Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Bill for secular marriages passes in Senead, but it needs to be amended

2

Comments

  • #52
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So various religious groups see any marriage as having some aspect inherently under their religious remit, hence it doesn't matter who proceeds over them (they will see a humanist marriage as equal to a christian marriage as equal to a buddhist marriage etc.).
    I don’t want to claim to represent the position of all[/i[ religious groups. But sticking for a moment to Christianity, which is the religious tradition that bothers us most in Ireland, I think the position would be that there’s no such thing as humanist marriage or Buddhist marriage or whatever; there’s just marriage, a universal natural social reality. (There may be humanist weddings, or Buddhist weddings, but they all celebrate the same marriage.)

    But Christians would say two more things about this:

    First, marriage is not just a universal natural social reality; it’s a divinely ordained good, part of God’s plan for humanity. (NB for humanity, not just for Christians.) This isn’t a unique or unusual thing to say, of course; the whole of Creation is a divinely ordained good.

    Secondly, as between Christians marriage acquires a further significance; It’s a celebration of and image of the relationship between God and his people. (In which light, of course, its procreative dimension acquires a particular significance.) Some Christian traditions - oh, all right, the Catholics - use the language of “sacrament” to express this understanding; others reject that language, but I think still share that understanding. And because marriage has, in Christian eyes, this dimension the religious, liturgical celebration of marriage between Christians is appropriate.

    Right. But even if you’re committed to Christian cultural domination through the power of the state, the Christian position is not that everyone should be married in church; it’s that Christians are appropriately married in church. This translates into a demand that the state should recognize church weddings (and not, e.g., require a civil ceremony as well), but not that the state should require church weddings. Hence even the most right-wing and reactionary political Christians have no objection to the state recognizing non-religious weddings, and generally have no preference for non-religious weddings presided over by full-time state employees versus those presided over by licensed celebrants who are engaged by the couple concerned.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But it does matter that those getting married satisfy whatever religious criteria the group holds to (gay marriage is not equal to humanist/christian/buddhist etc marriage)?
    I think Christians would say that their understanding of marriage as inherently opposite-sex in nature isn’t a Christian criterion; it’s an anthropological criterion, which arises from observing and reflecting upon the realities of the human condition. (And they’d point out that it’s an insight shared by lots of non-Christians.)

    Obviously, other people observe and reflect upon those realities, and arrive at different insights and understandings. And, at the risk of grossly oversimplifying a huge issue, you might suggest that this arises because of differing emphases; supporters of gay marriage see the unitive, public, committed, mutually loving and supportive nature of the relationship and reckon that’s the essence of the social reality of marriage, and therefore the state should recognize relationships like this - same-sex or opposite-sex - as the marriages they are. Opponents of gay marriage say no, you may have all that in a same-sex relationship but you’re necessarily missing the procreative orientation of the relations, and that’s an essential dimension. Obviously, you may or may not accept that viewpoint, , but it’s not an intrinsically religious viewpoint, and doesn’t become so merely because many of the people who advance it are religious.

    Which means that Christians who reject the idea of Christian cultural domination through the power of the state - and, at least formally, that’s all the mainstream Christian traditions in Ireland - may still oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage. In doing so they don’t see themselves demanding that Christian doctrine be embodied in the law; they see themselves as demanding that the law should conform to social and anthropological reality.


  • #53
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    IMO the christian churches are not so warm and fuzzy towards non church marriages as the above posts might indicate.

    This opinion is based on a various things, eg the infamous ne temere decree made marriage between a catholic and a heretic invalid (from a RCC point of view) except under certain circumstances, mainly that a RC priest be present at the ceremony, which the priest might only agree to after extracting certain concessions regarding the upbringing of the children. Even though this particular decree is outdated technically, since the 1970's, there is still some other decree in its place.
    Also I have often heard of couples being married in registry offices abroad, and when they returned to Ireland their families insisted on them being "churched" to make it "official." The situation here AFAIK is that the State recognises foreign secular marriages as being valid, but the church may not.

    The traditional church attitude towards marriages conducted by muslims, scientologists, cannibals etc.. is that they may see themselves as being "married" in some quaint way, but its not a proper christian marriage. Therefore a christian sailor lad could return from the South Seas having been "married" (according to pagan tribal customs) to an island girl for a time, and would then be allowed to marry a good christian girl, as if he was still a bachelor.

    Also, the very word for the christian ceremony"holy matrimony" refers to making the woman a mother (latin "mater") which would obviously not apply in a gay wedding.

