The two Catholic Conservatives got 9% of the vote

hotmail.com

The two arch Catholic candidates performed disastrously in this election. Gay Mitchell got 6.5% and Dana got less than 3%.

Are conservative Catholics toxic when it comes to the electrot?

Or is it about time that these conservative views were left in the past?

The Quadratic Equation

^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

donegal11

The more important question is are women toxic and should they be put in there rightful place back in the kitchen, since they only got 6% of the vote.:rolleyes:

cybercellesta

.....then again we Irish are martyrs for punishment!

ISAW

hotmail.com wrote: »

The two arch Catholic candidates performed disastrously in this election. Gay Mitchell got 6.5% and Dana got less than 3%.

Are conservative Catholics toxic when it comes to the electrot?

Or is it about time that these conservative views were left in the past?

Neither of those two pushed any Catholic church agenda.
Mary Davis is Catholic as far as I know and Martin Mc Guinness.
David Norris is also a practici9ng Church of Ireland, very high Anglican Church which considers itself "catholic" in the universal sense and is almost indistinguishable from Roman Catholic when compared to other Anglican Communion. That is well over the 50% mark .

Even Michael D is a believer although he has stated not a practicing Catholic.

Manach

As a Conservative myself, I voted on a pure Anti-Government line, based on their policies and them trying to sneak in a power grab referendum. So for instance Mr. Norris got preference vote, Mr.Mitchell & Mr.Higgns did not.

PatricaMcKay2

hotmail.com wrote: »

The two arch Catholic candidates performed disastrously in this election. Gay Mitchell got 6.5% and Dana got less than 3%.

Are conservative Catholics toxic when it comes to the electrot?

Or is it about time that these conservative views were left in the past?

Not so long ago Ireland was a bit of an RC version of Iran where divorce was illegal and in order to get contraception you had be married and even than many doctors and chemists wouldnt give contraceptives out, than you had moving statues....Now dear old Paddyland is filled with bar stool social liberals and you are much more likely to run into socially conservative people over the water in England , it would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic. Herd mentality on a massive scale.

Gay Mitchell if he was that hardcore a conservative RC wouldnt be in Fine Gael anyway.

The Quadratic Equation

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Not so long ago Ireland was a bit of an RC version of Iran where divorce was illegal and in order to get contraception you had be married and even than many doctors and chemists wouldnt give contraceptives out, than you had moving statues....Now dear old Paddyland is filled with bar stool social liberals and you are much more likely to run into socially conservative people over the water in England , it would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic. Herd mentality on a massive scale.

Gay Mitchell if he was that hardcore a conservative RC wouldnt be in Fine Gael anyway.

A bit rich coming from the culture of Paisley, Wright, the Shankill Butchers, and the Orange Order.
One of the most sectarian bigotted places on earth.

PatricaMcKay2

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

A bit rich considering "Paisley" land and the sectarianism it is known for.

Uh? Im not a partitionist, so I include "Paisleyland" in with "Paddyland".

PatricaMcKay2

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

A bit rich coming from the land of Paisley, the Shankill Butchers, and the Orange Order.
One of the most sectarian bigotted places on earth.

Sadly for you Im not from a Unionist background (I gave my support primarily to the INLA during the troubles) but this is typical Irish nonsense...Unionists are also great at pointing out "Themuns" faults when their own are pointed out in order to get off the hook also. "Ah sure arent we a great wee people". Mirror images.

hotmail.com

ISAW wrote: »

Neither of those two pushed any Catholic church agenda.
Mary Davis is Catholic as far as I know and Martin Mc Guinness.
David Norris is also a practici9ng Church of Ireland, very high Anglican Church which considers itself "catholic" in the universal sense and is almost indistinguishable from Roman Catholic when compared to other Anglican Communion. That is well over the 50% mark .

Even Michael D is a believer although he has stated not a practicing Catholic.

Neither Dana nor Gay Mitchell favour gay marriage.

All of the other candidates were in favour it.

There is a difference between being religious (Davis, McGuinness, Norris) and being conservative Catholics (Dana, Gay Mitchell).

Onesimus

hotmail.com wrote: »

The two arch Catholic candidates performed disastrously in this election. Gay Mitchell got 6.5% and Dana got less than 3%.

