Irish embassy to the Vatican to be closed.

Mr Benevolent

NinjaK wrote: »

including protestant, jewish and muslim churches?

Yes. Religious intolerance for some, miniature abortions for others.

Captain Graphite

John Doe1 wrote: »

In many cases, you remove the embassy from the country before you start wars with them, fingers crossed enda does the business in his speech:D

So we're declaring war on Iran? :eek:
FÚCK!

Min

Badgermonkey wrote: »

By far the most effective instrument for breaking the hold of poverty on those in third-world nations is to provide women with the means to take control of their own reproductive cycle.

Actually when you reduce child mortality rates in poor countries the birth rate goes down as the need for children is reduced.
Everyday thousands upon thousands of children die from the effects of poverty, because of the high death rate among children under five years of age there is a need to have higher birth rates to replace those who die.
Education can lead to better employment, better ways of working. In a lot of these poor countries the work is labour intensive so they might need big families to do the work.
Controlling reproductive cycle might make sense in the west, but with a high child mortality rate and labour intensive work, it would not make sense.
Most of all they need the education to gain better income and the healthcare to reduce mortality rates.
Ireland used to have big families and when Ireland was mainly agricultural, there was a lot of work on farms and there was a need to have large families.

If you live in one of those countries with no running water, no tractors or machinery for farming, it does not make sense to have smaller families and to not have enough help to get the work done, if child mortality was reduced then their need to produce more children would also be reduced.

thetonynator

My name is URL wrote: »

For this alone, Ireland should keep its embassy in Iran open. Makes me laugh every time I think of it.

Here it is . . .

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=british+embassy,+Tehran,+Iran&hl=en&ll=35.696327,51.418296&spn=0.002435,0.004823&sll=35.748933,51.45671&sspn=0.002434,0.004823&vpsrc=6&hq=british+embassy,&hnear=Tehran,+Iran&t=m&z=18

Min

sensibleken wrote: »

So? what use is having an embassy there. whatever about the cost of it, closing it on principle after how theyve behaved on this island is reason enough

Are you saying Gilmore is a vindictive man?

smokingman

Yeah, how dare Gilmore be vindictive against a crowd of child raping, institutional cover-up scum...

How VERY dare he!

:rolleyes:

conorhal

Min wrote: »

Are you saying Gilmore is a vindictive man?

He's not just vindictive, he's cowardly and vindictive.

He cites 'economic reasons' for the closure? My arse.

As for Quinn's 'economic argument', I dislike the notion that everything cultural or spiritual must be sacrificed on mammon’s alter just to ensure that some bankers in Frankfurt get paid off.

And as to the real reason for this move, (why else would you lump the representitive of hundreds of thousands of Irish catholics in with Iran and East Timor?), why be so mealy mouthed about it?
Why doesn't Quinn have the courage of his (lack of) conviction and come out and say that the Vatican’s failure to engage with the Irish church and the state must be met with a diplomatic response? As a Catholic, I actually have a certian degree of sympathy with that point believe it our not, though I do consider that it would have been better made by a catholic minister.
This is nothing but a weasel move by the most weasely of all weasels.
It reminds me of the removal of a Marrian statue from the front of a local hospital last year, a move that was justified on the grounds of health and safety, despite hospital administrators being unable to cite exactly what 'danger' it was that the statue posed (other then ideological).

And there you have the reason I despise the Dawkensian fundies, they will couch and cloak their hatred of religion in all kind of obtuse semantic arguments about ‘health and safety’ or ‘equality’ as they try to backdoor their own ideologically based policies, which is to say that Quinns justification smacks of an excuse.
Come out and fight like a man Quinn! Or don't your 'principles' extend as far as risking a few catholic votes in your constituancy?

hooradiation

conorhal wrote: »

He's not just vindictive, he's cowardly and vindictive.

He cites 'economic reasons' for the closure? My arse.

As for Quinn's 'economic argument', I dislike the notion that everything cultural or spiritual must be sacrificed on mammon’s alter jsut to ensure that some bankers in Frankfurt get paid off.

And as to the real reason for this move, (why else would you do lump the representitive of hundreds of thousands of Irish catholics in with Iran and East Timor?), why be so mealy mouthed about it?
Why doesn't Quinn have the courage of his (lack of) conviction and come out and say that the Vatican’s failure to engage with the Irish church and the state must be met with a diplomatic response? As a Catholic, I actually have a certian degree of sympathy with that point believe it our not, though I do consider that it would have been better made by a catholic minister.
This is nothing but a weasel move by the most weasely of all weasels.
It reminds me of the removal of a Marrian statue from the front of a local hospital last year, a move that was justified on the grounds of health and safety, despite hospital administrators being unable to cite exactly what 'danger' it was that the statue posed (other then ideological).

