Pubs in Limerick to open on Good Friday

krudler

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Limerick-pubs-get-the-goahead.6180066.jp

So pubs in Limerick have won the appeal to open on good friday for the Munster match, would love to hear some chrisitian views on this, good thing? bad thing? I think good, removing the church from state law decisions is a good step forward.

PDN

Unfortunately I live nowhere near Limerick, so I'll have to get a few cans in to watch the match on TV.

I find the restrictions on buying alcohol on Good Friday to be pretty silly.

bleg

Won't get to watch it either, no Setanta for me.

prinz

krudler wrote: »

So pubs in Limerick have won the appeal to open on good friday for the Munster match, would love to hear some chrisitian views on this, good thing? bad thing? I think good, removing the church from state law decisions is a good step forward.

On one hand I agree the drinking ban is a bit silly tbh. On the other hand I find the national obsession with alcohol consumption to be a far greater problem.

miju

prinz wrote: »

On one hand I agree the drinking ban is a bit silly tbh. On the other hand I find the national obsession with alcohol consumption to be a far greater problem.

QFT

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

On one hand I agree the drinking ban is a bit silly tbh. On the other hand I find the national obsession with alcohol consumption to be a far greater problem.

If, by law, meat couldnt be sold on Good Friday.
Or if, by law, milk couldnt be sold on Good Friday.
Or if, by law, all restaurants were closed on Good Friday.
Or if, by law, all cinemas were closed on Good Friday...........

Do you not think there would be a recurring debate every year about whether such a law makes any sense? And if there was, would we have a national obsession with meat, milk, food or movies?

Gregor Samsa

prinz wrote: »

On one hand I agree the drinking ban is a bit silly tbh. On the other hand I find the national obsession with alcohol consumption to be a far greater problem.

The national obsession with alcohol consumption is indeed a big problem.

But stopping pubs opening on Good Friday has nothing at all to do with it. The day before is traditionally the busiest day of the year for off-licences.

So lets not pretend that the reason the law prohibits (most) pubs from opening on Good Friday is anything to do with promoting moderation in alcohol consumption.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

And if there was, would we have a national obsession with meat, milk, food or movies?

I don't get your point tbh.

phutyle wrote: »

So lets not pretend that the reason the law prohibits (most) pubs from opening on Good Friday is anything to do with promoting moderation in alcohol consumption.

Why, who was pretending that? My post made it quite clear that they are two seperate issues, only one of which will garner significant public support to change. That is sad. If the public put as much effort into changing Ireland's drink problems as they do into being able to go to the pub one more day in the year the country would be a lot better for it.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

I don't get your point tbh.

Have you been drinking?

The fact that we, as a Nation, annually discuss the fact that alcohol is banned on a random Friday in March/April does not mean that we have & is irrelevent to the assessment of whether we have a national obsession with alcohol.

Just as a similar discussion around the public banning of cheese on Holy Thursday doesnt mean & is irrelevent to the assessment of whether we have a national obsession with cheese.

Did you get it this time?

(It is relevent to the assessment of whether we have a national obsession with religon, though)

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Have you been drinking?

I wish.

drkpower wrote: »

The fact that we, as a Nation, annually discuss the fact that alcohol is banned on a random Friday in March/April does not mean that we have & is irrelevent to the assessment of whether we have a national obsession with alcohol.

Discussing it is fine. Over turning it is fine. The lengths people will go to simply because they have to have a drink is sad. Let's not kid ourselves that it is some noble campaign for secularisation either. I know people who won't drink for weeks before or weeks after but simply must that day, to take ferries, to take trains, to book into hotels etc. Nothing to do with over-turning the ban. Simply a matter of if someone says no drink, that's all you want. I enjoy my pints as much as the next person but it's verging on the ridiculous.

FutureGuy

prinz wrote: »

On one hand I agree the drinking ban is a bit silly tbh. On the other hand I find the national obsession with alcohol consumption to be a far greater problem.

Logged in just to thank the post.

Gregor Samsa

prinz wrote: »

If the public put as much effort into changing Ireland's drink problems as they do into being able to go to the pub one more day in the year the country would be a lot better for it.

Well, the public's efforts in getting the GF exemption have amounted to some facebook pages, postings on the interwebs, a few letters and articles in the papers and a legal application by a trade organisation. Hardly a huge effort. If the country's drink problems could be tackled with such ease, we'd have them sorted out by now.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Discussing it is fine. Over turning it is fine. The lengths people will go to simply because they have to have a drink is sad. Let's not kid ourselves that it is some noble campaign for secularisation either. I know people who won't drink for weeks before or weeks after but simply must that day, to take ferries, to take trains, to book into hotels etc. Nothing to do with over-turning the ban. Simply a matter of if someone says no drink, that's all you want. I enjoy my pints as much as the next person but it's verging on the ridiculous.

