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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

EVERYONE QUICK! LIVELINE NOW THEY'RE DISCUSSING OUR STRANGE SPECIES.

2

Comments

  • #32
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    porsche959 wrote: »
    Arguably our greatest cultural export in recent years, U2, of the four members not a single one is Roman Catholic.

    Not taking away from your point, but if U2 were our greatest cultural export of the last few years, our culture is dead. Far more accurate to say that they are our greatest, combined, tax evasion and hypocracy exports of the last few years.


  • #33
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    tax evasion

    Always find this remark amusing,
    Ask the avg joe on the street if they'd like to pay less tax legally and they'll jump at the chance....but we'll begrudge anyone that actually legally does it.

    :rolleyes:


  • #34
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Had to laugh at the old guy spouting things like the angelus was the "last thing we have left to cling to" as Irish people, what utter bollocks, you'd swear there were atheist goon squads going around burning down churches and breaking into old peoples houses and stealing pictures of jeebus.


  • #35
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Penn wrote: »
    No, but when there are much bigger and more important arguments to be made, arguing for the removal of something small such as the Angelus can just come across as kinda petty and unreasonable. Should RTE play the Angelus? No. But trying to get something as small and insignificant to non-Catholics like that would serve no purpose other than make Catholics more resistant to changes.

    The Angelus is a minor annoyance. The schools issue is a major problem. Degree matters. We should be focusing on issues like schools which have a real impact on non-Catholic peoples lives, rather than arguing about a minute's worth of bell ringing before the news which is easily ignored.

    We can focus on more than one issue at a time.


  • #36
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    No, because people who might otherwise agree with real change like in schools might decide we're a bunch of dicks.

    All separation of church and state is real change. I know which would be lauded as the bigger victory, but that doesn't mean we need not fight both fights equally, especially when the arguments are foundationally the same.

    As for thinking that we are dicks, people will think that no matter what arguments we limit ourselves to.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Ask the avg joe on the street if they'd like to pay less tax legally and they'll jump at the chance....but we'll begrudge anyone that actually legally does it.

    :rolleyes:

    There's a big difference between what the likes of you or me (when I'm working) are obliged to pay and corporations like U2 are obliged to pay. The tax system in Ireland (and globally) is already way too skewed to the ordinary PAYE worker (in that they pay a far too large share of the tax compared to the benefits they receive from the state, or even their earnings) even if we assumed that every major corporation payed their taxes in full accordance with current law.

    And that's actually the rub of it, even with the massive advantages of low tax rates and the ability to write off nearly every expense (whether real or a polite fiction) no matter how esoteric against profits to calculate liability, most large companies (in terms of revenue) use offshore tax havens (including Ireland, any company based in the IFSC contributes less to the Irish economy than a single unemployed 21 year old) to evade their taxes. And most of these schemes are illegal even under the very lax laws in place, it's just that too many politicians and too many at the top of the various tax and fiscal authorities are in the pockets of these companies (bought and paid for for a song, literally) to enforce the laws.

    If it were any other area of the law and criminality, there would be whigs on the green, and political parties destroyed (remember GUBU anyone?), but we've been sold the Horatio Alger line all too successfully, that we encourage people to avoid paying back to society for the advantages given to them in the misplaced hope that, someday, with a bit of elbow grease and application we will join the monied elite too. This despite the game having been rigged so that it is harder than ever before to gain wealth without having it given to you.


  • #38
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Dades wrote: »
    No, because people who might otherwise agree with real change like in schools might decide we're a bunch of dicks.

    You know, that line is trotted out every time a group looks for their fair share of civil rights, sometimes (like with yourself) fellow fighters for the cause. But all too often this kind of talk is music to the ears of those who want the immoral and skewed status quo in place.


  • #39
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    All separation of church and state is real change. I know which would be lauded as the bigger victory, but that doesn't mean we need not fight both fights equally, especially when the arguments are foundationally the same.
    Disagree completely that removing the Angelus is real change. It's symbolic change.

    Remove indoctrination from schools and EVERYTHING else will follow. This, as a goal, is a million times more important than some bonging at 6 o'clock.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    As for thinking that we are dicks, people will think that no matter what arguments we limit ourselves to.
    Some people, maybe, but not as many as if we start stripping people's little cultural indulgences instead of keeping them on our side while working for the one goal to achieve them all.


  • #40
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,203 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    We can focus on more than one issue at a time.

    But even outside of the schools issue there are far more important issues than The Angelus. It's pretty far down the list and I think trying to change too much at the same time would be met with more resistance than trying to fix the more important, pressing issues.

    Degree matters. The level of hardship people can face due to religious discrimination in schools, their jobs, their communities and even by the Government where legitimate and well-reasoned debates can be held and real progress made is basically a necessity to try and achieve. The news being one minute late because of the angelus isn't a non-issue, but it's not an high priority issue, and with the important changes which do need to be made, crying out for the removal of the angelus and other unimportant issues just comes across as unreasonable and kind of petty, and ultimately does more harm than good.


  • #41
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    Disagree completely that removing the Angelus is real change. It's symbolic change.