Are conservative Catholics toxic when it comes to the electrot?

Or is it about time that these conservative views were left in the past?

Here is your answer as to why Catholics dont get voted in:

[18] If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. [19] If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [20] Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.

So we have voted in a liberal pro-choice president backed by non other than the liberal Labour pro -choice party.

Whats new pussycat? wowowowowowoowo

As the centuries move on evil increases but God has a plan. The very candidates we should have voted for ''Dana, Davis and Gay Mitchell'' we have instead chosen those with a ''nice charisma and face''.

People dont know what they are voting for, we are the dumbest nation ever. Take a look at the woman on the news the other night when asked why she didnt voted for any of the other candidates. ''well'' she says '' I didnt vote for him because I didnt like the look of his face''.

Rant and discussion for me over.

Onesimus

soterpisc

I voted Michael D. Because he desires it. Politics is not Religion, The mandate the president has is limited in Ireland. Honestly have no idea why the OP bothered to start a thread gloating about this.

If the vote had of been a referendum on abortion.... you are be 100% sure you would see the catholic Conservatives out. But the President is just a figurehead. He does what he is told.

Fanny Cradock

soterpisc wrote: »

I voted Michael D. Because he desires it. Politics is not Religion, The mandate the president has is limited in Ireland. Honestly have no idea why the OP bothered to start a thread gloating about this.

It's not surprising given their previous interaction with the forum.

soterpisc wrote: »

If the vote had of been a referendum on abortion.... you are be 100% sure you would see the catholic Conservatives out. But the President is just a figurehead. He does what he is told.

It hardly just conservative Catholic who are against abortion.

Onesimus

soterpisc wrote: »

I voted Michael D. Because he desires it. Politics is not Religion, The mandate the president has is limited in Ireland. Honestly have no idea why the OP bothered to start a thread gloating about this.

If the vote had of been a referendum on abortion.... you are be 100% sure you would see the catholic Conservatives out. But the President is just a figurehead. He does what he is told.

I agree and disagree and feel that St.Thomas Moore would have a great response for you there.

The government also played a clever card so they can have influence on changing the constitution which is the whole purpose of us having a president to uphold the constitution. Had people of voted yes to this it would of opened the gates to changing the current Irish constitution against abortion.

soterpisc

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It hardly just conservative Catholic who are against abortion.

Yes apologies Fanny, My comment was narrow minde. Opposition to abortion is a topic that thankfully most Christians agree on. We should never lose sight of the value that life has!!!

soterpisc

Just to clarify, I voted for Dana #1 and Higgins #2. I knew full well Higgins would be elected. He calls himself spiritual but not Catholic... (yet Abbot Patrick Hederman OSB is a good friend of his...)

So I think Higgins will make a Good President. For some reason he reminds me of Douglas hyde who also was a great Irish Speaker, great statesman, From the West of Ireland. (he was also a Protestant)

For me the Presidential race was never about religion. If Gallagher had not been so tied in with FF.. m a y b e... he could have won. Reality is Higgins is a seasoned Politician and is a good person for the office in my opinion.

Fanny Cradock

soterpisc wrote: »

Yes apologies Fanny, My comment was narrow minde. Opposition to abortion is a topic that thankfully most Christians agree on. We should never lose sight of the value that life has!!!

No need to apologise. I wasn't having a go at you.

number10a

soterpisc wrote: »

Yes apologies Fanny, My comment was narrow minde. Opposition to abortion is a topic that thankfully most Christians agree on. We should never lose sight of the value that life has!!!

And not just Christians either. I would be agnostic pushing towards atheist, but I am completely against abortion.

soterpisc

1st Presidential inauguration. Certainly not a Catholic event... So the office should always be above one religion. It should represent our nation.


