Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus

Pushtrak

http://www.atheist.ie/2010/08/60-years-on-time-to-remove-the-angelus-from-rte/

I didn't see a thread on this on the front page, so I figure I'd make a thread on it. What do ye all think about it? Me? I think the battles should be chosen and this is an insignificant matter in the face of the most important issue as I see it. Primary schools having select places for unbaptised kids. Insofar as I see it, that is the biggest religious problem in Ireland today.

Or, do people see the angelus being gone as some bigger victory? Or is there another issue seperate from either ye think is of greater importance?

Michael Nugent

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

I agree with you that the issue of secular education is far more important than the Angelus. It is one of the two top substantive issues on which Atheist Ireland is campaigning. The other is a secular Constitution, both because of the anachronistic nature of the present one and because it is used in shaping and interpreting laws.

Alongside - and not instead of - the above long-term campaigns, we also have to highlight other issues on an ongoing basis.

In this context, the Angelus is part of a pattern of background religious noise including the President and Judges having to swear religious oaths, being offered Christian Bibles to swear on in court, parliamentarians starting each day praying to the Christian God to direct every word and action of theirs etc.

The attitude that these practices are harmless (or traditional or even desirable) feeds in to more substantive developments like the lack of secular education, churches being exempt from tax and equality laws, and laws generally being unduly influenced by religious dogma.

To tackle the root cause, we believe that we have to highlight every area where the State is supporting these beliefs at the expense of rational secular beliefs, in the context of also conducting more substantive campaigns for a secular education system and a secular Constitution.

sink

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

I can see that rationale Michael. However I disagree. I think by going after the more trivial stuff like the angelus, you drive a wedge between the religious and non-religious in society.

I find many religious people are amenable to the rational behind secular schools and secular constitution. However they perceive things like the angelus and all other religious iconography that permeates society as part of our cultural heritage and would be dead against white washing them out. I can sympathise with their view and find it much harder to argue against.

Arguing against such trivial things shifts their perception of us towards that of fundamentalists who are out to destroy Irish history and culture and leads them to dismiss our more valid arguments against religious schools and constitution.

If we want to change their minds on the big issues we have to think more like them.

Michael Nugent

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

I accept that the best strategy to use comes down to a judgment call, and is not an exact science, and I am always open to evaluating the outcomes of what we do.

I don’t see specific issues like the Angelus as being trivial. Arguably, any one of them on its own might not seem to be the most important issue to tackle at any given time. However, the cumulative impact of all of these religious interferences makes the overall problem greater than the sum of its parts. And, in practical terms, we can only tackle them one at a time until the cumulative effect of our individual campaigns builds a similar momentum.

With regard to changing the perceptions of religious people, that is partly a matter of consciousness-raising and education. We have to highlight the distinction between people being religious, which is quite legitimate, and the institutions of State being religious, which is inappropriate. We are not trying to whitewash out the religious iconography that exists within Irish society; we are simply trying to disentangle it from the State.

The theme of our overall campaign is a Secular State for a Pluralist People. This distinction is important. Freedom of conscience, religion and belief are unlimited. Freedom to practice religion, or not practice religion, should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others. And in order to protect and vindicate those rights for everybody, the State should be neutral on these matters.

Ultimately, I don’t think we can change the minds of religious people on the bigger issues without also changing their minds on the smaller issues, because the issues are inextricably linked. You cannot properly support a Secular constitution without opposing, for example, our parliamentarians starting each day praying to the Christian God to direct every word and action of theirs.

Nemi

Just a couple of thoughts. There was something in the papers saying RTE might be sold off soon. If it is, presumably it will no longer be the State broadcaster, so their decision to play the Angelus will be purely commercial.

As to campaigning about it, I'm personally one of the many leading atheist inactivists.

But campaigns needs to raised consciousness. That may be where Atheist Ireland is coming from. Changing the place of religion in schools is a biggy, and its difficult to make any headway if your organisation has a lower profile than the irish Agoraphobics Alliance (Official).

