Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

Nodin wrote: »

Loyal to the church...until the church changes its mind?

"The discussion document produced by the synod on family issues in the Vatican was not reflective of all the opinions expressed at the gathering of bishops and cardinals, David Quinn, director of Christian organisation the Iona Institute said yesterday.

“A lot of people are annoyed at the document and what was in it,” Mr Quinn said. “It’s an extremely tentative and provisional document. It does not summarise the opinions of a lot of the participants at the synod,” he said.
“It’s not even close to being the final word. There will be another summary done at the end of the week and I dare say that will be much more reflective of what has actually been discussed,” he said.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/iona-institute-says-document-not-reflective-of-all-opinions-at-synod-1.1963526

A bit further down:

“It is to be welcomed so long as the document is quite clear as to the church’s teaching on these issues. The church has a particular view of the moral life, but there are different ways you can lead people into the moral life. You can do it with a rod or you can do it with soft words. Obviously the Vatican and the pope say the softer approach,” he said.

I have to say, this internal wrangling is very entertaining. There is obviously a certain liberal wing in this synod trying to steer things in a certain, more tolerant way, and this is really getting the back up of the conservatives, the anti-gay lobby, the no-divorce lobby, the our-way-or-the-highway group.

Really hope to see more of this.

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/


A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible



I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

Smiley92a wrote: »

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/


A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible



I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

The emotive ****e in that really boils my blood. It conveniently ignores the fact that egg and sperm donors volunteer their services, its not like anyone is forced to give up their 'child'. The same can't be said for the Church though can it Iona or have you forgotten? Honestly the way they can compartmentalise their outrage for when it suits their religious agenda infuriates me.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was going to post "You couldn't make it up", but someone did...

Will Self's novel 'The Book of Dave' deals with this - set in a post-apocalyptic England where the found diary of a (current day) deranged taxi driver forms the basis of a religion - it was an interesting read.

Smiley92a wrote: »

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/


A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible



I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

What an amazing muddle of fallacies - it makes no sense at all, unless you look at it from a crypto-homophobic standpoint.

Has no-one informed these people that gay people can already adopt and that the possibility for them to produce children through surrogacy arrangements or IVF treatment has been there for quite a while already?

If they really felt that the raising of children outside their "natural" families should be opposed as much as possible, why on earth are they wasting their time on gay people, who are a small minority to start with, an even smaller minority of which both want to get married and would like to raise children?

They should focus on single parenthood in stead. Or maybe we can start making it illegal to foster: all those children could feasibly be raised by their natural children, I am sure.

Poor Breda... all these people are just so intolerant of her opinion! And that is bad, it even constitutes oppression as Breda has explained to us not too long ago in a radio interview: the oppressed have become the oppressors!

But just like the UKIP supposedly have nothing against Muslims, and yet are uniquely interested in the way some fundamentalist Muslim beliefs conflict with modern values in western European countries, while not being interested at all in the way any other religion conflicts with these values, Breda and the Ionians only seem to worry about adoption, IVF treatments and "the right of children to be raised by their biological parents" when it involves gay people, and not at all when single parenthood is involved, or adoption by non-gay people, to name but two obvious examples.

So what are we asked to tolerate here? Well, there is a word for singling out a group of people for negative treatment in that way, and it is bigotry. If you do not enjoy being challenged on bigotry, I would say her best policy is to stop making bigoted statements in public.

IIRC I heard that paying someone very little (i.e. <~€0.50) via Paypal or a bank transfer actually results in a net loss for the receiver. It would make sense given that I've seen notices in shops, restaurants and pubs saying the minimum payment is €5 or €10.