Should Atheist Ireland rebrand itself?

shruikan2553 · 06-08-2014 12:21pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'd say they made themselves an Institute to be fair.

I'm not sure many are confused that this infers some kind of special status.

Is it any more audacious than Atheist Ireland's name - implicitly positioning themselves to be the voice of atheism in Ireland?

New names suggestions?

"The Truth Force"
"We're the Only Sane Ones Collective"
"We're NOT a religion"
"Free thinking....no that's wrong, you shouldn't think that"

Can call it " The Institute "

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-08-2014 1:19pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not sure many are confused that this infers some kind of special status.

You would be surprised.

Wasn't there a Muslim Extremist posting on this forum.... or was it politics.ie..... called Eamonn something and he consistently and continuously refereed to himself as a "group" even though it was just him. And this linguistic leap was intended to make people take him more seriously.

As pointed out some places like the UK mediate who can be called an "institute" just like when you get an honorary doctorate from a uni in the US you do not get to call yourself "Doctor". We reserve some titles for those who deserve it. So no surprise to find what when a title like "institute" does confer some kind of credibility but is not regulated.... that people would leap to adopt it.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So what are your suggestions for AI's new name?

"Atheist Institute" would be a funny re-branding I have to admit though. It smacks a little of Tom Lehrer's "Massachusetts state home for the bewildered". It would certainly tickle me in a kind of Monthy Python kind of way.

But as keeps being pointed out when the topic of the name of this organisation comes up, it was selected by vote by the original founding membership. Although my own involvement with them has waned since my move to Germany, I would be surprised to see any kind of re-branding or re-naming coming any time soon. But... I have been surprised before

Brian Shanahan · 06-08-2014 5:58pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Wasn't there a Muslim Extremist posting on this forum.... or was it politics.ie..... called Eamonn something and he consistently and continuously refereed to himself as a "group" even though it was just him.

Eranem? He's got one of those blog thingies now you know. Still spouting rubbish.

Nodin · 06-08-2014 6:19pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would be surprised.

Wasn't there a Muslim Extremist posting on this forum.... or was it politics.ie..... called Eamonn something and he consistently and continuously refereed to himself as a "group" even though it was just him. And this linguistic leap was intended to make people take him more seriously.

There was, there was indeed. He used be a born again Christian, but that wasn't enough fun so he converted to Saudi style wahabi Islam. The group was him, one or two mates and his missus, god love her. Think he left here and went to Saudi in the end.

PopePalpatine · 06-08-2014 7:45pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Eranem? He's got one of those blog thingies now you know. Still spouting rubbish.

Bloody hell, that looks like some Dark Enlightenment bull****.

Piliger · 11-08-2014 2:05pm

Cabaal wrote: »

In short, the use of Institute in Iona's name almost makes it sound like they are some sort of authority or something....atleast to some people.

No it doesn't. It is not invited on to RTE because of it's institute, but because RTE is a biased catholic establishment state organisation. If they were called Catholicism Dominance, they would still be invited by RTE in 'dominant' numbers.

smacl · 11-08-2014 2:18pm

Piliger wrote: »

No it doesn't. It is not invited on to RTE because of it's institute, but because RTE is a biased catholic establishment state organisation. If they were called Catholicism Dominance, they would still be invited by RTE in 'dominant' numbers.

Yep, I suspect there's more than a bit of religious bias in the upper echelons of the RTE ok. There's also the double whammy that much of what Iona spouts is so cringeworthy they possibly deem it controversial and hence good television. Become more of a Vincent Brown fan myself in recent years as a result.

I Heart Internet · 12-08-2014 10:04am

smacl wrote: »

Yep, I suspect there's more than a bit of religious bias in the upper echelons of the RTE ok. There's also the double whammy that much of what Iona spouts is so cringeworthy they possibly deem it controversial and hence good television. Become more of a Vincent Brown fan myself in recent years as a result.

And Iona et al would claim that there is a bias against Catholicism in the upper echelons of RTE. And around and round we go.

Each side claiming RTE are biased against their point of view when actually RTE are just trying to muddle along and not get into trouble with regulators, politicians, etc.

You're losing the battle (whatever that battle is) when you're claiming that RTE is biased against you.

smacl · 12-08-2014 10:28am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And Iona et al would claim that there is a bias against Catholicism in the upper echelons of RTE. And around and round we go.