I'd say that, at present, Atheist Ireland has about as much chance of influencing education policy as it has of being appointed to the Remuneration Committee of the Vatican. But if they create a bit of noise over the Angelus, maybe get a little media coverage, it helps to get them just a wee bit of profile.

And the Angelus is unimportant enough for them to maybe even get some change. Which might give them a little substance. At present, they're just a gang of cranks. I mean, did you ask them to represent your views to the political process? I certainly didn't. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

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

I think the angelus is like one of those niggling little things that bother you when you come across it, but you don't care about it all that much otherwise. Something small enough that you wouldn't bother doing anything to fix it but large enough to be irritating.
I also think you feel a lot better when you finally take the time to say "alright enough, might as well fix this now!"
So if they want to remove it fair enough, especially if it was a temporary thing to begin with.

Tim Robbins

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

Useless campaign. Will do more harm than good. If you want the state to show no bias to a Christian heritage, remove all the bank holidays around Christmas and Easter as well?

The Religious have already budged by changing the format of the Angelus. This is aggresive secularism at its very worst. All it will do is make the religious even more paranoid and make them even less inflexible about more important issues such as schools.

Truley

I'm an athiest and I personally don't have any problem with the Angelus being boadcast. I wouldn't consider it on a par with saying prayers in courts or governments as it's confined to the media sphere, so I see it as a service for religious people who want it, and for non religious it's an unintresting programme, at worst a little boring. In fairness they've watered it down so much most people wouldn't even recognise what it is, and it's made to be as inoffensive as possible.

At the end of the day the only people you would really be hurting are Ireland's most fragile, elderly generation, a pretty empty victory no?

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Tim Robbins wrote: »

All it will do is make the religious even more paranoid and make them even less inflexible about more important issues such as schools.

I think we'd all like them to be "less inflexible" about handing over control of state-funded schools to the state

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is aggresive secularism at its very worst.

I've queried your use of the word "aggressive" before and seeing you use it again, I'm curious as to why you're buying into the arrogant way in which the religious use the word?

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

I can see that rationale Michael. However I disagree. I think by going after the more trivial stuff like the angelus, you drive a wedge between the religious and non-religious in society.


Arguing against such trivial things shifts their perception of us towards that of fundamentalists who are out to destroy Irish history and culture and leads them to dismiss our more valid arguments against religious schools and constitution.

Spot on.

Zombrex

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

sink wrote: »

I can see that rationale Michael. However I disagree. I think by going after the more trivial stuff like the angelus, you drive a wedge between the religious and non-religious in society.

I find many religious people are amenable to the rational behind secular schools and secular constitution. However they perceive things like the angelus and all other religious iconography that permeates society as part of our cultural heritage and would be dead against white washing them out. I can sympathise with their view and find it much harder to argue against.

Arguing against such trivial things shifts their perception of us towards that of fundamentalists who are out to destroy Irish history and culture and leads them to dismiss our more valid arguments against religious schools and constitution.

If we want to change their minds on the big issues we have to think more like them.

I don't know how many times I've been told by people and friends that "We are a Christian country", a statement which is normally followed with something like "...and that is why Catholic schools should be left as they are"

I think the biggest issue facing secularism in this country is the distortion of how prevalent the Catholic church still is. We had a discussion about the Angelus on the Christianity forum and a good few people said that 90% of the country want the Angelus. No, 90% of the country mark "Catholic" down on their census form. Big difference.

All my friends who wouldn't know their Jesus from their Moses got married in Catholic churches. They are all baptizing their children. And they mark Catholic.

I don't think you can go after the big fish in one go, I think the little fish are where you have to start. You have to remind people that the Angelus is stupid and was only supposed to be shown for a few weeks around a religious holiday in the 50s. You have to show them they don't want it.

You have to show them that Judges have to swear to God and that this is stupid.

You have to slowly bit by bit remove the prevalence of cultural Catholicism from the country before people will realize they are actually living in a secular country.

Truley

robindch wrote: »

I've queried your use of the word "aggressive" before and seeing you use it again, I'm curious as to why you're buying into the arrogant way in which the religious use the word?