    Just to be clear, what we are mainly talking about in this thread is State recognition of the validity of a marriage, not Church recognition. The Irish State generally recognises foreign marriages as valid if they are valid in the country in which they occurred.
    But for a marriage conducted in Ireland to be valid it must be conducted by an approved person, which currently is limited to clergy of a few of the traditional few mainstream religions, plus the civil service registrars. Hence if the ceremony is conducted by someone outside of the chosen few clergy, it is not valid until another ceremony is conducted at the registry office. The chosen clergy are however permitted to enter details into a register directly, in a back room of the church at the end of the ceremony.
    So we are talking about possibly adding humanist "clergy" and possibly people who are openly atheist to the approved list.


  • #54
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,517 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I don't know why an atheist wouldn't be happy with the normal civil ceremony, except perhaps for the restrictions on where and when it can occur. The humanist ceremony stuff just leaves me cold.

    I have some ideological problems with some of the humanist stuff (people seeking the comfort of religious rites without the religion, it seems to me) but we got married in a civil ceremony. The ceremony was nice. They say they object to 'religious' music. They've no objection to the Ramones though so we were grand :)


    Edit: Friend of mine got married in a civil ceremony a few years ago in Markree Castle (shortly after ceremonies outside the registry offices were allowed.) The castle has a private chapel and the ceremony took place there - they had to close the drapes in the chapel for the ceremony as the stained glass windows behind them had religious imagery :D it's great imho that the state is, in this small area at least, insisting on a separation between church and state, and that more and more people are availing of non-religious marriage (which in times past would have been regarded as for weirdos, and not 'really' married at all.)

    I suspect though that the real reason for the banning of religious iconography/music/readings during civil ceremonies is down to divorced RCC-ers trying it on, hoping for a pseudo-religious second marriage...

    Scrap the cap!



  • #55
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don’t want to claim to represent the position of all[/i[ religious groups.

    ...

    ...versus those presided over by licensed celebrants who are engaged by the couple concerned.

    So that's a yes then?
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think Christians would say that their understanding of marriage as inherently opposite-sex in nature isn’t a Christian criterion; it’s an anthropological criterion, which arises from observing and reflecting upon the realities of the human condition.

    I'm not that interested in what christians would say (christians aren't known for being vocally honest about their true opinions), I'm more interested in what their actions, and arguments, say about their true intentions.

    Regardless of where it comes from, homosexuality exists, that is a reality of the human condition.

    Homosexuals wanting to get married, that is a reality of the human condition.

    Arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to get married, because they currently aren't allowed to get married is a tautology, a fallacy.

    All arguments against homosexual marriage are predicated on religious doctrine. Supposedly secular arguments, such as the procreation aspect of marriage turn out to be insincere when we see their proponents invariably fail to apply them to heterosexual couples that should also fall afoul of the same propose logic (couples who can't or don't want kids).


  • #56
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,517 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    All arguments against homosexual marriage are predicated on religious doctrine.

    Modern religious doctrine.
    It was tolerated, if not exactly allowed, in the past.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #57
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ninja900 wrote: »
    I don't know why an atheist wouldn't be happy with the normal civil ceremony, except perhaps for the restrictions on where and when it can occur.
    Well that is the crux of the matter. A couple should be able to get married on a beach, and at the weekend, if that is what they want. Without having to arrange a private registry office marriage the week before just to ensure everything is legit.
    IMO the best way to achieve this is for the State to licence certain personnel (trained, vetted and competent), to do the job, for which they would be paid a fee set by the market. It is basically a legal/clerical exercise to conduct a search of the records to make sure the couple are eligible, and then to fill in the correct forms, follow the prescribed procedure and get the signatures.

    I can't see how a same sex couple could be discriminated against in this kind of secular setting, considering their constitutional rights, EU human rights, and other equality legislation.The usual article cited against same-sex marriage in Ireland, as opposed to some lesser "civil partnership" is;
    Article 41[1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
    But I see nothing in that to prevent gay marriage, any more than I see it forcing a heterosexual couple to have children. It is simply a State recognition of a stable relationship, with implications for property (especially "the family home") taxation, social welfare, inheritance etc..
    As for a church wedding, if a gay couple want to belong to a church that discriminates against them, that is a conundrum of their own making.


  • #58
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    All arguments against homosexual marriage are predicated on religious doctrine.
    I'd have said that most of them are fear derived from subverting an established authority or tradition, in the sense of Jonathan Haidt's ideas on moral foundations.

