably get MORE drunk on Good Friday Just Because. It's one day out of the year, and if people are buying out the off-licences specifically to be able to get bladdered the next day then what on earth is the point of the supposed "dry-day". Open the dratted things and let people trundle along deciding to be involved in it or not.

On a vaguely related note, I wish people would stop pointing out to me that my birthday falls on a religious feast-day. Yes, I know it does, and no, this does not make my birthday any more special or holy for it. Sheesh. Also, I'm never quite sure how to respond to it. Someday, I may, with a totally serious face, say that yes, it was on purpose as I am the reincarnation of said person.

And then run away very quickly before the explosion happens.

Shrap · 28-03-2016 2:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you a problem with the political hypocrisy on this issue of Michael Nugent/the founders of Atheist Ireland being highlighted?

They won't attend the Easter Rising ceremony (God knows why they were invited) because it's allegedly "sectarian" but they were out on the streets of Dublin back in 1995 waving union jacks and dressed up in red, white and blue to welcome the next head of the explicitly sectarian British monarch. Soak that Michael Nugent historical reality, and astonishing hypocrisy, up quick smart.

I think you have me wrongly placed as a fan. In fact, I am just a person who supports secularism and has started a thread about how I think AI is doing some damage to that with pedantic and petty soundbites.

No, I have no problem with political hypocrisy being highlighted, but as an Irish woman of mixed Irish/British parents, your comments ("Pro-british"??? I mean, really??? You do know we're living in 2016, yes?) weren't highlighting anything to me except the kind of bias I worked very hard to ignore since the 70's. So I presume you won't mind if I don't engage with your derailing.

Jimoslimos · 28-03-2016 2:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you a problem with the political hypocrisy on this issue of Michael Nugent/the founders of Atheist Ireland being highlighted?

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the fact that you are attacking a woman who has passed away just over 5 years ago.

Personally I think it was foolish of AI and Michael Nugent to get involved. "Undemocratic killers" is straying dangerously into political territory. I don't have a problem with people holding pro-unionist* viewpoints but these shouldn't be mixed up with AI.

Monday after the Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox Rising. Nobody offended now?

*I find it baffling how anyone could call themselves an atheist and yet not question the position of monarch as the head of an established church

28-03-2016 2:25pm

Shrap wrote: »

I think you have me wrongly placed as a fan. In fact, I am just a person who supports secularism and has started a thread about how I think AI is doing some damage to that with pedantic and petty soundbites.

No, I have no problem with political hypocrisy being highlighted, but as an Irish woman of mixed Irish/British parents, your comments ("Pro-british"??? I mean, really??? You do know we're living in 2016, yes?) weren't highlighting anything to me except the kind of bias I worked very hard to ignore since the 70's. So I presume you won't mind if I don't engage with your derailing.

I don't care what you are so get over yourself. I pointed out that Nugent has a record of supporting British political violence and opposing Irish political violence, of supporting British Protestant unionists, and opposing Irish Catholic nationalists. This issue highlights his hypocrisy perfectly, especially when I give evidence of his political positions in the past. So, yes, in the context of his politics "Pro-British" is perfectly accurate. And please take a chill pill with the ??? It looks like you're losing it.

Shrap · 28-03-2016 2:31pm

Should have known better than to start a simple thread about AI being more careful over picking battles. Irony overload! Think I'll unfollow my own thread now....

28-03-2016 2:34pm

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the fact that you are attacking a woman who has passed away just over 5 years ago.

All I did was quote from a news story covering people welcoming the [not exactly democratically elected or indeed non-sectarian] Prince of Wales in The Irish Times in June 1995 where the views of one of the founders of Atheist Ireland, Anne Holliday, spoke for themselves.

This is exceedingly relevant given that her co-founder of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent, has suddenly in 2016 a conversion to non-attendance at a ceremony commemorating the "undemocratic" Rising and its "religious connotations".

Jimoslimos · 28-03-2016 2:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

All I did was quote from a news story covering people welcoming the [not exactly democratically elected or indeed non-sectarian] Prince of Wales in The Irish Times in June 1995 where the views of one of the founders of Atheist Ireland, Anne Holliday, spoke for themselves.