Each side claiming RTE are biased against their point of view when actually RTE are just trying to muddle along and not get into trouble with regulators, politicians, etc.

You're losing the battle (whatever that battle is) when you're claiming that RTE is biased against you.

True to an extent, but RTE also tends to cater for a very conservative rather traditional audience, much more so say than TV3. The fact that they're propped up by the state, and enjoy generous salaries to boot, leaves them seemingly unwilling to rock the boat. Also worth keeping in mind that Iona is a pretty tiny organisation, dedicated to lobbying a certain Catholic viewpoint, with undisclosed possibly dubious funding sources. One wonders why they're on RTE at all, who's decision is this and on what grounds is it made? Given they've sued the RTE in recent times, and sucked up taxpayers money as a result, one wonders why they would be invited back?

I Heart Internet · 12-08-2014 10:52am

smacl wrote: »

True to an extent, but RTE also tends to cater for a very conservative rather traditional audience, much more so say than TV3. The fact that they're propped up by the state, and enjoy generous salaries to boot, leaves them seemingly unwilling to rock the boat. Also worth keeping in mind that Iona is a pretty tiny organisation, dedicated to lobbying a certain Catholic viewpoint, with undisclosed possibly dubious funding sources. One wonders why they're on RTE at all, who's decision is this and on what grounds is it made? Given they've sued the RTE in recent times, and sucked up taxpayers money as a result, one wonders why they would be invited back?

I expect it's down to producers -

"We need someone to take the anti-gay marriage/pro-life point of view in a debate! Who will we get?"

" Sure give Iona a buzz."

" Ah yeah, sorted."

smacl · 12-08-2014 11:04am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I expect it's down to producers -

"We need someone to take the anti-gay marriage/pro-life point of view in a debate! Who will we get?"

" Sure give Iona a buzz."

"After the shít storm over Panti Bliss, are you joking me?"

" Ah yeah, sorry 'bout that, maybe give Diarmuid Martin a shout?"

FYP

I Heart Internet · 12-08-2014 11:19am

smacl wrote: »

FYP

Again though, it's RTE threading a fine line.

It would not fly to have RTE refusing to have Iona on as a result of their legal action. They would be seen as petty, etc.

RTE have a tough role to play - public service broadcaster and trying to give fair play to all. They do it reasonably well most of the time.

robindch · 12-08-2014 11:54am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

RTE have a tough role to play - public service broadcaster and trying to give fair play to all. They do it reasonably well most of the time.

Many modern journos believe that a good story is one where two sides are presented. That might work on some issues, but not all and it can end up providing single-issue cranks like Quinn et all with a free platform from which to broadcast their foolishness.

Encouragingly, the BBC has recently taken a firmer line on inviting cranks onto some of its shows, but most other media outlets have yet to follow suit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

Zubeneschamali · 12-08-2014 12:17pm

I think AI should rebrand as the Spanish Inquisition. Element of surprise.

robindch · 12-08-2014 12:25pm

^^^ Didn't expect that.

Cabaal · 12-08-2014 12:43pm

Nobody ever does.

Piliger · 12-08-2014 1:13pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And Iona et al would claim that there is a bias against Catholicism in the upper echelons of RTE. And around and round we go.

Each side claiming RTE are biased against their point of view when actually RTE are just trying to muddle along and not get into trouble with regulators, politicians, etc.

You're losing the battle (whatever that battle is) when you're claiming that RTE is biased against you.

Eh no. Not in any way shape or form. RTE is biased and needs to be called out on it. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the battle is clear. Religious prejudice.

It would not fly to have RTE refusing to have Iona on as a result of their legal action. They would be seen as petty, etc.

No it would not. It would have been seen as RTE taking a stand for freedom of speech against a small bigoted religious group, actually. Something that you appear not to value in any way.

RTE have a tough role to play - public service broadcaster and trying to give fair play to all. They do it reasonably well most of the time.

RTE have an incredibly easy role to play. And they play it abominably poorly.

Brian Shanahan · 12-08-2014 3:54pm

robindch wrote: »

Many modern journos believe that a good story is one where two sides are presented. That might work on some issues, but not all and it can end up providing single-issue cranks like Quinn et all with a free platform from which to broadcast their foolishness.

