Bertie Ahern; Atheist hater and Bigot.

John R

I picked up a copy of Monday's Indo and read that our supposed leader said in the Dail last week that "agressive secularists who do not believe in religion of any kind have no part to play in society"

Somehow I can't imagine that a similar comment aimed at a minority religion would have passed practically without notice. If the words "Jew" or "Muslim" had been used he would most likely now be either drummed out of office or in hiding.

Zombrex

John R wrote:

I picked up a copy of Monday's Indo and read that our supposed leader said in the Dail last week that "agressive secularists who do not believe in religion of any kind have no part to play in society"

That was Bertie playing up to his audience at the time.

I would imagine if he was speaking in front of a group of atheists he would proclaim religion as nonsense

I wouldn't say Bertie hates atheists. Bertie hates anything that will get him elected for another term

Cardinal

John R wrote:

I picked up a copy of Monday's Indo and read that our supposed leader said in the Dail last week that "agressive secularists who do not believe in religion of any kind have no part to play in society"

What was the context of this? Who were the "agressive" secualrists he was talking about? I find this comment outrageous. Not that I was ever going to vote for "Berties's Team (sic)", but I actively dislike him himself now.

Dades

Bertie Ahern; Atheist hater and Bigot.

Bertie wrote:

"agressive secularists who do not believe in religion of any kind have no part to play in society"

First off, not all atheists are "aggressive secularists". In fact I would imagine only a small minority are.

I would be curious to know who he was actually referring to, as there must have been some recent case or protest by secularists that prompted him to mention them.

But yeah, I'm also curious as to whether Bertie would be so forthright about the Islamification of society, instead of secularisation. Maybe he drops into the American "atheists most distrusted minority" camp.

Also - I now have some ammo for the canvasers who will undoubtedly be calling to my door.

Schuhart

The Atheist wrote:

First off, not all atheists are "aggressive secularists". In fact I would imagine only a small minority are.

True. I'd say most of us are two-faced "creeping secularists".

Zillah

Huh. Thats actually a pretty damn offensive comment... Whats wrong with aggressive secularism? Our government is supposed to be secular; if it remains so then it has nothing to fear from any pro-secularist no matter how confrontational they are.

Crucifix

This "aggressive" prefix bothers me. Who is he refering to? Secular terrorists?

monkeyfudge

The Atheist wrote:

Also - I now have some ammo for the canvasers who will undoubtedly be calling to my door.

Exactly what I was thinking too... Then I'll show them an aggressive secularist first hand!

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Our government is supposed to be secular

Where does it say that?

monkeyfudge wrote:

Then I'll show them an aggressive secularist first hand!

Out with those swords, I say..!

da_deadman

John R wrote:

I picked up a copy of Monday's Indo and read that our supposed leader said in the Dail last week that "agressive secularists who do not believe in religion of any kind have no part to play in society"

Somehow I can't imagine that a similar comment aimed at a minority religion would have passed practically without notice. If the words "Jew" or "Muslim" had been used he would most likely now be either drummed out of office or in hiding.

What an amazing thing to say. Like some of the others here, I'd be very interested to know who he was talking to and in what context.

This shall be the first question for any of "Bertie's Team" that call looking for my vote...

Zillah wrote:

Our government is supposed to be secular

One can only hope.

John R

da_deadman wrote:

What an amazing thing to say. Like some of the others here, I'd be very interested to know who he was talking to and in what context.

The piece doesn't give any context, only that it was said to the Dail last week. it goes on to say "Not content with toadying up to the Catholic Church, of which he is a zealous member, he has already told a conference of religious leaders that he will protect them from the baying hordes of "aggressive secularists".".

The rest of the piece is just colorful opinion, if anybody can get the online version then it was the Ian O'Doherty column on Monday.

5uspect

The Atheist wrote:

Where does it say that?

The constitution is essentially secular with some religious references.

Didn't he use the aggressive secularism thing before?

Here is David Quinn's take on Fintan O'Tools article on el Berties's previous use of the term.

Doesnt the constitution say we should all acknowledge god as the creator or something

5uspect

yep you're right actually:

Article 6
1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

There's also a reference on the Presidents oath, and also for the Council of State (which I suppose means any elected representative) and yet again for the judiciary which basically revolves around swearing "In the presence of Almighty God..."

How does this compare to the likes of France or other secular European states?