But that's my point, she wasn't acting as a spokesperson for AI.

Michael Nugent has backed himself into a corner now, given that he will be expected to condemn any future royal visits due to religious connections - nevermind that such visits may be instrumental in fostering goodwill between Catholics and Protestants and preventing sectarianism.

PopePalpatine · 28-03-2016 3:03pm

recedite wrote: »

The whole situation is complicated and hypocritical on many levels now, just as it was back in 1916. Connolly was a far-left marxist, probably the nearest thing we have ever had to a Stalin "in the making". Pearse was a right-wing catholic, and the nearest thing to a Franco in the making. If they both hadn't been shot by the British, they probably would have been at each others throats before long. I doubt either would be happy with the Ireland of today.

I'm aware of Pearse invoking Christ-like comparisons by using the term "blood sacrifice", but I'm just wondering, do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that he was a "Franco in the making"?

Michael Nugent · 28-03-2016 3:05pm

While I am at this stage used to reading five untrue things about myself before breakfast, it is still a novelty to read a paragraph that contains five sentences, all of them untrue, about my late wife Anne Holliday and me.

I am busy this week preparing for lobby meetings with the UN Human Rights Council about Ireland's human rights record, so I don't have time to respond to this in detail now, but for the record:

Deleted User wrote: »

Curiously, Anne Holliday and her partner Michael Nugent (the founders of Atheist Ireland)

This is not true. My late wife Anne was not a founder of Atheist Ireland. She was not even involved in Atheist Ireland, as she was diagnosed with cancer shortly after Atheist Ireland was founded.

Deleted User wrote: »

were founders of the British state-funded "peace" lobby group New Consensus in the 1990s

This is not true. New Consensus was was not funded by the British State. We were not funded by anyone other than our members, precisely because we wanted to retain our political independence from any State or other funder.

Deleted User wrote: »

which had the amazing skill of never condemning British state or loyalist violence

This is not true. New Consensus protested when agents of the British or Irish States acted outside the law. This included publicly raising concerns about the Stalker case, the Gibraltar killings, the Falls Road bookie shop killings, the Fergal Caraher killing, the Dessie O’Hare shooting, and the convictions of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Armagh Four and Nicky Kelly.

Deleted User wrote: »

(actually, they condemned one piece of loyalist violence when people pointed out they were only condemning republican violence; they never once condemned British state violence).

This is not true. In fact, New Consensus is the only group that I am aware of that held a public protest outside the UDA headquarters in Belfast, bringing together unionist and nationalist politicians, and a Catholic priest, from both sides of the border. We also took part in a protest picket outside the British embassy in London.

Deleted User wrote: »

They were both also closely associated with the explicitly unionist so-called Reform Movement.

This is not true. My late wife Anne was associated with the Reform Movement. That is because she was philosophically atheist, culturally Protestant and politically Unionist. There is nothing wrong with any of those identities, and to say "explicitly unionist" as if it is an admission of something bad says a lot about your own political credentials.

Deleted User wrote: »

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent.

On the contrary, I am pro-Republican, as well as pro-Irish, pro-British, pro-European, pro-human and pro-animal. I am particularly pro-British in the case of Leeds United, though that was influenced by Johnny Giles playing for them when I was a child.

Deleted User wrote: »

That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for their growth in Ireland.

I am chairperson, not leader, of Atheist Ireland. I am one of a hardworking committee of unpaid volunteers, and we are quite happy that we have advanced the cases of atheism and secularism in Ireland since we were founded. Whatever our flaws and mistakes, I think Ireland without us would be less secular than it is becoming today.

12Phase · 28-03-2016 3:35pm

When you consider where Ireland was a very short few years ago it's clear that AI has been very important in kicking off debate and discussion.

Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with some of the displays of Chuch and Military crossover that happens here.

I remember being fairly shocked as a teen seeing soldiers guarding the relic of some Saint.
They're not the Swiss guards in the Vatican nor should they be.

I think Ireland is moving on but I think we should be carful to avoid continuing to confuse being Irish and being Catholic.

It's actually disturbing to see how after 1916 and what followed that despite women having played a very strong role they were just swept aside unless they wanted to exercise power via the convent.