In the morning [Dr Hyde] attended a service in St. Patrick's Cathedral presided over by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Gregg. Mr. de Valera and his Ministerial colleagues attended a solemn Votive Mass in the Pro-Cathedral, and there were services in the principal Presbyterian and Methodist churches, as well as in the synagogue. Dr. Hyde was installed formally in Dublin Castle, where the seals of office were handed over by the Chief Justice. Some 200 persons were present, including the heads of the Judiciary and the chief dignitaries of the Churches. After the ceremony President Hyde drove in procession through the beflagged streets. The procession halted for two minutes outside the General Post Office to pay homage to the memory of the men who fell in the Easter Week rebellion of 1916. Large crowds lined the streets from the Castle to the Vice-Regal Lodge and the President was welcomed with bursts of cheering. He wore morning dress, but Mr. de Valera and Mr. Sean T. O'Kelly, who followed Dr. Hyde in the next motor-car, wore black clothes with felt hats.

In the evening there was a ceremony in Dublin Castle which was without precedent in Irish history. Mr. and Mrs. de Valera received about 1,500 guests at a reception in honour of the President. The reception was held in St. Patrick's Hall, where the banners of the Knights of St. Patrick are still hung. The attendance included all the members of the Dail and Senate with their ladies, members of the Judiciary and the chiefs of the Civil Service, Dr. Paschal Robinson, the Papal Nuncio at the head of the Diplomatic Corps, several Roman Catholic Bishops, the Primate of All Ireland, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of Killaloe, the heads of the Presbyterian and Methodist congregations, the Provost and Vice Provost of Trinity College, and the President of the National University. It was the most colourful event that has been held in Dublin since the inauguration of the new order in Ireland, and the gathering, representing as it did every shade of political, religious, and social opinion in Eire [Ireland], might be regarded as a microcosm of the new Ireland.

marienbad

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Sadly for you Im not from a Unionist background (I gave my support primarily to the INLA during the troubles) but this is typical Irish nonsense...Unionists are also great at pointing out "Themuns" faults when their own are pointed out in order to get off the hook also. "Ah sure arent we a great wee people". Mirror images.

Have you anything good to say about Ireland at all Patricia ?

PatricaMcKay2

marienbad wrote: »

Have you anything good to say about Ireland at all Patricia ?

I love my fatherland in the way that Peter the Great thought me how to love it.

marienbad

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I love my fatherland in the way that Peter the Great thought me how to love it.

Dos'nt seem to extend to the people though

HugoBradyBrown

soterpisc wrote: »

1st Presidential inauguration. Certainly not a Catholic event... So the office should always be above one religion. It should represent our nation.


In the morning [Dr Hyde] attended a service in St. Patrick's Cathedral presided over by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Gregg. Mr. de Valera and his Ministerial colleagues attended a solemn Votive Mass in the Pro-Cathedral, and there were services in the principal Presbyterian and Methodist churches,as well as in the synagogue.

A delightful insight into the world presided over by Primate Gregg (himself one of the towering religious figures of 20th century Ireland) is the 1946 novel by his daughter Barbara Fitzgerald, We Are Besieged, treating of the experience of both the Protestant and the Anglican former unionist people in Éire, as Mr de Valera renamed the Free State and as it was in the time roughly between Douglas Hyde's inauguration as President and John A. Costello's Declaration of Independence at the end of the 1940's.

Her novel is one of the great 'sleepers' in Irish literary history, deserving of being reprinted, and of being admitted to the canon. It is a considerable and valuable document on the interaction between religions in the Ireland that we didn't dream of.


Hugo Brady Brown

tommy2bad

The result demonstrates how irrelevant religion is now more than anything else.
as far as 'concentrative catholic Ireland' is concerned, the most common reaction would be "yeah whatever"

lmaopml

It must be really nice to be able to speak for everybody tommy. You must know a LOT of people in such depth - clearly.

tommy2bad

It must be really nice to be able to speak for everybody tommy.

Its called democracy Imaopml, I just gave my opinion of how the result reflect public opinion. You might disagree but I didn't hear anyone bite when the religious position of the candidates was mentioned. A few short years ago Dana was berated and mocked for her beliefs, not this time. A few years before that being a non practicing member of any faith would have been the death of a campaign.
It's just not an issue anymore.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Its called democracy Imaopml, I just gave my opinion of how the result reflect public opinion. You might disagree but I didn't hear anyone bite when the religious position of the candidates was mentioned. A few short years ago Dana was berated and mocked for her beliefs, not this time. A few years before that being a non practicing member of any faith would have been the death of a campaign.
It's just not an issue anymore.