Dades

Past thread about constitutional references in case anyone interested:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055029864

Cactus Col

The Atheist wrote:

Bertie Ahern; Atheist hater and Bigot.

First off, not all atheists are "aggressive secularists". In fact I would imagine only a small minority are.

Also, should probably be said that not all secularists are athiest.

The aggressive ones are, probably, the ones who start smashing up pubs when the barman forgets to change the channel away from rte 1 at 6pm.

Dades

Cactus Col wrote:

Also, should probably be said that not all secularists are athiest.

Very true. Agnostics, Buddhists and our more liberal theist friends could equally be secularists.

The Atheist

The Atheist wrote:

Very true. Agnostics, Buddhists and our more liberal theist friends could equally be secularists.

Damn right I am
I don't think I'm aggressive though

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Very true. Agnostics, Buddhists and our more liberal theist friends could equally be secularists.

I have a sword, and I keep it sharp.
*Waves sword for emphasis. Who is this Ahern chappy!*

Zillah

What the HELL?!

I had always subconciously assumed that our constitution had a US style foundation of secular government.

I feel almost embarassed that our constitution has such a ludicrous inclusion as "under God".

5uspect

Asiaprod wrote:

Who is this Ahern chappy!*

Well, he's been the subject of a few posts in this thread...
(About halfway down, not 56k friendly and probably offensive)

monkeyfudge

I did this one myself.



He has some powerful friends.

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

Very true. Agnostics, Buddhists and our more liberal theist friends could equally be secularists.

I want a complete separation between Church and State with religion being granted no more or no less legal rights than a golf club or an amateur dramatic society. Does that make me a secularist, even though I am a rabid fundamentalist?

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

I want a complete separation between Church and State with religion being granted no more or no less legal rights than a golf club or an amateur dramatic society. Does that make me a secularist, even though I am a rabid fundamentalist?

[chanting] ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US! [/chanting]

Dades

monkeyfudge wrote:

He has some powerful friends.

Which one of them are you?

And we must find a pigeonhole for PDN!
Seperationist?

Nevyn

Zillah wrote:

What the HELL?!

I had always subconciously assumed that our constitution had a US style foundation of secular government.

I feel almost embarassed that our constitution has such a ludicrous inclusion as "under God".

You should read the preamble which while is not an article of the constitution has been used to grant rights to people under the law.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I want a complete separation between Church and State with religion being granted no more or no less legal rights than a golf club or an amateur dramatic society. Does that make me a secularist, even though I am a rabid fundamentalist?

Indeed it does. The attempt to confuse secularist with atheist is just that - an attempt to confuse. Likewise, the opposition of fundamentalist with secularist is simplistic and misleading.

You are a Christian, but not a Christianist. I am an atheist, and secularist, but not anti-religious. 40 shades o'grey...

cordially,
Scofflaw

dan719

Crucifix wrote:

This "aggressive" prefix bothers me. Who is he refering to? Secular terrorists?

Damn Secular Terrorists, I mean 9/11 was definately....oh wait thats not right. Well then the inquisition definately was related to this...oops wrong again. Betie is an idiot. Aggresive secularism. He is just afraid that when the majority of the country finally realise what a bumbling incoherent being he is, they will say goodbye to his inffectual government. The church has had a wondefully cosy relationship with this coalition. Which did nothing but cost the non christian taxpayer money. And now actively encourages discrimination against atheists who wish to send their children to local schools run by Christian organisations but financed again by the taxpayer. Imagine if a hospital could turn a patient down due to his religion or lack of.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I want a complete separation between Church and State with religion being granted no more or no less legal rights than a golf club or an amateur dramatic society. Does that make me a secularist, even though I am a rabid fundamentalist?

I does, though I would point out that there doesn't have to be anything anti-religion in secularism.

Instead of saying secularism recognizes no religion I prefer to say that it recognizes ALL religion equally.

UU

Actually there was a very interesting article in The Irish Times yesterday in the Education section on public schools with religious ethos. Apparantly, some Catholic schools in certain areas prioritise Catholics before others even if the others are from the local area. They look for baptisimal certificates! The problem is it's undermining not only the right to education but the right of religious freedom. Because it many areas the only local school is Catholic.

I support Secularism 100%! I hate our governement so I'm not voting for them. If you want change, don't vote for Fianna Fáil or the PDs. Then demand Secularisation of the State and Church fully! Do what they do in France, protest, protest, PROTEST!!! If the Fench are annoyed about something they won't sit back and watch, they take action and protest which a lot more Irish people need to do.