After all the discussion of being oppressed under the thumb of a state religion what did the state do ? Rapidly establish the Catholic Church as a stage religion (it was the official case until the 1970s) and remains the de facto situation today in areas like education.

I still find it shocking that our legislators see nothing odd about having prayers at the Oireachtas.

Why exactly? It's meant to be a meeting of the representatives of the people. It's not mass.

All of these little and not so little things basically say that we are a theocracy and not a republic.

I can understand that our constitution is heavily influenced by Edwardian British structures and values. We didn't really make very many radical changes to how the Dail should operate - largely a frozen in time copy of Westminster in terms of procedures and it seems to have borrowed many of the trappings of religiosity too.

The school system is similar. It never developed beyond church sponsorship, unlike most of or European neighbours and in stark contrast to the US public school system.

To me Ireland seemed to just become independent then retreated into an inward looking shell and became frozen in the interwar period while the rest of Europe and North America rapidly progressed and went trough a social revolution after WWII. We sort of langushed in 1937 until about 1990.

Hotblack Desiato · 28-03-2016 4:20pm

Stealthfins wrote: »

He does like to moan a lot,I seen and heard him speaking and he doesn't promote his AI very well.

Maybe if he was less serious and a bit more funny and witty sometimes he'd be more easy on the ears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJzMAMXLhGM

recedite · 28-03-2016 5:10pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm aware of Pearse invoking Christ-like comparisons by using the term "blood sacrifice", but I'm just wondering, do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that he was a "Franco in the making"?

Apart from being overtly Catholic he showed a disdain for democracy in starting a violent insurrection without support from the general public. He did calculate correctly that his christ-like "blood sacrifice" would generate that support later on, but getting popular support after the event is a tricky concept.
The organisers of the rebellion acted in secret, without the agreement of the leader of the Irish Volunteers (Eoin Mc Neill), and then went ahead with it after Mc Neill had discovered and countermanded the plan. That was effectively an undemocratic coup within that organisation. This is typical of how dictators rise to power; by seizing control of a military group.

The school he ran, St Enda's, was militaristic in many ways, and prepared the boys as cannon fodder. Even today, the grounds which are now a public park seem like an early version of a paintball course. There are little bridges and forts dotted around it, where Pearse enjoyed watching the boys stage mock battles with toy spears and swords while wearing what he considered to be celtic style uniforms or clothing. The idea of indoctrinating boys into a nationalist militaristic mindset is a common theme among fascist regimes. Girls were generally provided with parallel clubs under such fascist regimes, more focused on nursing the wounded and producing more children to continue the cycle. According to reports..

A large group from St Enda’s Secondary School in Rathfarnham joined Na Fianna, and even the IRB, and 15 of these later joined in the 1916 rebellion. It’s no coincidence that the school was run by Pádraig Pearse. He once offered a new rifle as a prize for a poetry competition.

Also worth remembering that although in Ireland a "republican" is often thought of as a more extreme version of a "nationalist", that is not a definition used elsewhere. The Spanish civil war was Republicans V Nationalists. Franco was right-wing, pro RCC, militaristic and nationalist in outlook, all characteristics shared by Pearse. The Spanish republicans he opposed were left-wing, favoured a secular republic, and were more internationalist in outlook (as in, they looked to international workers solidarity) Much closer to Connolly's outlook.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2016 7:28pm

I read that article linked in the Irish Times, and I think it's a very unusual angle taken by the IT, almost scoffing at Atheist Ireland for it's refusal of an invitation to the Commemoration. Almost as though the article is written in a "they think they're too good for us" vibe coming from it, when the IT is always favourable to the advocacy of secularism in Ireland. It's very odd to say the least.

That last line where Michael refers to members of Atheist Ireland doing as they please, I simply read it as Michael making a clear distinction between the position of Atheist Ireland as an organisation, and it's members who are individuals in their own right.

I think it's unfortunate that Michael had to make such a pedantic distinction, as usually it would be assumed to be understood, but social media gives people with a hair trigger for offence the ability to twist the intended meaning of anything.