Hiya Tommy, I'm Catholic ( shock and horror ), and I didn't vote for Dana, other than strategically on the list - that doesn't mean I dislike her, I just don't want to see her as President.

I wonder did that ever cross your mind, that crazy concept?... that amazingly - others, may be politically and socially aware and also surprisingly identify as 'Catholic'?

I liked Micheal D. - and this 'Catholic' voted for the winner and the new President of Ireland`. How odd is that...?... when one would presume, like yourself presumes to 'know' vast swathes of people, and summarise their motives so very 'simply' and generalise like it's gone out of fashion to do so...

Mind bending really..

tommy2bad

Hiya Tommy, I'm Catholic ( shock and horror ), and I didn't vote for Dana, other than strategically on the list - that doesn't mean I dislike her, I just don't want to see her as President.

And your point is....?
We agree it would seem, the religious position of the candidates wasn't an issue for the electorate. The result bears this out. Thats the point I was making, possibly badly. You seem offended by this, why?

lmaopml

The religious position of the candidate has no bearing on the Presidential election. We've had 'Presidents' in Ireland that were not Catholic, even with a Catholic majority electorate..so it's a moot point - and certainly doesn't go to show..

''how irrelevant religion is now more than anything else''...

It doesn't make peoples 'religion' irrelevant to them - it just means that people don't necessarily vote for a candidate soley because of their religion, but moreso for what the office entails, and who best fits it. Like we usually do in Ireland - this is not a new phenomena.

Perhaps it would be different if a candidate declared themselves an Atheist running for election, and then we might have a better idea....

tommy2bad

it just means that people don't necessarily vote for a candidate soley because of their religion

Well yeah, but also Dana's perceived conservatism in the last election wasn't exactly seen as neutral. It did in fact marginalize her. This time it wasn't mentioned except in passing.

''how irrelevant religion is now more than anything else''...

It doesn't make peoples 'religion' irrelevant to them -

I never said it made peoples religion irrelevant to them, I said religious was irrelevant to their political decisions or more accurately the religious position of the candidates was irrelevant.
Religion has become a personal and private matter, it no longer informs public life, hasn't for about 20 years really.

Now to the substantive issue. Religion is irrelevant to most people, which seems to be what you take most issue with. I'm afraid to say this is just the truth. Most people I know have no religion, they don't attend any church, they don't believe in any God although they subscribe to some sort of 'something' if pushed on it.
Sorry but generalizations are what elections are about so if I generalized it's because thats the terms of the OP, a generalization itself.

28064212

Onesimus wrote: »

The government also played a clever card so they can have influence on changing the constitution which is the whole purpose of us having a president to uphold the constitution. Had people of voted yes to this it would of opened the gates to changing the current Irish constitution against abortion.

The bolded part is totally incorrect. The best the president can do is ask the Supreme Court to take a look at a potential law

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well yeah, but also Dana's perceived conservatism in the last election wasn't exactly seen as neutral. It did in fact marginalize her. This time it wasn't mentioned except in passing.


I never said it made peoples religion irrelevant to them, I said religious was irrelevant to their political decisions or more accurately the religious position of the candidates was irrelevant.
Religion has become a personal and private matter, it no longer informs public life, hasn't for about 20 years really.

Now to the substantive issue. Religion is irrelevant to most people, which seems to be what you take most issue with. I'm afraid to say this is just the truth. Most people I know have no religion, they don't attend any church, they don't believe in any God although they subscribe to some sort of 'something' if pushed on it.
Sorry but generalizations are what elections are about so if I generalized it's because thats the terms of the OP, a generalization itself.

Tommy, I think you are assuming too much, based on 'most people you know'...- let's face it, you don't know everybody..lol..

However, that is your prerogative - to draw conclusions from everything the way you see fit. Myself, I think it's a rather simplistic way of looking at things, and extrapolating strange facts to make large statements on...

You have given some clarity however, 'The religious position of the candidates was irrelavant' - Is a narrower statement, but..lol.., I'd disagree with that too, considering they all believe in God. Or at least claim to - unless they are lying of course....In fact, they claim they are Christian -



Anyway, I think our new President will be a good one, I disagree that the 'weight' of why he was - or indeed others weren't elected, was because of their religion, and this somehow is very important to understand the views on the electorate on 'Religion' and how it should be 'guaged' in the population..