    Remove indoctrination from schools and EVERYTHING else will follow. This, as a goal, is a million times more important than some bonging at 6 o'clock.

    Again, there is no reason why we cant do both at once.
    Dades wrote: »
    Some people, maybe, but not as many as if we start stripping people's little cultural indulgences instead of keeping them on our side while working for the one goal to achieve them all.

    So we should patronise people to stop from hurting their feelings? Rather than use their irrational knee-jerk defence of a government-sanctioned religious call to prayer as a perfect example of the damage that the joining of church and state creates?

    While we are at it, maybe we should only argue for gay marriage but not joint adoption rights, as that might alienate the homophobes that support one and not the other.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Penn wrote: »
    The news being one minute late because of the angelus isn't a non-issue, but it's not an high priority issue, and with the important changes which do need to be made, crying out for the removal of the angelus and other unimportant issues just comes across as unreasonable and kind of petty, and ultimately does more harm than good.

    You're saying this like we haven't been made out to be unreasonable and petty for wanting to take religion out of schools. Mean-spirited atheists wanting to take the nice bible stories away from kids and leave them with no moral compass. Atheists are the second least liked "religious group" in America, and they don't even have the Angelus there.
    If it's a small issue then it only requires a small effort to tackle it.

    I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do, they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.


  • #43
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Again, there is no reason why we cant do both at once.

    That's true and all Mark, but what the lads are saying is that with limited resources, you need to prioritise, and the angelus before the six-one news should be way, waaaaay down on the list of issues that need to be addressed by those people campaigning for a secular State.

    Pick your battles basically, and if you go for the removal of the angelus, chances are you're likely to meet with much more resistance than addressing the issues where they start - with the educational system in schools. Even before they enter school, the children of parents who would like their child to receive a secular education face prejudice and discrimination... and you're worried about a minute of bell ringing before the news?
    So we should patronise people to stop from hurting their feelings? Rather than use their irrational knee-jerk defence of a government-sanctioned religious call to prayer as a perfect example of the damage that the joining of church and state creates?

    You don't have to patronise at all, but with your limited resources at your dispoal, you have to pick your battles more wisely than going up against the State broadcaster and the Church, who will swat you down like a fly if you go in with a disorganised gung-ho approach. That strategy in itself is an example of a knee-jerk irrational approach that's simply doomed to failure and bound to be a waste of resources.
    While we are at it, maybe we should only argue for gay marriage but not joint adoption rights, as that might alienate the homophobes that support one and not the other.

    I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but adoption laws in Ireland are currently under review and will have been completed before the referendum on marriage equality. The outcome of the referendum on marriage equality will have no bearing on adoption rights for same sex couples -

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/equal-parent-rights-for-gay-couples-256111.html


  • #44
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.

    Or, more likely, they'll just take an instant dislike to you when you come at them with this sort of attitude -
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do

    That survey you linked to had a point - if you can promote your message with a positive attitude, more people are likely to warm to you and listen to what you have to say. If you disregard people who don't share your views as incapable of rational discussion like rational adults, you're far more likely to be viewed as the only irrational one in the room.

    You need to promote the positives of a secular society, not take pot shots at what you see as irrational juveniles with indoctrinated sensibilities. That might have them tell you go look in a mirror, and no, it really won't matter what you say or do by then, you'll have already lost your audience.


  • #45
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,203 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You're saying this like we haven't been made out to be unreasonable and petty for wanting to take religion out of schools. Mean-spirited atheists wanting to take the nice bible stories away from kids and leave them with no moral compass. Atheists are the second least liked "religious group" in America, and they don't even have the Angelus there.
    If it's a small issue then it only requires a small effort to tackle it.

    I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do, they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.

    All we're saying is that dealing with real, tangible issues which actually affect people before dealing with those which should be done on principle alone will be more effective and advantageous. Stuff like the angelus will simply conflate the issue.

    It's not about fear of offending them. The majority of theists are rational and capable of adult discussion. But I simply don't think that any effort to remove the angelus considering some of the other issues which should be focused on instead, is rational from our point of view. It's not worth dealing with at this point in time.


  • #46
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    There is however the argument that it would take very little to stop airing the Angelus. All that would have to happen is that RTÉ airs the news one minute earlier. Something that could actually benefit RTÉ as it would up their ratings slightly. Changing the school patronage is actually a complex process and can't be done easily. I didn't hear Liveline but my mother did and told me that they could only get one Irish person who was willing to defend the Angelus being aired. It seems that few people would actually care that much at all if they were gone.


  • #47
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,234 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    an argument to keep the angelus. well worth a read.
    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/angelus-bells-ireland-1585363-Jul2014/?utm_source=shortlink


  • #48
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    Ian O'Doherty winning the battle on The Right Hook over on Newstalk at the moment.


  • #49
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You don't have to patronise at all, but with your limited resources at your dispoal, you have to pick your battles more wisely than going up against the State broadcaster and the Church, who will swat you down like a fly if you go in with a disorganised gung-ho approach. That strategy in itself is an example of a knee-jerk irrational approach that's simply doomed to failure and bound to be a waste of resources.