(Not referring to you Shrap, but to the idiots that inhabit twitter and feed off the slightest offence for this kind of stuff, actively looking to be offended, to find something to be outraged about)

riffmongous · 28-03-2016 7:39pm

recedite wrote: »

Apart from being overtly Catholic he showed a disdain for democracy in starting a violent insurrection without support from the general public. He did calculate correctly that his christ-like "blood sacrifice" would generate that support later on, but getting popular support after the event is a tricky concept.
The organisers of the rebellion acted in secret, without the agreement of the leader of the Irish Volunteers (Eoin Mc Neill), and then went ahead with it after Mc Neill had discovered and countermanded the plan. That was effectively an undemocratic coup within that organisation. This is typical of how dictators rise to power; by seizing control of a military group.

The school he ran, St Enda's, was militaristic in many ways, and prepared the boys as cannon fodder. Even today, the grounds which are now a public park seem like an early version of a paintball course. There are little bridges and forts dotted around it, where Pearse enjoyed watching the boys stage mock battles with toy spears and swords while wearing what he considered to be celtic style uniforms or clothing. The idea of indoctrinating boys into a nationalist militaristic mindset is a common theme among fascist regimes. Girls were generally provided with parallel clubs under such fascist regimes, more focused on nursing the wounded and producing more children to continue the cycle. According to reports..
Also worth remembering that although in Ireland a "republican" is often thought of as a more extreme version of a "nationalist", that is not a definition used elsewhere. The Spanish civil war was Republicans V Nationalists. Franco was right-wing, pro RCC, militaristic and nationalist in outlook, all characteristics shared by Pearse. The Spanish republicans he opposed were left-wing, favoured a secular republic, and were more internationalist in outlook (as in, they looked to international workers solidarity) Much closer to Connolly's outlook.

You are really stretching

Technocentral · 28-03-2016 7:49pm

robindch wrote:

And while referring to the rebellion as one lead by "undemocratic killers" is certainly un-PC - so far as I understand the sequence of events before, during and after the rising, there's more than a little bit of truth there too.

Yeah because the British Empire did a poll of the countries they invaded and raped before they took over get a grip ffs.

Shrap · 28-03-2016 7:54pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I read that article linked in the Irish Times, and I think it's a very unusual angle taken by the IT, almost scoffing at Atheist Ireland for it's refusal of an invitation to the Commemoration. Almost as though the article is written in a "they think they're too good for us" vibe coming from it, when the IT is always favourable to the advocacy of secularism in Ireland. It's very odd to say the least.

That last line where Michael refers to members of Atheist Ireland doing as they please, I simply read it as Michael making a clear distinction between the position of Atheist Ireland as an organisation, and it's members who are individuals in their own right.

I think it's unfortunate that Michael had to make such a pedantic distinction, as usually it would be assumed to be understood, but social media gives people with a hair trigger for offence the ability to twist the intended meaning of anything.

(Not referring to you Shrap, but to the idiots that inhabit twitter and feed off the slightest offence for this kind of stuff, actively looking to be offended, to find something to be outraged about)

No, you're fine - you have it bang on, in fact. And I'm probably wrong in starting this thread the way I have in the first place, as I'm more than likely institutionalised by being Irish and living in rural Ireland to "pick my battles" in a way that least offends "culturally" catholic people.

For instance, I have an unerring antennae for what is going to rub the "catholic culture" up the wrong way, and so I prefer to restrict my actual pronouncements on secularism to something indisputable (like educational inequality), but shy away from the more nuanced stuff (like that our treaty basically trashed the secular ideals of the uprising) for fear of upsetting the apple cart.

Beginning to think that makes me more deferential than respectful

Which is probably why I took fright at the "pedantic distinction" highlighted above.

Oh, and Michael - sorry for how the thread took off towards your personal history. That was not my intention.

Shrap · 28-03-2016 8:15pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Well said, I'm an athiest but that [expletive deleted] doesn't speak for me.

So you decided to go full ar5ehole then? Nice. Classy, even.

recedite · 28-03-2016 8:19pm

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, and Michael - sorry for how the thread took off towards your personal history. That was not my intention.

Not your fault Shrap, some posts have been imported into this thread from an after hours thread, and brought with them the kind of people who really lower the tone.