    The level of signal-related vitriol suggests to me that quite a few people may well have married in order to signal they're not gay, suggesting (see here for analogous behavior) that some of the most vitriolic almost certainly are.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    The accountants could describe their principal object (accountancy) as both secular and ethical. Who wants to be married by an accountant?

    Why not?

    Lots of marriages happen for accountancy/tax/inheritance reasons.


  • #60
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You could be sure they'd dot all the i's. Important in a contract like that.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    It is basically a legal/clerical exercise to conduct a search of the records to make sure the couple are eligible

    so the humanist society will do this now, do the church do this?


  • #62
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    I'd have said that most of them are fear derived from subverting an established authority or tradition, in the sense of Jonathan Haidt's ideas on moral foundations.

    Does this disagree with what I said? If you see that established authority or tradition as being religion, then a general populaces fairly mindless adherence to doctrine they don't actually believe (as Irish so-called "catholics" are wont to do) would appear as uninformed (almost fearful) resistance to things like homosexuality. They are used to having such thinking done for them and will defend it right up until the point where it effects them personally, where they just ignore it (like condoms or sex before marriage or anything in the old testament).


  • #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm not that interested in what christians would say (christians aren't known for being vocally honest about their true opinions), I'm more interested in what their actions, and arguments, say about their true intentions.

    What do you mean by this?

    If you're implying that you don't believe that Christians are honest about what they believe, then I'd have to say this shows a fundamental problem in atheist / Christian dialogue until you make clear what you mean by this.

    Why don't you trust the sincerity of Christians when they speak about their beliefs in the way that they trust your sincerity when you speak about the underpinnings of your position?


  • #64
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    It was pretty damn obvious what he meant. Stop trying to pick a fight, does Christmas mean nothing to you?


  • #65
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    philologos wrote: »
    Why don't you trust the sincerity of Christians

    Because for the vast majority of them their beliefs are entirely half-baked and superficial, and after even a few seconds of questioning their position starts to fall apart, with rapid backtracking, equivocation and post-hoc rationalisation, and eventually many of them will be revealed to hold beliefs that are barely theistic let alone doctrinally conformist Christian, and in many cases their supposed beliefs are little more than a veneer for prejudice, hypocrisy and small-mindedness. Hope this helps.


  • #66
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    Because for the vast majority of them their beliefs are entirely half-baked and superficial, and after even a few seconds of questioning their position starts to fall apart, with rapid backtracking, equivocation and post-hoc rationalisation, and eventually many of them will be revealed to hold beliefs that are barely theistic let alone doctrinally conformist Christian, and in many cases their supposed beliefs are little more than a veneer for prejudice, hypocrisy and small-mindedness. Hope this helps.

    This is just slicing up a portion of my post. My question doesn't concern whether or not you believe that Christianity is wrong, but questioning the sincerity of Christians in respect to honestly saying what they believe. Ideally Mark Hamill will respond.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    philologos wrote: »
    This is just slicing up a portion of my post. My question doesn't concern whether or not you believe that Christianity is wrong, but questioning the sincerity of Christians in respect to honestly saying what they believe. Ideally Mark Hamill will respond.

    Ehh, I didn't say a single thing about whether the claims made by Christianity were true. I'm talking about how what a Christian claims to believe is very often shown to be very far from what they actually believe.


  • #68
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    Ehh, I didn't say a single thing about whether the claims made by Christianity were true. I'm talking about how what a Christian claims to believe is very often shown to be very far from what they actually believe.

    I think rarely if ever have my beliefs about God been anything less than theistic, and I'm not sure if Mark Hamill was referring specifically to only nominal forms of Christianity as you've implied.

    I think the grounds for claiming that Christian belief is a veneer for anything else is a separate argument. Claiming that Christianity is a veneer for anything implies that Christianity is essentially just a cover for non-religious beliefs about X, Y or Z. Something which I think is manifestly untrue on reasonable scrutiny in most Christians.

    I think Mark Hamill knows more about what he originally meant so I'll defer to his explanation when he can get round to it. I think the value in Christians or atheists discussing anything when the other claims that the other is not being sincere or forthright is detrimental to the actual point of discussing. Namely to understand something about the other. Claiming that one side has sinister motives is not helpful whatsoever in doing this. In fact it implies that the atheist side is no longer interested in listening to what Christians have to say about their faith any longer and instead are interested in erecting pop-psychology or conspiracy theory.

    If that's what atheism is interested in doing, then if anything atheism is small minded.


  • #69
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    You seem to think Christians are a lot more unified and coherent that they are in reality. Most Catholics that I know - actually, all Catholics that I know reject the notion that the Pope is to be obeyed and that the Vatican's rules are to be followed.