I dont know anyone who goes to those lengths. As you can just open a bottle at home, to go to those lengths seems like some kind of internal process of protest - and a little silly at that.

Whether there is any campaign, or whether it is noble or not, is also irrelevent. There is no good reason for this law and that is good enough reason to get rid of it, whether the motivation be noble or not.

branie

Has the church said anything about this?

mehfesto

drkpower wrote: »

I dont know anyone who goes to those lengths. As you can just open a bottle at home, to go to those lengths seems like some kind of internal process of protest - and a little silly at that.
.

What if your 21st birthday happens to fall on Good Friday, you want a party and you're in no way religious?

But I do think it's a good move. This isn't a blow against he church, people can still pray - nobodys banning that. It a good move for the city of Limerick for them to make a bit of extra dosh in a time when every business is struggling!

Coriolanus

branie wrote: »

Has the church said anything about this?

They're disappointed and some of the monks who work in the estates are considering whether or not to protest at the match.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36039504/ns/world_news-europe/

The Rev. Tony Mullins, administrator of the Limerick Diocese, said the judge's decision reflected "a changing society, where religious beliefs and the practice of one's faith is becoming more a matter for the individual."


He appealed to the Catholic faithful among locals and rugby tourists alike to choose to attend afternoon Masses in the city and avoid the drinking dens. "The challenge in this new emerging Ireland is for Catholics to give even stronger witness to their faith and belief," he said.

Several Franciscan friars who live in an impoverished housing project beside Limerick's rugby stadium said they might pray, protest and erect the Stations of the Cross — church artworks that illustrate the stages of Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and resurrection on Easter — outside the gates as 26,000 rugby fans arrive.

strobe

mehfesto wrote: »

What if your 21st birthday happens to fall on Good Friday, you want a party and you're in no way religious?

House party?

To be honest I always loved good Friday specifically because the pubs were shut. But that was just because there used to be some of the craziest house parties of the year thrown. I remember as a teenager I use to look forward to good Friday all year because in mine and the neighbouring estates their would be 40 or 50 huge parties running all night long. Use to be some craic. After the Limerick decision I'm convinced the no pubs on good Friday thing will cease to exist in 3 or 4 years at the most. On princible I'm glad about that but will miss the indirect result of the closures as described above.

goat2

krudler wrote: »

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Limerick-pubs-get-the-goahead.6180066.jp

So pubs in Limerick have won the appeal to open on good friday for the Munster match, would love to hear some chrisitian views on this, good thing? bad thing? I think good, removing the church from state law decisions is a good step forward.

i am happy for the business people that they can carry on business,
good luck to all

Tea 1000

mehfesto wrote: »

What if your 21st birthday happens to fall on Good Friday, you want a party and you're in no way religious?

The exact same as if your 21st birthday falls on Christmas day. You do it some other day. Or just buy in some beer and drink with your friends.
If I get off work at 7 and a shop I want to go to closes at 6, I don't rant and rave and complain about it, and say it shouldn't be the case. I just work around it.

Zombrex

phutyle wrote: »

So lets not pretend that the reason the law prohibits (most) pubs from opening on Good Friday is anything to do with promoting moderation in alcohol consumption.

Yeah but equally lets not pretend that getting the ban lifted is anything to do with people supporting the secularization of Ireland

It's cause they want to get drunk at a rugby game. Hardly the most noble of causes.

Manach

As I non-drinker, this had no effected me - beyond when walking the next day having less mess/litter on the ground to avoid. The mayor of Limerick at least has something to be happy about, meaning that we as a nation are moving away from our outdated national ways to be more like the European main-stream.

prinz

Manach wrote: »

As I non-drinker, this had no effected me - beyond when walking the next day having less mess/litter on the ground to avoid. The mayor of Limerick at least has something to be happy about, meaning that we as a nation are moving away from our outdated national ways to be more like the European main-stream.

Actually we are consistently moving away from the European main stream.

drkpower

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but equally lets not pretend that getting the ban lifted is anything to do with people supporting the secularization of Ireland

It's cause they want to get drunk at a rugby game. Hardly the most noble of causes.

No; its because a bunch of pubs want to earn a living (and are being constrained in so doing by a law with no reasonable foundation) and managed to find a legal avenue in order to earn their living.

Sounds entirely noble to me.

drkpower

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The exact same as if your 21st birthday falls on Christmas day. You do it some other day. Or just buy in some beer and drink with your friends.
If I get off work at 7 and a shop I want to go to closes at 6, I don't rant and rave and complain about it, and say it shouldn't be the case. I just work around it.

Would you be inclined to rant and rave (or at least question) if all shops were forced to close at 6pm during Ramadam?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Would you be inclined to rant and rave (or at least question) if all shops were forced to close at 6pm during Ramadam?