- In my opinion, it's because the electorate don't see things 'soley' and rigidly through one eyeglass in life if they 'happen' to be a religious person - they look at the whole makeup, experience, job spec. of the position etc. of the candidates, before they make their decision on who is best to represent in 'that' role.... Good on em!

tommy2bad

the electorate don't see things 'soley' and rigidly through one eyeglass in life if they 'happen' to be a religious person - they look at the whole makeup, experience, job spec. of the position etc. of the candidates, before they make their decision on who is best to represent in 'that' role....

Now your interesting,
Agree that people don't see things as just one issue but disagree that religion is as much a factor as it was or would have been 20 years ago. I think this time it didn't matter at all, their were other issues that overshadowed it. Next time I don't think it'll be mentioned except in passing, (probably by some media whore trying to stir it up.)
The OP poised the question "Or is it about time that these conservative views were left in the past?" I say they are left at home more that behind in the past. Concentrative Christian views haven't gone away but they are no longer as vocal or organized. Perhaps because they don't see a cause to follow, or because they like everyone else they now regard religious views as a private matter.

tommy2bad

Sorry, hit post before I should have.
Really to determine the extent of Concentrative Christian views we would need a single issue referendum that divided the electorate along Con Christian and liberal Christian/secular lines. I honestly don't see such an issue. Abortion has as many liberal opponents as concentrative. Same sex marriage has as many secular opponents as concentrative Christian opponents.
Religion isn't the deciding factor in peoples life choices anymore. It is a factor but only one of many.
We agree?

Newsite

tommy2bad wrote: »

Sorry, hit post before I should have.
Really to determine the extent of Concentrative Christian views we would need a single issue referendum that divided the electorate along Con Christian and liberal Christian/secular lines. I honestly don't see such an issue. Abortion has as many liberal opponents as concentrative. Same sex marriage has as many secular opponents as concentrative Christian opponents.
Religion isn't the deciding factor in peoples life choices anymore. It is a factor but only one of many.
We agree?

Depends on which life choices you mean. For the big ticket items I guess it's a factor in very few people's choices these days.

passarellaie

Tommy i dont know where u live but most people i know have religous beleifs.So what does that prove we live in different circles.What pisses ne off about the liked of u is how u all return to Mother church on ure death bef.Why dont u insist on being thrown into the sea or slurry pit or sonething

tommy2bad

passarellaie, most people I know don't, most, not all mind you but we aren't discussing religious beliefs, we are discussing conservative catholic beliefs. I for one won't be returning to mother church on my death bed, I haven't left
Sorry I piss you off but I find statements like the OP redundant and couldn't let it go.
P.S. Spell check is your friend, 'tho looking back it has let me down at times.

PatricaMcKay2

I was going to give Dana a vote but I didnt because of the Passport thing, what she said about her niece and her comment that the USA's interests could never contradict Ireland's. Im sure there were many people like me. I gave Michael D a vote to keep Sean Gallagher out.

passarellaie

tommy2bad wrote: »

passarellaie, most people I know don't, most, not all mind you but we aren't discussing religious beliefs, we are discussing conservative catholic beliefs. I for one won't be returning to mother church on my death bed, I haven't left
Sorry I piss you off but I find statements like the OP redundant and couldn't let it t

Tommy spare me u havent left you have declared religion irtelevant.This the type of hypocricy reached by the COI vicar who declared homself an athiest.At least have the courage of your convictions go to the athiest forum and when u pass away let them throw u into the Atlantic or somewhere and dont take up Christian graves.

randylonghorn

Onesimus wrote: »

The government also played a clever card so they can have influence on changing the constitution which is the whole purpose of us having a president to uphold the constitution. Had people of voted yes to this it would of opened the gates to changing the current Irish constitution against abortion.

How?

(And I ask this as someone who voted No to the amendment re: Oireachtas inquiries, and urged others to do so.)

Newsite

That part in bold above is wrong. Neither the President nor the Government has any power to change the Constitution. That's what a referendum is for.