And there you have the reason I despise the Dawkensian fundies, they will couch and cloak their hatred of religion in all kind of obtuse semantic arguments about ‘health and safety’ or ‘equality’ as they try to backdoor their own ideologically based policies, which is to say that Quinns justification smacks of an excuse.
Come out and fight like a man Quinn! Or don't your 'principles' extend as far as risking a few catholic votes in your constituancy?

stop whining.

conorhal

hooradiation wrote: »

stop whining.

Well that brilliant riposte has certainly shown me! :rolleyes:

paddyandy

The Church does'nt do Humility very well....ostentatiousness was always part of it's Theatrical Nature...taking away a genuflective symbol from it's gate is a sort of insult.

smokingman

So when the Ryan report committee (and others) sent requests for information on what Rome knew about the different paedos they moved to different parishes and the Vatican denied these requests because they decided to deal with the issue as a state and not as a church....who are the cowards here again?

sensibleken

Min wrote: »

Are you saying Gilmore is a vindictive man?

how in the name of god did you get that from what i said

Badgermonkey

Min wrote: »

Controlling reproductive cycle might make sense in the west, but with a high child mortality rate and labour intensive work, it would not make sense.

Can you provide a link to corroborate the above or is it merely opinion?

The UNFPA, W.H.O. and countless other organisations working in International aid and development would appear to disagree.

FAMILY PLANNING AND POVERTY REDUCTION
BENEFITS FOR FAMILIES AND NATIONS

Family planning programmes create conditions that enable women to enter the labour force and families to devote more resources to each child, thereby improving family nutrition, education levels and living standards. Slower population growth cuts the cost of social services as fewer women die in childbirth; and demand easesfor water, food, education, health care, hous-ing, transportation and jobs.

Family planning is a powerful tool in combating poverty. However, universal access to family planning it is not yet a reality –particularly not among the poorest. Worldwide, 200 million women would like to delay or prevent pregnancy, but are not using effective contraception.

Effective family planning programmes targeted to meet the needs of poor populations can reduce the fertility gap between rich and poor people, and make a powerful contribution to poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.unfpa.org/rh/planning/mediakit/docs/new_docs/sheet4-english.pdf

W.H.O

Why does family planning still matter?
Poverty reduction
Seemingly self-evident to many non-economists, is the idea that rapid
growth in a population (usually defined as an annual increase of 2%
or more, equivalent to a doubling of population size every 36 years)
can only exacerbate the issue of poverty, especially in countries where
underemployment is already high or where food security is a major concern. Furthermore, in stagnant economies, the notion is undeniable that population growth inevitably boosts the number of poor people—as has happened in sub-Saharan Africa where the estimated number of individuals living on less than a dollar a day rose from164 million in 1981 to 316 million in 2001. Nevertheless, estimation of the effect of demographic factors on economic welfare has proved elusive, partly because poverty reduction is also affected by many
other powerful forces. Paradoxically, during the heyday of international
investment in family planning in the 1980s, the prevailing view on the
demographic-economic relation among economists was cautious
bordering on neutrality. Since that time, evidence has become more affirmative on the benefit of reductions in fertility and population growth.

Overview
Reduced fertility and population growth, by themselves, will not automatically achieve aspirations for a better world, such as those enshrined in the MDGs, but they make achievement much more feasible. Their cross-cutting contributions to poverty reduction, better health, enhanced education, gender equality, and the environment make continued investment in family planning compelling.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/general/lancet_3.pdf

Min

So are we to believe that people who are in extreme poverty and cannot afford to buy enough food (which is why there is malnutrition) will instead even have less food so they can use contraception?

It was on Radio 1 that large families are needed as things are labour intensive in the poorest countries, they have larger families as they know some will die as it is common.

Korvanica

the groutch wrote: »

Can they please close all the churches while they're at it?

If they do this mu mum will owe me loads of stuff...

Me: Mum can i have X ? Can we do Y ?
Mum: Of course, some sunday that there is no Mass..

hooradiation

conorhal wrote: »

Well that brilliant riposte has certainly shown me! :rolleyes:

No problem, anytime.