I don't see how it's an arrogant idea

Religiously neutral government, legal and education system = secular

Dictating what people watch on TV = aggressively secular

Removing religious supremecy from schools = secular

Forbidding people from wearing of religious symbols or clothing = aggressive

Michael Nugent

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Truley wrote: »

I don't see how it's an arrogant idea

Religiously neutral government, legal and education system = secular

Dictating what people watch on TV = aggressively secular

Let's keep this in perspective. Nobody is dictating what people watch on TV.

What Atheist Ireland is proposing is part of your first example.

Religiously neutral State broadcasting system = secular

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Truley wrote: »

I don't see how it's an arrogant idea

It's arrogant because it implies that the people proposing this idea are angry, violent and dangerous people.

Have a read of this post.

Truley wrote: »

Dictating what people watch on TV = aggressively secular

And by implication, RTE is being "aggressively religious" when they're dictating what people watch on TV by showing the angelus in the first place?

You're really missing the point of secularism which is that the state should be neutral with respect to religion. That means you either favour no religion (ideally), or you favour them all equally (effectively impossible). At the moment, there is a strong bias in favour of catholic christianity and it's entirely reasonable to want to see this inequality redressed in a calm and co-operative fashion.

.

drkpower

AI need a PR advisor, or perhaps a common sense advisor. Sink's post above is, in substance, spot on.

If you have a platform of 10 objectives with all the important ones centre-stage (ie. education, education, education....), and have the Angelus as number 10 on the list, everyone knows what will happen. Yes, the (media) focus will turn to the campaign on the Angelus and it will appear as though this is the primary issue for AI, and by extension, for atheists in general. This simply perpetuates the view amongst many moderate/a la carte religious that 'atheists' are radical fundamentalists looking to humiliate religon, to make them wear sackcloth and ashes. That perception hurts 'atheists' amongst the moderate religous. It negatively impacts on the bigger battles ahead (ie. education, education, education....), where the moderate religous will actually make these decisions. Why alienate the very people who you want to implement your agenda?

It seems that AI seem more intent on courting publicity (not necessarily a bad thing, on occasion, given the past stigma and 'in the closet' nature of atheism) than in actually playing smart and acheiving something in the long run.

Zombrex

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Truley wrote: »

I don't see how it's an arrogant idea

Religiously neutral government, legal and education system = secular

Dictating what people watch on TV = aggressively secular

Removing religious supremecy from schools = secular

Forbidding people from wearing of religious symbols or clothing = aggressive

Allowing a tiny yet politically powerful section of the religious right to hold RTE to political ransom = secular

Allowing the State broadcaster to follow its own secular religious broadcasting guidelines free from political pressure = aggressively secular




Yeah, I can see how that works :pac:

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

sink wrote: »

If we want to change their minds on the big issues we have to think more like them.

If AI were the only group in the country trying to separate schools from religion, then I think the concerns might have some justification. But they're not the only group -- there's also the HAI, Educate Together and I'm sure plenty of regular folks who are just as interested in seeing the two separate.

But more seriously, if people are going to make choices about the nature of the society they live in based not upon an assessment of the rules + regulations that must apply and what they produce, but instead based upon the fuzziness of the feelings emanating from the various groups pushing for the various policies, well frankly, that's pretty dumb.

In this situation, it's quite reasonable that one group has chosen to go after a religious totem that hasn't received much attention. I wish them the best in having it retired, though I can't imagine that's going to happen any time soon.

Truley

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Let's keep this in perspective. Nobody is dictating what people watch on TV.

What Atheist Ireland is proposing is part of your first example.

Religiously neutral State broadcasting system = secular

The media is a different kettle of fish as RTE deals primarily with entertainment, people certainly shouldn't look to it as the voice of the state or society in general. It screens a huge variety of programmes, it doesn't necessarily mean it's adjoining itself to a particular ethos. For example if the showed a documentary on Richard Dawkins are we to think they are supporting an athiest agenda?