    I can't count the times that I've had someone claim to believe something for religious reasons, only to have that position crumple entirely under the slighest scrutiny, and for it to turn out that they're just expressing a secular prejudice (sexism/homophobia, for example) while attempting to make it seem more legitimate by claiming religious foundation.


  • #70
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    You seem to think Christians are a lot more unified and coherent that they are in reality. Most Catholics that I know - actually, all Catholics that I know reject the notion that the Pope is to be obeyed and that the Vatican's rules are to be followed.

    I can't count the times that I've had someone claim to believe something for religious reasons, only to have that position crumple entirely under the slighest scrutiny, and for it to turn out that they're just expressing a secular prejudice (sexism/homophobia, for example) while attempting to make it seem more legitimate by claiming religious foundation.

    I don't think you're responding to my question to Mark Hamill. It's not about whether or not you think that Christian beliefs crumple under scrutiny (highly questionable, and I could argue the same about atheistic assumptions). It was about the sincerity which Christians hold to their beliefs. I'm not getting into the nitty gritty of the Pope or anything else, because Mark's post didn't address that specifically.

    Moreover, my position on many issues has changed on account of the Gospel. It's not as if I had X, Y and Z belief already as an agnostic, and used Christianity as some kind of cover. That's an absurd explanation given my own experience of what becoming a Christian was actually like for me. Many of my own agnostic assumptions, and my clear apathy towards many things was deeply challenged by what I came to discover as a result of honestly reading the Scriptures.

    This is exactly why I think Mark should address his own claim.


  • #71
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not about whether or not you think that Christian beliefs crumple under scrutiny - It was about the sincerity which Christians hold to their beliefs.

    These two things can and usually are the same thing. A person says that they oppose gay marriage because the Church disapproves of it. I point out how they ignore most of what the Church says so therefore they couldn't care what the Church teaches. It turns out they just don't like gay people. This shows a lack of sincerity regarding their beliefs.
    This is exactly why I think Mark should address his own claim.

    He's slipped into a diabetic coma after Christmas dinner, he has assigned me to be his representative in this conversation.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    These two things can and usually are the same thing. A person says that they oppose gay marriage because the Church disapproves of it. I point out how they ignore most of what the Church says so therefore they couldn't care what the Church teaches. It turns out they just don't like gay people. This shows a lack of sincerity regarding their beliefs.

    You're bringing up nominal Christianity rather than Christianity that is actually Biblically rooted. Again, I don't see much reason to think that was what Mark was referring to. He seems to be speaking about Christians as a whole.

    What I see from what Christians I know (who would be relatively active in church life, and who would genuinely seek to live and speak for Jesus in their daily lives in every respect in the knowledge that He is their Lord and their Saviour) looks different by the by. Most Christians from what I can tell genuinely believe that marriages should be between a man and a woman, not out of a dislike towards gay people. I have no animosity towards anyone in this respect, but rather because I believe as a Christian that God has given us standards and that genuinely God instituted marriage between a man and a woman in a Christian context because that is what He intended for us, that is what is best for us.

    Now, as far as I'm concerned the atheist and agnostic can formally disagree with my understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Moreover, my belief that marriage was intended in this way no more means that I despise anyone than holding any other position.
    Zillah wrote: »
    He's slipped into a diabetic coma after Christmas dinner, he has assigned me to be his representative in this conversation.

    Well hopefully it was enjoyed by all of us, and I hope to hear from him soon.


  • #73
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Zillah wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    This is exactly why I think Mark should address his own claim.
    He's slipped into a diabetic coma after Christmas dinner, he has assigned me to be his representative in this conversation.

    I would like to point out that Zilla has explained what I meant quite well (no doubt better then I would have done). Now, back to the coma :).


  • #74
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    So much for the coma...:rolleyes:. Oh well, no harm in a bit of exercise, I wonder how many calories posting burns?
    philologos wrote: »
    You're bringing up nominal Christianity rather than Christianity that is actually Biblically rooted. Again, I don't see much reason to think that was what Mark was referring to. He seems to be speaking about Christians as a whole.

    What I see from what Christians I know...

    So you contradict Zilla by saying he shouldn't be concentrating on a subset of christianity (when he talks about Catholics, the largest subset of christianity) and yet you use a tiny subset (the christians you personally know)?
    philologos wrote: »
    Most Christians from what I can tell genuinely believe that marriages ...