    Exactly how much resources do you think it takes to argue against the Angelus? It's the same foundational argument as getting the church out of schools.

    Exactly how much do you think it would take for RTE to stop playing it? All it would take is for them to charge for the time the same way all other advertising time is sold.


  • #50
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If you disregard people who don't share your views as incapable of rational discussion like rational adults, you're far more likely to be viewed as the only irrational one in the room.

    I'm not the one disregarding them. I'm not the one saying we can't express opinions that may offend them, except in certain circumstances, because they might not like us. I'm not the one who is arguing that we patronise them to get across other arguments easier.


  • #51
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do, they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.

    And remember it is often the smaller issues which galvanise the necessary momentum to ensure that the larger wrongs are challenged and eventually overturned. Not trying to compare US civil rights to our problems (what black people faced in the US was far more serious of a set of wrongs), but it was the relatively minor issue of where a black woman could sit on a bus, and her standing up for her rights to be treated equally which kickstarted Martin Luther King's campaign as a national issue.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,832 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Exactly how much resources do you think it takes to argue against the Angelus? It's the same foundational argument as getting the church out of schools.

    I think most people think the angelus is, at best, faintly ridiculous. Broadcasters seem to have a very hard time finding someone non-nutty to go on air to defend it, anyway.

    Those who actually care about keeping the angelus aren't going to be convinced by any rational argument on secularism in education or any other matter influenced by religion.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Exactly how much do you think it would take for RTE to stop playing it? All it would take is for them to charge for the time the same way all other advertising time is sold.

    Ironically the BAI prohibits religious advertising, so they can't charge for it.
    But a free prime time slot to promote the RCC = 'religious programming' and is somehow a public service.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #53
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    And remember it is often the smaller issues which galvanise the necessary momentum to ensure that the larger wrongs are challenged and eventually overturned. Not trying to compare US civil rights to our problems (what black people faced in the US was far more serious of a set of wrongs), but it was the relatively minor issue of where a black woman could sit on a bus, and her standing up for her rights to be treated equally which kickstarted Martin Luther King's campaign as a national issue.

    I'm not so sure about that. Being forced to sit at the back of a bus (when a white person isn't) is pretty humiliating, and most people can see that. The Angelus doesn't resonate with Irish people the same way.

    Having the Angelus there every day is an opener for anyone campaigning for a more secular country - "Look, we even have a Catholic call to prayer on national TV and radio" - as a very visible indication of the influence the RCC still has in the country. I'd prefer to tackle the less visible aspects first. In fact, if I were running a PR campaign for the RCC in Ireland, I'd make a point of asking for the Angelus to be removed, while keeping very quiet about the level of influence over primary schools.


  • #54
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I am somewhat in favour of keeping the angelus for one reason only - time telling. You can let kids go play outside after school and say 'come back when the bells ring or I'll come looking for you'. As a child it was handy knowing when to head home for dinner.


  • #55
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Does anyone find themselves checking the time automatically when the 'boooooonnnnnggggg' starts?

    My two year old now shouts boooooooonnnnngggggg loudly whenever she hears church bells.


  • #56
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,109 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    lazygal wrote: »
    Does anyone find themselves checking the time automatically when the 'boooooonnnnnggggg' starts?

    I automatically switch channels. A hangover from my childhood, when my parents used to have us stand and say the associated prayer.


  • #57
    Barr125
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    kylith wrote: »
    I am somewhat in favour of keeping the angelus for one reason only - time telling. You can let kids go play outside after school and say 'come back when the bells ring or I'll come looking for you'. As a child it was handy knowing when to head home for dinner.

    I think the issue is with the broadcast of the Angelus over RTE, which is the national broadcast network and should really be neutral, not with churches themselves doing it.


  • #58
    redfacedbear
    Registered Users Posts: 891 ✭✭✭redfacedbear


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I automatically switch channels.

    I always make a point of switching to a non-RTÉ channel when the angelus comes on. I'm kind of hoping that if enough people do it, it will reflect in the ratings - 'Mary Wilson does brilliantly from 16:30 to 18:00 and then ratings fall off a cliff - why is that?' - and I think that more than anything would force RTÉ to re-consider the angelus.

    For my daughters the angelus signals the fact that their favourite coffee shop is now closed and there won't be an outing for hot chocolate that day - which is kind of useful. :pac:


  • #59
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    an argument to keep the angelus. well worth a read.
    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/angelus-bells-ireland-1585363-Jul2014/?utm_source=shortlink

    That argument is kind of like saying people should salute a swastika daily to remind themselves how terrible Hitler was.


  • #60
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,832 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Barr125 wrote: »
    I think the issue is with the broadcast of the Angelus over RTE, which is the national broadcast network and should really be neutral, not with churches themselves doing it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBBlRB1HH2g

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,234 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That argument is kind of like saying people should salute a swastika daily to remind themselves how terrible Hitler was.
    i don't think he suggests actually praying during the angelus, at which point the above analogy breaks down.


Advertisement