Atheist Ireland protect Free Speech in Ireland again.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well done all involved and well done Atheist Ireland who have protected free speech in Ireland a second time this week, after earlier this week causing Dermot Ahern to fold on the Blasphemy law, citing as he did the "incredibly sophisticated campaign [against me], mainly on the internet.”

Of course anyone can support Atheist Ireland by Joining Up, using their forum, or even financially by using the PayPal options to either join Atheist Ireland formally or engage in once off or ongoing donations.

I didn't notice this was posted back in March when I started reading it, so i clicks on the link to see about this referendum to remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, that AI has forced .....

"The plebiscites are expected to take place in October, on the same day as the a vote for a new directly elected mayor of Dublin, and three Dail by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South and Waterford."

Politicians; so generous when it comes to promises and Dail pensions. :mad:

Arcus Arrow

Nodin wrote: »

....the need to feel and be treated like a Martyr...thats a often religous thing too....

It sure is. I already expected that one.

I've gotten a lot of emails from original members who no longer take part because for the reasons I've described above. But is that not the problem with this country? Walk away and say nothing. It seems the red tape is choking any dissent but that's what red tape tends to do.

It's just as much religious tribalism for atheists to expound one set of standards for religions organisations and another set for atheist organisations.

Is it just as hypocritical for an atheist organisation to attempt censorship while claiming to be defending free speech as it is for a religious one or not?

King Mob

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

It sure is. I already expected that one.

I've gotten a lot of emails from original members who no longer take part because for the reasons I've described above. But is that not the problem with this country? Walk away and say nothing. It seems the red tape is choking any dissent but that's what red tape tends to do.

It's just as much religious tribalism for atheists to expound one set of standards for religions organisations and another set for atheist organisations.

Is it just as hypocritical for an atheist organisation to attempt censorship while claiming to be defending free speech as it is for a religious one or not?

Again you haven't actually listed any reasons to not like AI just random unsubstantiated accusations about non specific crimes of hypocrisy and for some reason don't get the idea of what a spokesperson's job is.

frankly all your rambling smack of butthurt because AI aren't what you and you alone think they should be.

DeVore

http://www.atheist.ie/2010/03/ahern-proposes-referendum-on-blasphemy-this-autumn/

Did I sleep through a referendum on this silliness?!?

Its past autumn...

DeV.

Dades

^^ Methinks a lot of stuff like this is indefinitely on the back-burner with the country in such a state and all that.

Arcus Arrow

Jakkass wrote: »

Repeating what King Mob has said here. What is your problem with Michael Nugent?

Having briefly met him, he's nothing short of a gentleman.

I'll presume your'e not advancing that as some sort of argument. I spoke to a very mannerly and charming chap one day a long time ago in Dublin. Hours before he'd killed a man dead with a sawn off shotgun. Personal conduct is a facet of self advancement, a survival technique and a self defence mechanism.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Michael taking part in a large proportion of the events where AI was invited to speak. Michael as chairperson is the overall representative of AI therefore one would expect him to represent the organisation on more occasions than not.

This is supposedly an atheist organisation. Why presume that it should be organised around a figurehead? It goes against claims that atheism is not in some ways a religion. How could one person claim to be speaking for people who are defined only by the fact they don't believe in a religious entity. With that type of structure there go all those "atheism is not a religion" arguments.
We are supposed to be talking about somewhat independent minded people of diverse opinions that can't be predefined by that which they don't believe.

In fact I'd even be inclined to think if religion in Ireland was abandoned and banished forever you'd have similarly structured organisations spring up in not time. Not being religious doesn't cure the impulses that create it and thereby the conditions that raise the next crop of charlatans.

Jakkass wrote: »

That said, AI have used regional representatives to speak on radio, and take part in university debates. I don't see very many other organisations apart from AI that are willing to promote dialogue in respect to atheism on a larger scale in Irish society, or indeed that have been as widely published as they have apart from say the Humanist Association of Ireland, and Irish Skeptics.

I had a file that one of the committee members sent me updates on regularly. It listed all the occasions a member of AI spoke on it's behalf. I deleted it when I changed laptops but the score was something like out of 60 odd occasions there were less than 5 and certainly less than 10 when someone other than the chairman spoke or was interviewed. Certainly all the main and most important ones were hogged by the chairman. That you think that's a good idea and I might not is neither here nor there in some ways. However do you think people should know that going in before they hand over their money? Your comment also doesn't exclude the fact that one individual can't be using the contributions of the many for self promotion.