    No, you mean most christians you know personally believe such and such about marriage. AFAIR, you aren't a catholic right, you are a member of some sort of fairly small evangelical denomination of christianity? So the christians you personally aren't necessarily a good representation of all christians. How many christians do you personally know?
    philologos wrote: »
    I have no animosity towards anyone in this respect, but rather because I believe as a Christian that God has given us standards and that genuinely God instituted marriage between a man and a woman in a Christian context because that is what He intended for us, that is what is best for us.

    That would be in the chapter in the bible where he tells you to kill people who do homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13) or the chapter where it is explained that god makes people gay (Romans 1:26)?


  • #75
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Edit: Can I ask you to address the original question I put to you, claiming that Christians are insincere in their beliefs. This is going a bit off on a tangent. Why do you believe that? Do you think for example that I'm not straight with you about my Christianity?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you contradict Zilla by saying he shouldn't be concentrating on a subset of christianity (when he talks about Catholics, the largest subset of christianity) and yet you use a tiny subset (the christians you personally know)?

    No. I'm referring to Zillah focussing what seems to be exclusively on nominal Christians rather than practising ones.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, you mean most christians you know personally believe such and such about marriage. AFAIR, you aren't a catholic right, you are a member of some sort of fairly small evangelical denomination of christianity? So the christians you personally aren't necessarily a good representation of all christians. How many christians do you personally know?

    First and foremost, I describe myself as an evangelical Christian. I go to an evangelical Church of England church in central London at the moment. I know Christians right across the board in a number of different denominations both from when I was at university involved in the Christian Union movement on campus, and now when I meet with other Christians at the Christian fellowship we have at work, and of course those which I meet in church.

    How many Christians do I personally know, I'd say easily over a hundred from a number of different denominations.

    Denomination doesn't hinder Christian fellowship for me. All that matters is that we agree on the essentials in Scripture.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That would be in the chapter in the bible where he tells you to kill people who do homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13) or the chapter where it is explained that god makes people gay (Romans 1:26)?

    Romans 1:26 doesn't explain what you claim it does. What it does describe is God's attitude towards sin, and His impending wrath concerning it. Perhaps you should read Romans as a whole rather than isolating passages out of it?

    As for Leviticus, Christians do believe that sin warranted death prior to Christ. In fact if we look to your section in Romans 1:32 we see this. However, Christians believe that Jesus paid the full penalty for sin on the cross, He stood in our place and took God's wrath so that we could be forgiven (also explained in Romans right up to chapter 5). Therefore, if I have been forgiven by Jesus and His saving death on the cross, how can I expect to condemn someone else in turn? (Matthew 18 explains this perfectly).

    Christians have since the beginning of Christianity read the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus and what He did. So, essentially we read the Old Testament while considering what Jesus did for humanity. Christians believe that the Torah was fulfilled by Jesus, and Christians believe that the Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come in Jesus. So isolating passages again without this understanding is also disingenuous.


  • #76
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    </notamod>sounds like a great discussion for a thread title 'should atheists treat christian as being genuine', don't see what its got to with this thread</notamod>

    ah so it philogos who derails threads not Peregrinus sorry


  • #77
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    expectationlost wrote: »
    </notamod>sounds like a great discussion for a thread title 'should atheists treat christian as being genuine', don't see what its go to with this thread</notamod>

    ah so it philogos who derails threads not Peregrinus sorry

    The thread was already derailed by the time I got here by many of the atheist members of this forum.


  • #78
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And rather than trying to post on-topic, you threw yourself into making things worse. Go you.


  • #79
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Sarky wrote: »
    And rather than trying to post on-topic, you threw yourself into making things worse. Go you.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82374705&postcount=61


  • #80
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Two more thoughts on this Bill...

    On Christmas Day, Cardinal Brady launched an overtly political campaign of lobbying politicians against abortion, just days after this Bill forbids secular bodies from promoting political causes if they want to legally solemnise marriages.

    Also, the Humanist Association now faces a major dilemma in how it responds to the Bill: does it stop promoting the political cause of separation of church and state in order to be able to legally solemnise marriages, or does it forego the legal solemnising of marriages until the law is changed to provide equality for all without discrimination on the ground of religion?


  • #81
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    i would be interested Michael on why you think that non-philisophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solemnise weddings, to argue it here might allow you to convince the authorities another time


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    expectationlost wrote: »
    i would be interested Michael on why you think that non-philisophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solmenise weddings, to argue it here might allow you to convince the authorities another time
    I don't believe that non-philosophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solemnise marriages.