I see it as a programme for a particular niche of people, just like the soaps or the football, nothing more.

But I would go as far to say this campaign is trying to dictate what people can or can't watch, a significant part of the population choose to use the angelus service. And now people want that service taken away for ideological reasons. Has AI made any attempt to put it to vote? What's the general consensus?

RP Mc murphy

Nope actually dont care either way, like ads you can switch the tv over for a couple of minutes and then get back to the other drivel thats on display.

Previous posters advice was also sound, the people paying licence should have a vote,( or not). I dont think it even warrants a vote. Once something is "in", tis very hard to get it out, no sick jokes pls. the angelus was brought in to mark some special occasion and getting it off air would ruffle many feathers. The media would spin perhaps and we'd all be irate with each other over nothing.

Education, abortion, right to die etc are better areas to focus on.

Tim Robbins

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

robindch wrote: »

I've queried your use of the word "aggressive" before and seeing you use it again, I'm curious as to why you're buying into the arrogant way in which the religious use the word?

It is not just used by the arrogant religious (not sure what they have to be arrogant about :-)). It is actually also used by aggressive secularists.
Look at this blog: http://www.aggressive-secularist.com/ for example.

The last time you gave out about me using "militant atheist".

RayM

robindch wrote: »

And by implication, RTE is being "aggressively religious" when they're dictating what people watch on TV by showing the angelus in the first place?

They're not dictating anything - they're providing a service, in the shape of a one-minute programme, which some people choose to watch (whilst the rest of us get a chance to check the headlines on BBC News). By lobbying for the removal of that choice, Atheist Ireland is veering dangerously close to "dictating what people watch on TV".

Tim Robbins

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

robindch wrote: »

It's arrogant because it implies that the people proposing this idea are angry, violent and dangerous people.

Have a read of this post.And by implication, RTE is being "aggressively religious" when they're dictating what people watch on TV by showing the angelus in the first place?

You're really missing the point of secularism which is that the state should be neutral with respect to religion. That means you either favour no religion (ideally), or you favour them all equally (effectively impossible). At the moment, there is a strong bias in favour of catholic christianity and it's entirely reasonable to want to see this inequality redressed in a calm and co-operative fashion.

.

If you want true separation of Church and state, the state should no longer give public holidays for Church festivals, Christmas and Easter etc?

The thing is to be pragmatic about all this. Somethings really matter. Schools for example. You are goosed if you have kids and don't live near an ET school. You are not goosed by the Angelus. It's essentially irrelevant. (In fact, there's a dark part of me that enjoys watching and listening to it. Especially since they rejigged it to show people having a moment of reflection rather than saying the rosary.) For the thousands of old people who still say the rosary it serves a very good purpose and it seems very mean to make a big deal about it.

I see "aggressive" as a good choice of words because the benefits to secularists are minimal whereas the loses to people who like it are significant. If you want to push people around purely to get very minor benefits you're being aggressive. Sorry.

Michael Nugent

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Truley wrote: »

The media is a different kettle of fish as RTE deals primarily with entertainment, people certainly shouldn't look to it as the voice of the state or society in general. It screens a huge variety of programmes, it doesn't necessarily mean it's adjoining itself to a particular ethos. For example if the showed a documentary on Richard Dawkins are we to think they are supporting an athiest agenda?

The media in general is distinct from RTE in particular. I support the right of any commercial media outlet to broadcast prayers 24 hours a day if they wish to do so.

RTE is a Public Service Broadcaster that must act in accordance with statutory obligations, including a Government-published Public Service Broadcasting Charter.

The Public Service Remit of this Charter includes the following: “No editorial or programming bias shall be shown in terms of gender, age, disability, race, sexual orientation, religion or membership of a minority community.”

Broadcasting a religious call to prayer every day, at a prime time slot immediately before the main evening news, is showing programming bias in terms of religion. It is not the same as showing a documentary about Richard Dawkins.

MagicMarker

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

While I agree that the angelus is not such a big deal. The fact remains RTE is a publicly funded operation, therefore I would prefer that my licence fees not contribute towards satisfying the religious masses.