Technocentral · 28-03-2016 8:27pm

Shrap wrote:

So you decided to go full ar5ehole then? Nice. Classy, even.

Classy just like you eh?

Shrap · 28-03-2016 8:36pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Classy just like you eh?

No, I'm talking to your face. Not to someone who isn't here to defend themselves.

Technocentral · 28-03-2016 8:43pm

Shrap wrote: »

No, I'm talking to your face. Not to someone who isn't here to defend themselves.

What are you ****eing about Nugent posted on here

More so you are calling me an arsehole yet claiming I'm not classy, hypocritical or what!! I didn't know you were Nugent's PR person btw.

Shrap · 28-03-2016 8:47pm

Technocentral wrote: »

What are you ****eing about Nugent posted on here More so you are calling me an arsehole yet claiming I'm not classy, hypocritical or what!! I didn't know you were Nugent's PR person btw.

I never claimed to be classy, petal. Who are you again? Some randomer off of after-hours is it?

Do you have an actual point to make or are you just up here to have a go at people? Would be nice to think you have a greater vocabulary than c*cksucker.

Technocentral · 28-03-2016 8:55pm

Shrap wrote: »

I never claimed to be classy, petal. Who are you again? Some randomer off of after-hours is it?

Do you have an actual point to make or are you just up here to have a go at people? Would be nice to think you have a greater vocabulary than c*cksucker.

Who are you again? Ms. high and mighty, I'm glad to leave your classy thread.

Shrap · 28-03-2016 9:09pm

So you don't have a point then. Grand. Mind the door doesn't hit yer hoop on the way out.

JPNelsforearm · 28-03-2016 10:06pm

“an undemocratic group killing innocent people”.

any context to that? That is an insane statement for anyone who considers themselves Irish to make. Why make a comment, why bring irreligion/atheism into a national occasion and your "interpretation" of it. That is my main gripe about AI, they remove religion(good) from education, law etc, but they replace it/its gets replaced with something much much worse, some form of EU/commie anti national/internationalism.

robindch · 28-03-2016 10:13pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Well said, I'm an athiest but that [expletive deleted] doesn't speak for me.

Technocentral is banned for one month for gross incivility.

Hotblack Desiato · 28-03-2016 10:37pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

“an undemocratic group killing innocent people”.

any context to that? That is an insane statement for anyone who considers themselves Irish to make. Why make a comment, why bring irreligion/atheism into a national occasion and your "interpretation" of it. That is my main gripe about AI, they remove religion(good) from education, law etc, but they replace it/its gets replaced with something much much worse, some form of EU/commie anti national/internationalism.

You should be aware that most Irish nationalists in 1916 still supported home rule (indeed many still supported the war effort.) The Irish Volunteers were a minority among nationalists. The IRB were a minority within the Irish Volunteers. They had no mandate from their own organisation never mind from outside it.

JPNelsforearm · 28-03-2016 11:19pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You should be aware that most Irish nationalists in 1916 still supported home rule (indeed many still supported the war effort.) The Irish Volunteers were a minority among nationalists. The IRB were a minority within the Irish Volunteers. They had no mandate from their own organisation never mind from outside it.

I am aware, a "mandate" is a canard that Quislings use to justify their cowardice and inaction to themselves. A fight for freedom and restoration of territorial integrity does not require a mandate, an organised group, popular consent or a "democratic" process or even widespread support, it doesnt require an economic plan, a legislative framework to be enacted afterwards, all it requires is action from an individual/individuals towards the goal of an independent free Irish state.

Hotblack Desiato · 29-03-2016 12:09am

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I am aware, a "mandate" is a canard that Quislings use to justify their cowardice and inaction to themselves. A fight for freedom and restoration of territorial integrity does not require a mandate, an organised group, popular consent or a "democratic" process or even widespread support, it doesnt require an economic plan, a legislative framework to be enacted afterwards, all it requires is action from an individual/individuals towards the goal of an independent free Irish state.

Congratulations, you've just justified every Provisional IRA atrocity on the same basis as the Rising. All that's needed is a motivated bunch of thugs dedicated to a greater cause whether people want it or not, let me see... can I think of any current parallels?

Atheist Ireland, pick your battles, will ya?

Comments