    I've an open mind as to who should be allowed solemnise marriages, although my personal preference would probably be that it be either state employees or individuals who meet certain criteria, with no nominating bodies involved, and no discrimination on the grounds of religion or philosophical belief.

    The point I am making above is that the law as passed prevents the HAI from nominating solemnisers, because the law as passed forbids secular (but not religious) nominating bodies from promoting a political cause, and the HAI does promote a political cause.


  • #83
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I don't believe that non-philosophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solemnise marriages.

    I've an open mind as to who should be allowed solemnise marriages, although my personal preference would probably be that it be either state employees or individuals who meet certain criteria, with no nominating bodies involved, and no discrimination on the grounds of religion or philosophical belief.

    The point I am making above is that the law as passed prevents the HAI from nominating solemnisers, because the law as passed forbids secular (but not religious) nominating bodies from promoting a political cause, and the HAI does promote a political cause.

    well i was reacting to your previous posts and the dail debate and your response to that not your latest post, you seemed eager to be seen as a philosophical body and not to be seen argueing for non-philosophical (and possibly commercial) bodies being allowed, was it just for this bill, at this time ).


  • #84
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I made a new thread for the off topic stuff between Philologos and I.


  • #85
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    The point I am making above is that the law as passed prevents the HAI from nominating solemnisers, because the law as passed forbids secular (but not religious) nominating bodies from promoting a political cause, and the HAI does promote a political cause.
    I do see your point, and it seems technically correct to me, but I don't think those in the Dail would consider "campaigning for yourself" to be adopting "a political cause". They would see it merely as a natural selfish behaviour. Adopting "a cause" and campaigning for that would be something different.
    In other words, if a religion campaigns for more privileges for itself, is that "a political cause"? If the secular body (selected precisely because it is seen as secular) promotes secularism, is that to be regarded as a political cause? I suppose it comes down to the energy and strength put into any campaigning. Being in favour of secularism is one thing, intensive political lobbying is another.


  • #86
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    recedite wrote: »
    I do see your point, and it seems technically correct to me, but I don't think those in the Dail would consider "campaigning for yourself" to be adopting "a political cause". They would see it merely as a natural selfish behaviour. Adopting "a cause" and campaigning for that would be something different.
    In other words, if a religion campaigns for more privileges for itself, is that "a political cause"? If the secular body (selected precisely because it is seen as secular) promotes secularism, is that to be regarded as a political cause? I suppose it comes down to the energy and strength put into any campaigning. Being in favour of secularism is one thing, intensive political lobbying is another.

    but this option has been deliberatly removed from the text they based that part of the bill on as he says
    2.5 Only nonreligious bodies have exclusions such as political causes

    The Bill requires, among various rules for exclusion, that nonreligious nominating bodies can not promote a political cause. But neither this Bill nor the Principal Act applies any of these rules for exclusion to religious nominating bodies. And it would be extraordinary to find a nonreligious body that wanted to take part with equality in the conduct of marriage ceremonies, and that did not also promote the political cause of secularism through separation of church and state.

    Furthermore, this particular exclusion seems to be a deliberate choice. The entire wording of the section on exclusions is transcribed, word for word, from the definition of “excluded body” in the Charities Act 2009, with just one difference. The Charities Act qualifies “(b) a body that promotes a political cause,” by saying “(b) a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.” There is no reason why this Bill should remove that qualification from the definitions that it has transcribed from the Charities Act.

    http://www.atheist.ie/2012/12/legislating-for-equality-in-marriage-registration-atheist-ireland-briefing-document-for-tds-for-debate-this-thursday/


  • #87
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Yes, an adaptation of part (b) there would have provided the necessary clarification. Whether they left it out for some devious reason, or just out of stupidity, is another matter.


  • #88
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, an adaptation of part (b) there would have provided the necessary clarification. Whether they left it out for some devious reason, or just out of stupidity, is another matter.
    deliberatly


  • #89
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    expectationlost wrote: »
    well i was reacting to your previous posts and the dail debate and your response to that not your latest post, you seemed eager to be seen as a philosophical body and not to be seen argueing for non-philosophical (and possibly commercial) bodies being allowed, was it just for this bill, at this time ).
    We want to focus primarily on the fact that the Government is discriminating on the ground of religion or belief. If we get too much into the argument of how marriages should be solemnised, that distracts from this central point. So we are arguing that, whatever criteria the Government uses, it should apply those criteria evenly.

    While I personally would have no problem with a liberal approach to allowing people to solemnise marriages, I think it is a legitimate aim for a Government to say that it wants to protect the institution of marriage by using more rigorous criteria than my personal preferences.