And on another point I'll ask you directly: is it two faced hypocrisy for an organisation claiming to be defending free speech to be attempting censorship of it's critics at the same time?

You could ask the OP a direct question on that one but I doubt you'll get an answer. Apparently the faithful are under orders to stay stum and not come out of the chicken coop.

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

^^ Methinks a lot of stuff like this is indefinitely on the back-burner with the country in such a state and all that.

I doubt if there is anyone in the country who gives a crap about the blasphemy law. Why would anyone when they're in negative equity and their wages are being cut. The question still remains though what was the thinking behind bringing it in at all. It's also worth remembering that it's still on the statute books. It's possible the plan was to use it to crush an underfunded and small organisation like AI but even that doesn't stack up.

King Mob

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I'll presume your'e not advancing that as some sort of argument. I spoke to a very mannerly and charming chap one day a long time ago in Dublin. Hours before he'd killed a man dead with a sawn off shotgun. Personal conduct is a facet of self advancement, a survival technique and a self defence mechanism.



This is supposedly an atheist organisation. Why presume that it should be organised around a figurehead? It goes against claims that atheism is not in some ways a religion. How could one person claim to be speaking for people who are defined only by the fact they don't believe in a religious entity. With that type of structure there go all those "atheism is not a religion" arguments.
We are supposed to be talking about somewhat independent minded people of diverse opinions that can't be predefined by that which they don't believe.

In fact I'd even be inclined to think if religion in Ireland was abandoned and banished forever you'd have similarly structured organisations spring up in not time. Not being religious doesn't cure the impulses that create it and thereby the conditions that raise the next crop of charlatans.



I had a file that one of the committee members sent me updates on regularly. It listed all the occasions a member of AI spoke on it's behalf. I deleted it when I changed laptops but the score was something like out of 60 odd occasions there were less than 5 and certainly less than 10 when someone other than the chairman spoke or was interviewed. Certainly all the main and most important ones were hogged by the chairman. That you think that's a good idea and I might not is neither here nor there in some ways. However do you think people should know that going in before they hand over their money? Your comment also doesn't exclude the fact that one individual can't be using the contributions of the many for self promotion.

And on another point I'll ask you directly: is it two faced hypocrisy for an organisation claiming to be defending free speech to be attempting censorship of it's critics at the same time?

You could ask the OP a direct question on that one but I doubt you'll get an answer. Apparently the faithful are under orders to stay stum and not come out of the chicken coop.

Seriously, how are you not getting this "spokesperson speaks for the group" thing?
Which part aren't you grasping?

Can you point out where Mike Nugent has ever done self promotion or are you just assuming this whenever he appears?
And where exactly have AI censored people?

sponsoredwalk

Thought I was reading about Julian Assange in the wiileaks thread there ,
the hate & condemnation is so similar with arguments about former members,
the constant refrain about a personal media image, the whining about a
public figure even though the organization is against that yada yada yada...
Still though, haven't read comparisons to murderers with sawn-off shotguns
in that thread, merely rape there :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

DeVore wrote: »

http://www.atheist.ie/2010/03/ahern-proposes-referendum-on-blasphemy-this-autumn/

Did I sleep through a referendum on this silliness?!?

Its past autumn...

True Alas.

From what I have heard (and I do not pretend expert knowledge on this at all nor how up to date my information is) the plan is to hold several together. Blasphemy is one of them, a change to the courts structure another and finally one related to Children's Rights.

The final one is the bottleneck and is disputed by more groups than was originally expected. Until sorted the Cabinet will not agree to hold them together and send them off to the Referendum Commission to have actual questions drafted.

Of course as has been pointed out there is likely other motivations. It would be difficult to justify holding referendum but not by-elections and the government has obvious motivations for delaying that too.

A referendum on the issue was promised, and I have faith (sic) it is coming, but clearly not when expected.

Arcus Arrow

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Apparently the faithful are under orders to stay stum and not come out of the chicken coop.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

King Mob

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

So because I don't instantly believe you and ask you to back up your claims it's because I'm brainwashed or towing a party line?

Two points, neither me or Jakkass are members of AI and you've yet to address any of our posts.

Seriously Arcus Arrow, you're not convincing anyone about the evils of AI.