Ellis Dee

John Doe1 wrote: »

In many cases, you remove the embassy from the country before you start wars with them ---:D

Oh sh1t! I suppose that means we can expect Sweden to attack any day now. They haven't been in a war since about 1814 and they must be raring for one. :eek::eek::eek:

FouxDaFaFa

I think closing the Iran embassy was a mistake. As someone has already mentioned, it's a huge country and it would be terrible if tourists, ex-pats or aid workers found themselves needing help there but having to try to contact embassies in other countries.

I welcome the closure of the Vatican embassy, pointless expenditure. Smug response from the church says it all really.

Zebra3

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I think closing the Iran embassy was a mistake. As someone has already mentioned, it's a huge country and it would be terrible if tourists, ex-pats or aid workers found themselves needing help there but having to try to contact embassies in other countries.

What aid workers are in Iran?

mattjack

Zebra3 wrote: »

What aid workers are in Iran?

what tourists are in Iran ?

HovaBaby

MrStuffins wrote: »

And this is relevant because.......

The Soviet Union was an atheist country. It burned down churches and killed members of the clergy.

Corkfeen

HovaBaby wrote: »

The Soviet Union was an atheist country. It burned down churches and killed members of the clergy.

You're gonna start referring to Mao and Pol Pot at any moment aren't you. You should bare in mind that the likes of the Soviet Union was run like a religion and it was not atheism that drove them too it. The crimes of the Soviet Union followed dogmatic principles ,Communism , not unlike the basis of Catholicism or any other religon. So in essence, stop attempting to claim that an Atheist Agenda is the reasoning for shutting down the embassy. There's no logical reason for the embassy to exist, it's of no benefit to our nation to have it.

MrStuffins

HovaBaby wrote: »

MrStuffins wrote: »

And this is relevant because.......

The Soviet Union was an atheist country. It burned down churches and killed members of the clergy.

Elton John's real name is Reg Dwight.

Sorry, are we still posting things irrelevant to the discussion? I thought so because you still didn't answer my question.

Alan b.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Oh sh1t! I suppose that means we can expect Sweden to attack any day now. They haven't been in a war since about 1814 and they must be raring for one. :eek::eek::eek:

the swedes have actually already been here recently on manouvers.

sensibleken

Alan b. wrote: »

the swedes have actually already been here recently on manouvers.

yeah, she was sensational aswell. wait, what are you refering to?

Paparazzo

Min wrote: »

Probably pay back the €1.5 billion of unguaranteed bonds that a bank that no longer banks and is being closed down, we shouldn't have to pay back since people gambled and lost, and we the people of Ireland have to pay gamblers.
Earlier this week the government paid €700 million on unguaranteed Anglo Irish bank bonds, these bonds had being sold on at 60% of their original value, the Irish government paid back the original 100% giving the buyers a 40% profit of €280 million all paid for by the people of Ireland.
Then you talk about pointless expenditure.

Ah yes, I see how it works. If we can afford the bailout, we can afford the Vatican embassy. Should we double pensions? Sure if we can afford the bailout, we can afford to do that. Same way if you but a new house, you can obviously afford a new car.
See how that logic doesn't work?

Mike 1972

All political/secular considerations aside maintaining embassies in the Vatican AND Rome makes about as much sense as having seperate embassies in East and West Berlin 22 years after the wall came down.

DEFTLEFTHAND

If an Irish person were to need diplomatic assistance in a country without an Irish embassy what do they do? Go to the British one and hope for the best?

Mike 1972

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

If an Irish person were to need diplomatic assistance in a country without an Irish embassy what do they do? Go to the British one and hope for the best?

Essentially yes given that we have a longstanding reciprocial agreement with the UK for such things.

Actually IIRC an Irish citizen needing diplomatic assistance in any non-EU country without an Irish (or UK) Embassy can avail of the services of any EU embassy in that country.

Anyway what circumstances do you envisage an Irish person in the Vatican needing the Services of the Irish embassy being unable to use the Irish embassy in Rome, Italy ?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Essentially yes given that we have a longstanding reciprocial agreement with the UK for such things.

Actually IIRC an Irish citizen needing diplomatic assistance in any non-EU country without an Irish Embassy can avail of the services of any EU embassy.

Anyway what circumstances do you envisage an Irish person in the Vatican needing the Services of the Irish embassy being unable to use the Irish embassy in Rome, Italy ?

It was moreso in a country like Iran where I was thinking that it could become somewhat of an issue. However as you said the fact that you can avail of the services of any EU states embassy abroad would solve that problem.