And stop showing those bloody church services every fúcking Sunday morning! :mad:

Galvasean

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Truley wrote: »

RTE deals primarily with entertainment

Ha.

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is actually also used by aggressive secularists.

With one or two possible exceptions, I don't believe there are any "aggressive secularists" on this board and quite possibly, within AI too. It would be worth a poll to check it out, now that I think of it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The last time you gave out about me using "militant atheist".

Yes. The term is equally insulting and I'm getting tired of seeing it being used to impugn and demean the motives of people who take the quite reasonable view that religious ideologies have too much influence in our society.

AudreyHepburn

MagicMarker wrote: »

While I agree that the angelus is not such a big deal. The fact remains RTE is a publicly funded operation, therefore I would prefer that my licence fees not contribute towards satisfying the religious masses.

And stop showing those bloody church services every fúcking Sunday morning! :mad:

Switch the channel if you don't want to watch it.

Why should your viewing preferences take precedence over those tax payers who do want to hear the Angelus or are too elderly/sick to get to church?

Not just directed to Magic btw but to those who shares his sentiments in general.

Tim Robbins

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

robindch wrote: »

With one or two possible exceptions, I don't believe there are any "aggressive secularists" on this board and quite possibly, within AI too. It would be worth a poll to check it out, now that I think of it.Yes. The term is equally insulting and I'm getting tired of seeing it being used to impugn and demean the motives of people who believe that religion has too much influence in our society.

If you don't allow a simple word like "aggressive" it means we have to revert to religous expressions such as "over zealous" and "hell bent" which no doubt the "aggresive / hell bent / over zealous" secularists will also give out about :-)

MagicMarker

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Switch the channel if you don't want to watch it.

Why should your viewing preferences take precedence over those tax payers who do want to hear the Angelus or are too elderly/sick to get to church?

Not just directed to Magic btw but to those who shares his sentiments in general.

It's publicly funded, either cater for all or cater for none imo.

AudreyHepburn

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's publicly funded, either cater for all or cater for none imo.

Ok so how would getting rid of the Masses and the Angelus cater for all?

ceannair06

I think it was a disgrace when the Angelus was changed to remove religious symbolism.

You want to live in a non-Catholic country ?

MOVE.

I notice how you athiest hate everything religious but you'll still take advantage of a long Easter weekend won't you ? If you're so keen on maintaining your athiestic stance, go to work!

MagicMarker

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok so how would getting rid of the Masses and the Angelus cater for all?

It wouldn't, it would cater for none. Read my post again.

Why don't we replace the angelus with a Fine Gael Party Political Broadcast instead?

MagicMarker

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

ceannair06 wrote: »

I think it was a disgrace when the Angelus was changed to remove religious symbolism.

You want to live in a non-Catholic country ?

MOVE.

I notice how you athiest hate everything religious but you'll still take advantage of a long Easter weekend won't you ? If you're so keen on maintaining your athiestic stance, go to work!

Mmmm, easter eggs.

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why should your viewing preferences take precedence over those tax payers who do want to hear the Angelus or are too elderly/sick to get to church?

And why should your religious wishes take precedence over my not wanting to have my home invaded once a day with religious bell-ringing?

There are two sides to this debate.

Turtwig

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

ceannair06 wrote: »

I think it was a disgrace when the Angelus was changed to remove religious symbolism.

You want to live in a non-Catholic country ?

MOVE.

I notice how you athiest hate everything religious but you'll still take advantage of a long Easter weekend won't you ? If you're so keen on maintaining your athiestic stance, go to work!

Actually if I recall correctly many civil servants were working that weekend and there was a bit of an uproar on liveline about them working on a special occasion.
Btw, when I could, I worked any long weekend possible - more money.

robindch

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you don't allow a simple word like "aggressive" it means we have to revert to religous expressions such as "over zealous" and "hell bent" which no doubt the "aggresive / hell bent / over zealous" secularists will also give out about :-)

You could try using the word "passionate" or "committed" -- it conveys the interest, without resorting to any calculated insults. Have a read of this post again.