If I was in Turkey, no.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

If I was in Turkey, no.

What does our nationality or place of residence have to do with it?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

What does our nationality or place of residence have to do with it?

Well given the origins of the law you are against the country it's in has a lot to do with it.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Well given the origins of the law you are against the country it's in has a lot to do with it.

It might be relevent to a history lesson; however the fact that we happen to live in Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with whether that law is sustainable and justifiable.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

It might be relevent to a history lesson; however the fact that we happen to live in Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with whether that law is sustainable and justifiable.

..and the fact that some don't see the fuss has nothing to do with the hypothetical closing of shops for Ramadan.

Manach

I disagree. In General when judges are reviewing the consitution one of the modes of intrepretion is based on the history and ethos of the country. In Ireland there are numerous Supreme Court judgements mentioning that.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

..and the fact that some don't see the fuss has nothing to do with the hypothetical closing of shops for Ramadan.

Of course it does.

If the supposed rational justification for a law closing public houses on Good Friday is that it is in respect for Jesus/Christian faith or something of that sort, why dont we close other institutions on particular days which are important for other religous faiths?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

If the supposed rational justification for a law closing public houses on Good Friday is that it is in respect for Jesus/Christian faith or something of that sort, why dont we close other institutions on particular days which are important for other religous faiths?

Do you know the Constitution of this country?

drkpower

Manach wrote: »

I disagree. In General when judges are reviewing the consitution one of the modes of intrepretion is based on the history and ethos of the country. In Ireland there are numerous Supreme Court judgements mentioning that.

Thats incredibly vague and irrelevent. What does it have to do with this law and whether this law is sustainable or justifiable?

This law has nothing to do with the constitution.

mallet head

I presume all the people who think the bars should open Good Friday on anti-religious grounds will be volunteering to work Paddies day, Christmas day, St Stephens Day, Easter Sunday and every Sunday on a flat rate as a matter of principal. Don't forget to work on those lovely religion related bank holiday Mondays you get as well folks.

The last thing we want is a lack of consistency surely?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Do you know the Constitution of this country?

Yes, very well.
Point to me the bits are relevent to the shutting of public houses on Good Friday.

drkpower

mallet head wrote: »

I presume all the people who think the bars should open Good Friday on anti-religious grounds will be volunteering to work Paddies day, Christmas day, St Stephens Day, Easter Sunday and every Sunday on a flat rate as a matter of principal. Don't forget to work on those lovely religion related bank holiday Mondays you get as well folks.

The last thing we want is a lack of consistency surely?

Pubs are already free to open on all of those days (bar one). And many people work on all of these days as a matter of course. In fact Good Friday is a regular working day for most. So all of the above is irrelevent.

The State has chosen a number of 'religous' days as State holidays. Noone is restricted from working, or forced to shut on those days. Other than the similar arrangement vis-a-vis Christmas Day, it is irrlevent to this discussion.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, very well.
Point to me the bits are relevent to the shutting of public houses on Good Friday.

The preamble should do nicely. Without it it is irrelevant to consider laws of the land without due notice to the social and cultural history of the State.

flames

EH why don't the pubs in Lourdes close on Good Friday.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

The preamble should do nicely. Without it it is irrelevant to consider laws of the land without due notice to the social and cultural history of the State.

Before I entertain your views on the constitution and what the preamble has to say about shutting bars on Good Friday, lets just explore why you are waving the constitution around in this discussion?

What do you think the constitution has to do with a law shutting pubs on Good Friday?

mallet head

drkpower wrote: »

The State has chosen a number of 'religous' days as State holidays. Noone is restricted from working, or forced to shut on those days.

Great I'm a school teacher I'll pop in Easter Monday, paddies day and St Stephens day. Handy few quid.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

What do you think the constitution has to do with a law shutting pubs on Good Friday?

Simply because you think the cultural, historical, and social background to the law itself is irrelevant. It isn't.

I am indifferent on the law itself, over turn it, I don't care but writing the origins of the law off as a 'surplus to requirement history lesson' is idiotic, if you are then going to start bringing in hypothetical laws in relation to other religions.

sflemings

Does anyone here think that this is just all about making money? Most people here think all this debate is about a bunch of people in Limerick who have gotten one over on the catholic church and overturning the ban on alcohol sales.

Magners picked Good Friday for the match. The publicans said "Ah s**t. we can't sell drink that day. We could make a fortune if we can change that. Let's go take it to court"

I don't think they said now's our chance to beat the catholic church some more. IMO it's all about making money

Tea 1000

drkpower wrote: »

Of course it does.

If the supposed rational justification for a law closing public houses on Good Friday is that it is in respect for Jesus/Christian faith or something of that sort, why dont we close other institutions on particular days which are important for other religous faiths?

