Church/state dialogue: Time to talk to agnostics, atheists, etc [LTTE]

lostexpectation

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=11&sud=59&aid=3427

Vincent Browne (Village 16 November) in his editorial, says, apropos of the recently announced church/state dialogue proposals, "Let the dialogue begin."

Unfortunately, because we live in a representative democracy here in Ireland, a problem has arisen straight away. Those who find it impossible to believe in a god based on the incredibility of the claims that form the bases of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others are likely to feel, at best, unrepresented or, at worst, conspired against when the state gets its dialogue underway with the churches.

Further, it must be fairly obvious that religious motivations to behave in any manner at all are receding, not because religious adherence is falling – although it is – but because a great many of those who profess to believe have moved away from the historical and from the real understanding of what religion means. These people merely go through the motions for social, cultural and even superstitious reasons. The fact that representatives of the 'mainstream' religions have apparently agreed to attend the plenary meetings related to the proposed dialogue indicates a major compromise on their part because their defining books make it very clear that their philosophies, such as they are, are totally incompatible with one another.

News stories might indicate a collapse of values of decency in society. If one examines history, it will be easy to demonstrate that this not so. The great majority of people are more likely to behave well towards one another than otherwise. That is their natural propensity.

Atheists, sceptics, agnostics and humanists are taxpaying citizens. In particular, many have a strong interest in ethics – as opposed to the inflexible defence of a particular moral code, often imperfectly understood by its defenders – and their views deserve to be taken into account. The government should make a serious effort to involve them.

Another option, of course, might be to scrap the whole idea and let all interests be represented in the way they have been, at least in recent times – by means of the democratic process.

Seamus McKenna, Dundrum, Dublin 14

The Taoiseach and articles about this slow dialogue are careful to include mention of non-faiths are 'non-confessionals' as Bertie calls them and in the long list of faith groups I last looked at humanist were the only nonfaith group there I think, is everyone happy for them to be the voice of non-faiths athiest and agnostics, I wrote the IHA to ask them of one their leaders was involved in this dialogue.

Dades

Any chance of using the odd 'full stop' there Lost?

To answer what I think your question is - I'm perfectly happy to be represented by Humanists at whatever shindig they are having.

But the idea of inter-church dialogue reminds me of this old peach...

Dave!

ROFL Quality

lostexpectation

http://www.irish-humanists.org/announcements/pressrelease061206.html

Humanists disappointed at further delay to Government Dialogue. They seek Fair Play in Constitution, Laws and State Policy.

The Humanist Association of Ireland (HAI) is disappointed at the recent announcement of further delay in the proposed Government Dialogue with religious and secular organisations. Because of this delay the HAI is now releasing its submission to government. The HAI wishes to urgently avail of the proposed dialogue process to highlight the lack of equity in the way non-religious citizens are treated in the Constitution and in areas such as education and health. "Our detailed submission to the Government shows that the State discriminates against people of no religion in significant areas of life", stated HAI spokesperson Brendan Sheeran, a director of the association. He pointed out that those of no religion are the largest and fastest growing minority in terms of belief. Discrimination exists in the Constitution, in legislation and in State policy.

For example:

The Constitution

* has a preamble which invokes the Christian trinity
* requires the President, members of the Council of State and judges to swear a religious oath on taking up office
* claims that homage is due to a deity and ends with an expression of such homage

These provisions not only marginalise those of no religion but also deny them the right to serve in certain State offices.

Legislation

* gives special protection to religious organisations in relation to equal status and employment equality legislation
* delegates marriage celebration to religious organisations only and accordingly denies to Humanists and others of no religion the choice of marriage celebrants from their own community.

State policy

* fails to provide school choice both for people of no religion and for many others who do not want denominational education
* fails to ensure respect for such citizens, in hospitals owned by religious organisations but supported by the State, by protecting them from unacceptable policies and practices arising from such ownership.

The HAI will be seeking, in the course of the dialogue process and through other means, the removal of these and other discriminations. We have a reasonable goal, stated Mr Sheeran, a republic which treats citizens of all faiths or none in an equal manner.

lostexpectation

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0226/religion.html?rss

Mr Ahern said it would be a betrayal of the best traditions of Irish republicanism if an aggressive secularism had its way.

republicism .... secularism what have they got to do with each other
I know our republicism is very heavily catholic tinged but republicism itself has nothing to do with religion

Dave!

Dear god, can't believe he said that......

Did he address the references to Christianity in the Constitution?

Is it essentially saying that religious influence in state departments is more desirable than complete seperation of church and state?

Scofflaw

DaveMcG wrote:

Dear god, can't believe he said that......

Did he address the references to Christianity in the Constitution?

Is it essentially saying that religious influence in state departments is more desirable than complete seperation of church and state?

Mmm. Most people seem to be unaware that Dáil sessions start with a prayer.

cordially,
Scofflaw