Actually its more of a case of the more honest media outlets somehow thinking that they should have a balanced output on every issue, leading to such ridiculous outcomes as climate change deniers being given equal air time to spout their lies as people talking in favour of doing something concrete about the problem (who are often as much laypeople as the deniers so that they are unable to counter the bull**** with proper facts, because the deniers are using quite sophisticated lies to bull**** the public) on media such as the BBC or in the Guardian despite the fact that the deniers have as much going for them as flat earthers (simply because climate change is new, and because the deniers are noisy seems to be controversial, whereas nearly everybody realises by now that flat earthers are cranks).

Of course the right wing media have no compulsion to be honest, so they rarely, if ever, balance their nut-jobs with people who know what they are talking about, therefore giving liars like climate change deniers a bigger platform in reality than those who are actually trying to save the species.

Piliger · 12-08-2014 4:23pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually its more of a case of the more honest media outlets somehow thinking that they should have a balanced output on every issue, leading to such ridiculous outcomes as climate change deniers being given equal air time to spout their lies as people talking in favour of doing something concrete about the problem (who are often as much laypeople as the deniers so that they are unable to counter the bull**** with proper facts, because the deniers are using quite sophisticated lies to bull**** the public) on media such as the BBC or in the Guardian despite the fact that the deniers have as much going for them as flat earthers (simply because climate change is new, and because the deniers are noisy seems to be controversial, whereas nearly everybody realises by now that flat earthers are cranks).

Of course the right wing media have no compulsion to be honest, so they rarely, if ever, balance their nut-jobs with people who know what they are talking about, therefore giving liars like climate change deniers a bigger platform in reality than those who are actually trying to save the species.

No rampant bias there then ....

I Heart Internet · 13-08-2014 10:05am

Piliger wrote: »

Eh no. Not in any way shape or form. RTE is biased and needs to be called out on it. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the battle is clear. Religious prejudice.

RTE are oppressing you?

Piliger wrote: »

No it would not. It would have been seen as RTE taking a stand for freedom of speech against a small bigoted religious group, actually. Something that you appear not to value in any way.

Why do a group's size have anything to do with their right to be heard?

Piliger wrote: »

RTE have an incredibly easy role to play. And they play it abominably poorly.

I disagree.

smacl · 13-08-2014 10:29am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why do a group's size have anything to do with their right to be heard?

Because giving a small extreme group a disproportionately large amount of air-time on a publicly funded channel exemplifies just the type of unfair bias that we are discussing.

I Heart Internet · 13-08-2014 12:14pm

smacl wrote: »

Because giving a small extreme group a disproportionately large amount of air-time on a publicly funded channel exemplifies just the type of unfair bias that we are discussing.

How are Iona "extreme"? What extreme positions do they hold?

I think Iona have clearly been very successful in organising themselves and marketing themselves as an organisation which fights the "Christian" corner. I don't begrudge them this success. To a lesser extent, Atheist Ireland, has been successful in organising and positioning themselves as an organisation that speaks up for atheists.

Piliger · 13-08-2014 12:32pm

smacl wrote: »

Because giving a small extreme group a disproportionately large amount of air-time on a publicly funded channel exemplifies just the type of unfair bias that we are discussing.

I agree. But not just on a publicly funded channel.
A program discussion panel made up of an RTE interviewer and three Iona people to discuss their point of view is fine as a once off.
A program discussion panel made up of an RTE interviewer, two Iona people and one non-Iona to discuss broader issues is not acceptable. It is clear bias on any channel and should not be ok.
A program discussion panel made up of an RTE interviewer and consistently representing Iona as the voice of a significant group in this country is also unacceptable. It is consistent bias of a severe degree.

Dades · 13-08-2014 12:35pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

To a lesser extent, Atheist Ireland, has been successful in organising and positioning themselves as an organisation that speaks up for atheists.

This brings us back to the thread title. AI should not be perceived as an organisation speaking for atheists as their charter goes way beyond what constitutes an atheist. But clearly in some quarters it is.

Piliger · 13-08-2014 12:36pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

How are Iona "extreme"? What extreme positions do they hold?