    On that basis, we are arguing that there is not a proportionate relationship between the aim that the Government describes (protecting the institution of marriage) and the means it is employing to pursue that aim (discriminating against nonreligious citizens).

    The reason for using the 'philosophical and non-confessional body' description is that this is already enshrined in EU law as a parallel to religious bodies. It is meant to encompass bodies that are formed around a shared world view that is of significance and coherence, but that is not religious in nature.

    Also, Atheist Ireland has already met with the Presidents of the European Union, Parliament and Council under this description, because the EU institutions are obliged to treat religious and philosophical non-confessional bodies equally.

    So in effect what we are saying to the Government is, if you are using criteria that encompass bodies that are formed around a shared world view, then you should at a minimum include all bodies that are formed around a shared world view, whether the shared world views are religious or secular.
    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, an adaptation of part (b) there would have provided the necessary clarification. Whether they left it out for some devious reason, or just out of stupidity, is another matter.
    Whatever the motivation, it is definitely deliberate. An entire section was copied from one act to another, with just one sub-clause deleted. Atheist Ireland raised it with all TDs, it was raised in the Dail debate, and it was not amended.

    .


  • #90
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    I've done an analysis of some of the people who can legally solemnise marriages in Ireland under the existing law.

    You can legally solemnise marriages if you are a psychic medium, tarot card reader, public entertainer, ghost whisperer or ghost buster (Ministers of the Spiritualist Union of Ireland); or if you oversee a culture of covering up child sex abuse, or lie to and positively mislead a state inquiry into child sex abuse, or swear victims of child sex abuse to silence (Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church); or if you default on six-figure debts, or fail to file income tax returns (Pastors of the Abundant Life Christian Centre and Victory Christian Church).

    More details here.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I've done an analysis of some of the people who can legally solemnise marriages in Ireland under the existing law.

    You can legally solemnise marriages if you are a psychic medium, tarot card reader, public entertainer, ghost whisperer or ghost buster (Ministers of the Spiritualist Union of Ireland); or if you oversee a culture of covering up child sex abuse, or lie to and positively mislead a state inquiry into child sex abuse, or swear victims of child sex abuse to silence (Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church); or if you default on six-figure debts, or fail to file income tax returns (Pastors of the Abundant Life Christian Centre and Victory Christian Church).

    More details here.

    But not if you just believe marriage is a good thing and want to help a mate out who can't get a HSE solemniser or doesn't want a church wedding. Ireland, where superstition reigns supreme over marriage.


  • #92
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    The reason for using the 'philosophical and non-confessional body' description is that this is already enshrined in EU law as a parallel to religious bodies. It is meant to encompass bodies that are formed around a shared world view that is of significance and coherence, but that is not religious in nature.
    Do atheists have a "shared world view" ?
    It could be argued that they do if they are also humanist in outlook.
    Is that the official EU definition of a 'philosophical and non-confessional body' or just your interpretation? (not a bad definition BTW)
    Also, Atheist Ireland has already met with the Presidents of the European Union, Parliament and Council under this description, because the EU institutions are obliged to treat religious and philosophical non-confessional bodies equally.
    That is useful recognition to have, but it does not mean AI would always be guaranteed a place at the table. I'd say in reality you earned your place through solid actions and informed petitions, rather than just by claiming to be a "non-confessional philosophical body".
    Whatever the motivation, it is definitely deliberate. An entire section was copied from one act to another, with just one sub-clause deleted.
    It is odd that they cut it out, but there is still a possibility that they just thought taking out the reference to "charitable purpose" would render the sentence too open, such that it becomes meaningless, eg.

    Before;

    (b) a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.”

    After;

    (b) a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the purposes of the secular body.”

    For example, a random political party might be able to apply under the second version.

    It leads back to the politicians desire (wrongly IMO) to restrict access to get on this approved list to organisations claiming some kind of (undefined) moral authority.
    Humanists are worthy. Atheists, not so much. Anyone trying to register as part an honest business (eg wedding planners) are unworthy. Ironically, if you are part of a sham business, running your own religion or acting as a spriritualist, you are grand.
    Perhaps they feel they are somehow protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, but the whole "sanctity" thing started to unravel with the first civil registry office wedding. What is left nowadays from the point of view of the State is just a legal contract. For the couple themselves, it is more than that of course; its a commitment to each other in front of their family and community.