...and take this subthread here

fontanalis

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Useless campaign. Will do more harm than good. If you want the state to show no bias to a Christian heritage, remove all the bank holidays around Christmas and Easter as well?

The Religious have already budged by changing the format of the Angelus. This is aggresive secularism at its very worst. All it will do is make the religious even more paranoid and make them even less inflexible about more important issues such as schools.

It will come across as very petty, que lots of "if you don't like it turn it over" etc

sink

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

robindch wrote: »

And why should your religious wishes take precedence over my not wanting to have my home invaded once a day with religious bell-ringing?

There are two sides to this debate.

I never play the lottery. I think it's a silly undertaking which preys upon humans poor capacity to calculate odds. I object to the lottery being shown prime time on a public funded station to which my licence fee contributes. RTE should respect my beliefs and pull it. While they're at it, I also don't watch soap operas, GAA, talent shows, reality tv, daytime talk shows, game shows and many others which are of no interest to me. They should restrict themselves to scripted prime time dramas, comedies, documentaries, news & current affairs as they're the shows I watch most.

Galvasean

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok so how would getting rid of the Masses and the Angelus cater for all?

It would cater for none. Hence why he said 'all or none'.

Long Term Louth

robindch wrote: »

And why should your religious wishes take precedence over my not wanting to have my home invaded once a day with religious bell-ringing?

There are two sides to this debate.

However your own viewpoint seems extremely one sided?

Galvasean

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

ceannair06 wrote: »

You want to live in a non-Catholic country ?

MOVE.

Make me. :cool:

Long Term Louth

Galvasean wrote: »

Make me. :cool:

Any religious MOds on this thread?

Galvasean

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

robindch wrote: »

And why should your religious wishes take precedence over my not wanting to have my home invaded once a day with religious bell-ringing?

Once a day? Lucky you. There is a church very close to my girlfriend's place. It rings at least once an hour during the day as well as several times during the night.

Galvasean

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Any religious MOds on this thread?

I dont think it is within the powers of the Boards.ie moderators to remove a person from a country.

Long Term Louth

Galvasean wrote: »

I dont think it is within the powers of the Boards.ie moderators to remove a person from a country.

Just, it appears all mods are coming from the same side on this one?

Galvasean

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Just, it appears all mods are coming from the same side on this one?

Oh right. I get you now. As far as I'm aware all of the Moderators of A&A are atheist. I'm not sure what the Category (Religion & Spirituality) Mods are.

krudler

ceannair06 wrote: »

I think it was a disgrace when the Angelus was changed to remove religious symbolism.

You want to live in a non-Catholic country ?

MOVE.

I notice how you athiest hate everything religious but you'll still take advantage of a long Easter weekend won't you ? If you're so keen on maintaining your athiestic stance, go to work!

I asked work if they wouldnt mind opening a 3 storey building specificially for me so I could work on easter sunday when everyone else in the company was off, puzzlingly they refused...:rolleyes:

Ah the old "our way or gtfo" argument, very christian :pac:

Long Term Louth

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh right. I get you now. As far as I'm aware all of the Moderators of A&A are atheist. I'm not sure what the Category (Religion & Spirituality) Mods are.

No chance for fair play so, thats a pity

Long Term Louth

Long Term Louth wrote: »

No chance for fair play so, thats a pity

...
Non-religious mods can't be fair?

sink

I'm religious and I'd like to see the Angelus gone

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh right. I get you now. As far as I'm aware all of the Moderators of A&A are atheist. I'm not sure what the Category (Religion & Spirituality) Mods are.

AFAIK Scofflaw's an atheist. I don't know what nesf's affiliation is.

edit, quick search of post history and nesf calls himself agnostic here

So I guess that means there are no religiously minded moderators of this forum.

liamw

I'm atheist/agnostic and I don't want to see the Angelus gone

Long Term Louth wrote: »

No chance for fair play so, thats a pity

What are you talking about.. who cares as long as the moderator is fair in the moderation of the forum...