I think Iona have clearly been very successful in organising themselves and marketing themselves as an organisation which fights the "Christian" corner. I don't begrudge them this success. To a lesser extent, Atheist Ireland, has been successful in organising and positioning themselves as an organisation that speaks up for atheists.

Firstly Atheist Ireland does not speak for Atheists. It only speaks for it's members. Iona holds the extreme end of Irish catholic views, and any casual reference to their views places them firmly in that category.
How often have Atheist Ireland appeared on or been invited on to discussion programs on RTE ?
Iona is also a private organisation funded from unknown sources, some of which are outside the country. Atheist Ireland is purely a members driven organisation that exists on members fees and donations.
These could not be more different in their character.

Piliger · 13-08-2014 12:40pm

Dades wrote: »

This brings us back to the thread title. AI should not be perceived as an organisation speaking for atheists as their charter goes way beyond what constitutes an atheist. But clearly in some quarters it is.

It is impossible to completely control how an organisation is perceived. Their web site and communications makes their position crystal clear and that is all they can do. I don't believe there is any significant view among the public that they peak for Atheists and they make no claim whatsoever to speak for Atheists, and they certainly do not speak for me.
Your assertion that an organisation cannot use a name based on the major topic that they involve themselves in, just because they also take stands on other topics is completely erroneous.

I Heart Internet · 13-08-2014 12:50pm

Piliger wrote: »

Firstly Atheist Ireland does not speak for Atheists. It only speaks for it's members.

Fair enough. Maybe their name is (however unintentional) misleading so?

Piliger wrote: »

Iona holds the extreme end of Irish catholic views, and any casual reference to their views places them firmly in that category.

Could you give us some examples of the "extreme" views (or actions) that Iona hold (or carry out)? Are these things illegal?

Piliger wrote: »

How often have Atheist Ireland appeared on or been invited on to discussion programs on RTE ?

I don't know.

Piliger wrote: »

Iona is also a private organisation funded from unknown sources, some of which are outside the country. Atheist Ireland is purely a members driven organisation that exists on members fees and donations.
These could not be more different in their character.

Fair enough. Maybe AI would have more success if they followed the Iona model?

Piliger · 13-08-2014 12:54pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Fair enough. Maybe their name is (however unintentional) misleading so?

"Atheist Ireland" ?? How exactly can you possibly draw that conclusion ?

Could you give us some examples of the "extreme" views (or actions) that Iona hold (or carry out)? Are these things illegal?

Did anyone anywhere claims they were illegal ?

I don't know.

Then your comparison of the two organisations falls flat on it's face.

Fair enough. Maybe AI would have more success if they followed the Iona model?

The only reason Iona has success is because they have people in RTE to push and support their views. Atheist Ireland are a grass roots organisation and as such have far more legitimacy and validity and credibility.

robindch · 13-08-2014 12:57pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Could you give us some examples of the "extreme" views (or actions) that Iona hold (or carry out)? Are these things illegal?

Piliger said, quite specifically and even in the text you quoted, that Quinn's views are at the "extreme end of Irish catholic views". Piliger did not say that these views were "extreme" in themselves so I'm not quite sure why you're misrepresenting his opinion.

Quinn's views are dishonest, based as they are upon a dishonest worldview; he frequently misrepresents the views of his opponents and he frequently misrepresents his own views, and for those reasons alone, I detest Quinn and his mates and wonder why -- other than as clickbait -- they're given so much airtime to launder his transparently daft rubbish.

I Heart Internet · 13-08-2014 1:09pm

robindch wrote: »

Piliger said, quite specifically and even in the text you quoted, that Quinn's views are at the "extreme end of Irish catholic views". Piliger did not say that these views were "extreme" in themselves so I'm not quite sure why you're misrepresenting his opinion.

Quinn's views are dishonest, based as they are upon a dishonest worldview; he frequently misrepresents the views of his opponents and he frequently misrepresents his own views, and for those reasons alone, I detest Quinn and his mates and wonder why -- other than as clickbait -- they're given so much airtime to launder his transparently daft rubbish.

Both smacl and Philiger suggest that Iona's views are extreme. Albeit, as you point out, Philiger suggests they are merely at the "extreme end of Irish catholic views." Just wondering what extremist views they were referring too. What views do they hold that mean RTE should steer clear of them?

Should Atheist Ireland rebrand itself?

Comments