I'm against public services being under Church rule and influence. I'll re-quote what PDN said:

I want a complete separation between Church and State with religion being granted no more or no less legal rights than a golf club or an amateur dramatic society.

That's exactly what I'd like to see!

robindch

UU wrote:

public schools with religious ethos.

Ugh, that wretched "e" word again. What a load of third-rate prejudice *that* word covers up. Object to it! Do something about it! But don't legitimize the prejudice by using the word without thinking!

UU wrote:

Apparantly, some Catholic schools in certain areas prioritise Catholics before others even if the others are from the local area. They look for baptisimal certificates!

This comes up from time to time, but the school is perfectly within its rights to reject somebody's application if it thinks that the schools "ethos" (spit, spit) would not be "preserved" by letting them in. It's in the Equal Status Act, 2000 if my memory serves me.

BTW, go easy on the sigline. Makes my eyes hurt.

dalk

This article on the same topic, appeared in last Sunday's, Sunday Times:

Liam Fay, The Sunday Times wrote:

Bertie Ahem has been speaking in tongues again. The taoiseach's latest tower of babble tumbled out last Wednesday in the Dail when he attempted yet another public exorcism of the demons he seems to think lurk within people who support the separation of church and state.
What Ahern evidently wanted to say was that the views of these loathsome heathens "stick in my craw". What he actually said was that their views "stick in my claw".
On reflection, however, Ahern may simply have been proclaiming a higher truth. His now routine attacks on what he calls "aggressive secularists" are clearly a white-knuckle electoral ploy, designed to help him claw his way back to office. The hand that smites the ungodly, he obviously believes, is the hand that will rise in victory on (electoral) Judgment Day.
In Wednesday's outburst, he argued that religion should have a "predominant role" in Irish life. Citizens who disagree "infringe on other people's rights". What's more, they should keep their filthy pagan traps shut.
"They are not shy about making their voices heard," he declared. "As an individual, never mind as Taoiseach, I am not afraid to voice my views in response. If they want to stay quiet, I will stay quiet, but when they speak I believe I am entitled to speak."
But who is he talking about? Despite his frequent denunciations of "aggressive secularists", Ahern has declined to identify a single one of these bogeymen.
By appending the slippery adjective aggressive to the simply descriptive term secularist -a water-muddying device borrowed from American culture wars -he's seeking to convey the impression that there's an acceptable form of secularism and another, more belligerent strain that threatens the rights of those who profess faith; In reality, nobody in this country is arguing or campaigning for restrictions on religious freedom. What many nonbelievers and even some believers do strenuously oppose, however, is blurring of the line between religious doctrine and democratic governance, whether through the imposition of Rome rule, sharia or any other divinely inspired authority. Genuine freedom of religion must also guarantee freedom from religion.
Having done his utmost to ensure that Ireland remains anything but a secular state, Ahern is now posing as the courageous lone voice of dissent. His condemnations of "aggressive secularists" sound like attacks on all non-believers. If you don't believe in heaven, it seems, you can go to hell.
Ahem may have trouble pronouncing the word, but that clearly doesn't stop him acting like a craw-thumper.

Dades

dalk wrote:

This article on the same topic, appeared in last Sunday's, Sunday Times:

Normally I can't stand Liam Fay, but this is a good rant.

*Awaits door to door FF politicians eagerly*

Fallen Seraph

Citizens who disagree "infringe on other people's rights".

I'm not normally one to go head over heels on legalising marjihuana, but I find it hypocritical beyond belief that Bertie isn't currently pushing such legislation through in order not to infringe on the rights of the Rastafarians.... I wonder why on earth he isn't defending that particular religion; hm?

Asiaprod

5uspect wrote:

Well, he's been the subject of a few posts in this thread...
(About halfway down, not 56k friendly and probably offensive)

Sorry 5uspect, my post was tounge in cheek. Bertie is well know in our family, me mam knows him from way back. I don't care for him myself, then I have yet to find a politician that I do care for.:)

5uspect

Asiaprod wrote:

Sorry 5uspect, my post was tounge in cheek. Bertie is well know in our family, me mam knows him from way back. I don't care for him myself, then I have yet to find a politician that I do care for.:)

I gathered that! My reply was also tongue in cheek.
Just thought I'd share the joke.