Because 3,409,381 people according to the 2006 Census of population are Catholic.
Now you can speculate that most don't go to mass or put it down out of habbit or what ever you like, but that's the figure. In a democracy, the majority should be catered for, don't you agree?
Do you complain and moan when in a country that is mostly muslim when their feast days affect shops etc?
Why are you so eager to stand up for other religious beliefs and at the same time so eager to slate Catholics?

Tea 1000

sflemings wrote: »

Does anyone here think that this is just all about making money? Most people here think all this debate is about a bunch of people in Limerick who have gotten one over on the catholic church and overturning the ban on alcohol sales.

Magners picked Good Friday for the match. The publicans said "Ah s**t. we can't sell drink that day. We could make a fortune if we can change that. Let's go take it to court"

I don't think they said now's our chance to beat the catholic church some more. IMO it's all about making money

The reason was money driven. The attitude by some seems to be getting one over on the Catholic Church.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/novelty-tshirts-rub-salt-in-wounds-of-the-faithful-2112514.html
At the end of the day they should have just changed the date and avoided all this time wasting and arguements.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Simply because you think the cultural, historical, and social background to the law itself is irrelevant. It isn't.

I am indifferent on the law itself, over turn it, I don't care but writing the origins of the law off as a 'surplus to requirement history lesson' is idiotic, if you are then going to start bringing in hypothetical laws in relation to other religions.

Oh I see, when you pointed to the constitution, you werent making any legal point...?!:eek: The constitution doesnt have any other standing other than legal standing. So pointing to it is irrelevent unless you were making a legal point. Which you werent.....:rolleyes:

So lets move on to cultural, historical and social background then..... Does the mere fact that we have done something for years and years mean we should enshrine it in law and punish others if they dont want to continue doing something? Or should there be something more to what laws we enact? If so, please tell me what the rational justification is for this law.

mallet head

Tea 1000 wrote: »

At the end of the day they should have just changed the date and avoided all this time wasting and arguements.

You probably said that unintentionally but it kinda throws a light on our relationship with drink in this country. Why should a sporting event have to be changed due to an alcohol supply issue?

Tea 1000

mallet head wrote: »

You probably said that unintentionally but it kinda throws a light on our relationship with drink in this country. Why should a sporting event have to be changed due to an alcohol supply issue?

Because it's obviously important enough to find exemption from the law for.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Oh I see, when you pointed to the constitution, you werent making any legal point...?!:eek: The constitution doesnt have any other standing other than legal standing. So pointing to it is irrelevent unless you were making a legal point. Which you werent.....:rolleyes:.

And this law has no other standing other than a legal standing.... any time you want to start making sense, I'm available. For now, I will continue... the Constitution is the primary legal reference point in this State. The preamble to our Bunreacht includes reference to Jesus Christ, and Christianity. All laws enacted in this state must defer to the Bunreacht. Any law examined in this State must be examined in light of the Constitution.

Any laws enacted which have a relationship to Christianity have to be looked at in this context. Therefore hypothesizing as you were about laws dealing specifically with other religions is pointless in this debate.

drkpower wrote: »

So lets move on to cultural, historical and social background then..... Does the mere fact that we have done something for years and years mean we should enshrine it in law and punish others if they dont want to continue doing something?

No. Neither does it mean we should get rid of it just because it's been on the statute books for years and years.

drkpower

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Because 3,409,381 people according to the 2006 Census of population are Catholic.
Now you can speculate that most don't go to mass or put it down out of habbit or what ever you like, but that's the figure. In a democracy, the majority should be catered for, don't you agree?

In a democracy, the majority and the minority should be catered for. Catering for the majority does not involve punishing the minority for doing what they want to do. If pubs were open on Good Friday, how would it affect the free will and choices of the majority?

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Do you complain and moan when in a country that is mostly muslim when their feast days affect shops etc?

Ive never been in a 'Muslim' country but I disagree with imposing Muslim laws on any country without an 'opt-out' for those who disagree. Naturally, given I live in this country, I have more of an interest in the laws that govern us here.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Why are you so eager to stand up for other religious beliefs and at the same time so eager to slate Catholics?

What other beliefs am I standing up for?

mallet head

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Because it's obviously important enough to find exemption from the law for.

I know, Ridiculous what one day without gargle will do. We have to amend the laws of the land for drink.

Tea 1000

drkpower wrote: »

In a democracy, the majority and the minority should be catered for. Catering for the majority does not involve punishing the minority for doing what they want to do. If pubs were open on Good Friday, how would it affect the free will and choices of the majority?

You think 2 days in the year that pubs must close is punishment? Maybe publicans families might like the fact that they have a full family day out twice per year!
And it's not often you can cater for both a majority and a minority at the same time, so in that case I believe you should cater for the majority.