  • #93
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    recedite wrote: »
    Do atheists have a "shared world view" ?
    It could be argued that they do if they are also humanist in outlook.
    Is that the official EU definition of a 'philosophical and non-confessional body' or just your interpretation? (not a bad definition BTW).
    I was paraphrasing the protection given to atheism as a value system by the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, states that

    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

    2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    The Council of Europe has issued a handbook explaining the implications of Article 9. This states the following about what is meant by ‘thought, conscience and religion’:
    Personal beliefs to fall within Article 9 protection must “attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” and further be such as to be considered compatible with respect for human dignity. In other words, the belief must relate to a “weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour” and also be such as to be deemed worthy of protection in European democratic society…

    Atheism [is a] value system clearly encompassed by Article 9…

    It is important to note that non-belief as well as nonreligious belief are also protected by Article 9. As enshrined in Article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a “democratic society”within the meaning of the Convention. It is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it. While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to “manifest [one’s] religion”. Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions.


  • #94
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    recedite wrote: »
    Do atheists have a "shared world view" ?
    It could be argued that they do if they are also humanist in outlook.
    Re your original question, I would say yes, atheists have a shared world view. A world without gods is a very different world to a world with gods, both in terms of reality and morality. Sharing that much of a world view is significant, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite. Adding in humanism brings a more specific world view, but atheism of itself is already significant.


  • #95
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    recedite wrote: »
    It is odd that they cut it out, but there is still a possibility that they just thought taking out the reference to "charitable purpose" would render the sentence too open, such that it becomes meaningless...
    For example, a random political party might be able to apply under the second version.
    I don't think so, because the act also says elsewhere that you have to have charitable status for five years, and the exclusions also specifically exclude political parties, trade unions etc.

    Whatever the motivation, the clear intent was to restrict things further than the restrictions on charities, by removing one of the political freedoms that charities have.
    recedite wrote: »
    It leads back to the politicians desire (wrongly IMO) to restrict access to get on this approved list to organisations claiming some kind of (undefined) moral authority.
    Humanists are worthy. Atheists, not so much. Anyone trying to register as part an honest business (eg wedding planners) are unworthy. Ironically, if you are part of a sham business, running your own religion or acting as a spriritualist, you are grand.
    Perhaps they feel they are somehow protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, but the whole "sanctity" thing started to unravel with the first civil registry office wedding. What is left nowadays from the point of view of the State is just a legal contract. For the couple themselves, it is more than that of course; its a commitment to each other in front of their family and community.
    I agree with all of this. And the worst thing is, they probably believe they are doing something good by protecting marriage from atheists and Elvis impersonators.


  • #96
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    I'd just love to know why the HSE is involved with weddings?
    I cannot think of a less romantic organisation.
    Maybe the Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism or something like that instead?
    Or, your local council?
    But, the HSE?! It's not an appendectomy !


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,517 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Because they're responsible for the registration of births, marriages and deaths.

    http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Find_a_Service/bdm/

    Scrap the cap!



  • #98
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Atheism [is a] value system clearly encompassed by Article 9…
    That's interesting, I wasn't aware that the EU already recognised atheism as "a value system". Perhaps there is some mileage to be had by using that quote that when dealing with Irish TD's. Seeing as they are always so deferential to the EU institutions.


  • #99
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Solair wrote: »
    I cannot think of a less romantic organisation.

    I got married in Limerick registry office - births and deaths are around the corner from the main building where marriages are held, but the whole place is a dump (registered two kids there - looks like the mess room in a disused barracks). If I'd gone to check out the place beforehand (didn't bother as had no choice of venue at the time) I swear I'd have called off the whole thing.

    The HSE had made a hilarious effort to tart the place up. The front window had two shop dummies standing rigidly side by side, that had seen better days (you know the flesh coloured plastic on them when it's been over-exposed to the sun?) dressed up in wedding gear and surrounded by what looked suspiciously like plastic grave flowers......inside was worse again - the walls were pea green, the chairs were your classic brown plastic school-chairs, and there was a fake plant in one corner and a large office desk in the other. I have to say, the registrar gave it his best shot, but it was FAR from romantic.

    I only wish I'd taken a photo of the dummies - they were truly special. Great memories :rolleyes:

    Sorry, bit off topic!


  • #100
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,517 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Hopefully it's been done up since :)

    Grand Canal St. in Dublin is nice.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #101
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Hopefully it's been done up since :)

    Grand Canal St. in Dublin is nice.
    I thought it was awful, torn chairs for guests and weird office style chairs in front of the celebrant who sits at a desk. Not to mention the lecture theatre feel, with no proper "aisle". Hated it and was glad we were only doing the formalities rather than a full wedding there.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement