Irish government barred military from involvement in Eucharistic Congress

Snappy Smurf

Irish defense minister Alan Shatter refused to allow the army to play any official part in the Eucharistic Congress that was held in Dublin in June, the Irish Catholic has revealed.

Organizers of the Eucharistic Congress has asked for a military honor guard to take part in a procession through the city. Although similar requests have been routinely granted in the past, this year the government turned down the proposal.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14941

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2276

MrStuffins

Too right.

Waste of resources and I have no idea how this would be necessary or appropriate!

Snappy Smurf

MrStuffins wrote: »

Too right.

Waste of resources and I have no idea how this would be necessary or appropriate!

They did it before for other things. Anyway, it's in the constitution. The Holy Trinity is invoked. So it would seem fitting that the security services should provide official services during these sorts of occasions. Obviously, the Irish state authorities (note authorities, not the people) are separating themselves from the state's origins and roots.

MrStuffins

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

They did it before for other things. Anyway, it's in the constitution. The Holy Trinity is invoked. So it would seem fitting that the security services should provide official services during these sorts of occasions. Obviously, the Irish state authorities (note authorities, not the people) are separating themselves from the state's origins and roots.

Wait, i'm confused by this part. Could you elaborate?

Wiggles88

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

They did it before for other things. Anyway, it's in the constitution. The Holy Trinity is invoked. So it would seem fitting that the security services should provide official services during these sorts of occasions. Obviously, the Irish state authorities (note authorities, not the people) are separating themselves from the state's origins and roots.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we remove that silly business of special treatment for the RCC from the constitution?

leeroybrown

MrStuffins wrote: »

Wait, i'm confused by this part. Could you elaborate?

The "Holy Trinity" is invoked at the start of the Constitution as part of the oath process. As a non Christian I find it an unnecessary appendage to our constitution that should be replaced with a non denominational oath at some stage in future.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Too right.

Waste of resources and I have no idea how this would be necessary or appropriate!

On top of that it's an unnecessary coupling of church and state we can do without. Security services can provide exactly that - security - but not in an official religious capacity.

MrStuffins

leeroybrown wrote: »

The "Holy Trinity" is invoked at the start of the Constitution as part of the oath process. As a non Christian I find it an unnecessary appendage to our constitution that should be replaced with a non denominational oath at some stage in future.

I understand but I was just wanting to know why the OP thought it was appropriate in this situation? To use and waste the resources of the security services.

Manach

This is an unfortunate but hardly surprising decision by the current Minister whose grasp of history seems now to extend to ignoring the historical traditional linkages of the Irish defence forces and the Church.

Snappy Smurf

MrStuffins wrote: »

I understand but I was just wanting to know why the OP thought it was appropriate in this situation? To use and waste the resources of the security services.

Sure what else would they be doing? I'm sure the Irish army or naval services could have found an hour or two for the congress without incurring imaginary 'expenses'.

MrStuffins

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Sure what else would they be doing?

Their jobs?

Snappy Smurf

MrStuffins wrote: »

Their jobs?

Come off it. Spotting seagulls off Cork to pass the time is hardly important state security work. These fellas could have found time to do a bit for the Lord and His Church. It would seem that some did want to help out, but they weren't allowed.

newmug

MrStuffins wrote: »

Their jobs?

What like, fightin' in the war, killing people and stuff?

Witcher

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Come off it. Spotting seagulls off Cork to pass the time is hardly important state security work. These fellas could have found time to do a bit for the Lord and His Church. It would seem that some did want to help out, but they weren't allowed.

Let the lord provide his own soldiers to do a bit for his church, the Defence Forces aren't paid for it.

MrStuffins

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Come off it. Spotting seagulls off Cork to pass the time is hardly important state security work. These fellas could have found time to do a bit for the Lord and His Church. It would seem that some did want to help out, but they weren't allowed.

If you have such lack of respect for the work of the armed forces, why is it important to you that they stand still for the Eucharistic Congress?

Snappy Smurf

MrStuffins wrote: »

If you have such lack of respect for the work of the armed forces, why is it important to you that they stand still for the Eucharistic Congress?

I don't. I wouldn't mind a job with them myself.

My point is, there would be no added cost to having the personnel take part.

davetherave

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Come off it. Spotting seagulls off Cork to pass the time is hardly important state security work. These fellas could have found time to do a bit for the Lord and His Church. It would seem that some did want to help out, but they weren't allowed.

You are talking through your ass, you haven't a breeze what the DF do on a day to day basis.
More to the point, what makes you thing that wasting a day walking around with clergy and religious types is "important state security work"?

Sure anyway the pipe band and a few chaplains showed up, what more do you want?

MrStuffins

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

I don't.

I wouldn't mind a job with them myself.

My point is, there would be no added cost to having the personnel take part.

There would also be no added cost if they spent their working day shooting pigeons on O'Connell Street.

But it's unnecessary and inappropriate. It's also not their job.

newmug

Its usually the Reserve that are called in for ceremonial duties such as that. ie. Volunteers

Snappy Smurf

davetherave wrote: »

You are talking through your ass, you haven't a breeze what the DF do on a day to day basis.
More to the point, what makes you thing that wasting a day walking around with clergy and religious types is "important state security work"?

Sure anyway the pipe band and a few chaplains showed up, what more do you want?

The defense pipe band? Then surely that is state support.

davetherave

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

My point is, there would be no added cost to having the personnel take part.

How are they going to get to the procession?
Because they will have weapons you will need a security element, which ties up more people.
Are they going to be fed?
It's not just a case of the army rocking up and doing their thing, there are inspections and rehearsals to be done.

The 106 Battalion that is currently in Lebanon is drawn from the eastern brigade.
There is a good ~600 troops that aren't in Dublin anymore, meaning the remainder have to pick up the extra duties.


Tradition is an obstacle to progress, just because it happened in the past, doesn't mean it has to happen in the future.

MrStuffins

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The defense pipe band? Then surely that is state support.

Then there you go. Problem solved..... or non existant. Either one is fine!

Benny_Cake

Shatter made the right decision - it is completely inappropriate for the military to be committed to something such as the Eucharistic Congress. Why anyone would want them to do so is beyond me.

philologos

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Sure what else would they be doing? I'm sure the Irish army or naval services could have found an hour or two for the congress without incurring imaginary 'expenses'.

You'd still have to pay them, even if you think they have an hour or two to spare.

Firstly not all in the Army are Roman Catholics. Secondly surely the State shouldn't favour any specific faith over another, but rather should facilitate religious freedom.

Shatter's on the ball.

Splendour

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Irish defense minister Alan Shatter refused to allow the army to play any official part in the Eucharistic Congress that was held in Dublin in June, the Irish Catholic has revealed.

They played some part-I know a soldier who had to guard something or other in the RDS.

I personally think our army would better serve the country if they patrolled the streets at night to prevent anti social behavior.

Einhard

Manach wrote: »

This is an unfortunate but hardly surprising decision by the current Minister whose grasp of history seems now to extend to ignoring the historical traditional linkages of the Irish defence forces and the Church.

So he should have provided the defence forces to provide an honour guard merely because of an historical association. Not to be flippant, but if that's the case, perhaps we should entrust vulnerable children to church-run institutions again? I mean, there's historical precedence and all.

hiram

Blay wrote: »

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Come off it. Spotting seagulls off Cork to pass the time is hardly important state security work. These fellas could have found time to do a bit for the Lord and His Church. It would seem that some did want to help out, but they weren't allowed.

Let the lord provide his own soldiers to do a bit for his church, the Defence Forces aren't paid for it.

Yes indeed, as we know historically, the church is very good at asking the so called Lord for military help in order to advance its agenda through the medium of war, murder and persecution. From the Crusades all the way through to the Evangelical George W.

MrPudding

Splendour wrote: »

I personally think our army would better serve the country if they patrolled the streets at night to prevent anti social behavior.

Whilst that is an easy thing to suggest, the implcations are huge.

MrP

AlfaZen

It's time for the RCC to realize that they no longer have a special place in Irish society. Well done to Alan Shatter on this decision.

Now lets hope Minister Noonan changes the rules on taxationin the next budget and forces religious organisations to pay tax.

Run_to_da_hills

There were enough Gardai present at that event directing traffic and being on stand by etc without getting the army involved. I'm not sure if these were paid by the organizers or not.

Einhard

Splendour wrote: »

I personally think our army would better serve the country if they patrolled the streets at night to prevent anti social behavior.

Martial law? No thanks.

prinz

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Irish defense minister Alan Shatter refused to allow the army to play any official part in the Eucharistic Congress that was held in Dublin in June, the Irish Catholic has revealed..

Army chaplains played their part, and represented their Forces and their religion.

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Organizers of the Eucharistic Congress has asked for a military honor guard to take part in a procession through the city.

They should have known better than to even ask. Military honour guard lol. For what exactly? Outside of any official duties (security etc) or ceremonial (such as the chaplains and/or marching bands) then they have no role whatsoever in appearing to represent the Defence Forces at the EC. It wasn't a state event, and complaining about makes as much sense as wondering why soldiers in full dress uniform aren't forming a guard of honour for the Hare Krishnas when they do a procession through Dublin.

Snappy Smurf

AlfaZen wrote: »

It's time for the RCC to realize that they no longer have a special place in Irish society. Well done to Alan Shatter on this decision.

Now lets hope Minister Noonan changes the rules on taxationin the next budget and forces religious organisations to pay tax.

Separation of Church and State. Religion is not a taxable product for the state. Religion must be free to pursue its agenda, free of state interference, which is what taxation would be.

Raisins

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Irish government barred military from involvement in Eucharistic Congress

They make it sound like the defence forces were straining at the leash to go to the congress until the minister intervened. In reality I'd say they couldn't care less.

I'd be interested to hear a logical explanation from someone in favour on why the involvement of the defence forces is at all justified. It seems like it was used in the past as an international demonstration by the vatican of the power of the Catholic church in Ireland. Why else would a bunch of soldiers be marching with clergymen or giving them a demonstration? Pandering to self importance is all I can come up with.

PDN

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Separation of Church and State. Religion is not a taxable product for the state. Religion must be free to pursue its agenda, free of state interference, which is what taxation would be.

So, let's get this straight. You're arguing for the principle of separation of Church and State in a thread that you started in order to complain that the State didn't order its soldiers to support a Church event? Really?

Snappy Smurf

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight. You're arguing for the principle of separation of Church and State in a thread that you started in order to complain that the State didn't order its soldiers to support a Church event? Really?

Well you see, some of the defense guys wanted to take part (it would seem) and yet they were not allowed.

:pac:

al28283

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Well you see, some of the defense guys wanted to take part (it would seem) and yet they were not allowed.

:pac:

Were they barred from attending as individuals? It's not up to the soldiers to decide what the army supports.

leeroybrown

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Well you see, some of the defense guys wanted to take part (it would seem) and yet they were not allowed.

:pac:

That's perfectly fine. It's an army. Those decisions are for the government and military command not for individual soldiers. Off duty soldiers were perfectly free to attend the Eucharistic Congress in their civilian capacity just no to represent the state at a religious event. I had no objection to the Eucharistic Congress taking place in Ireland. I would however have objections to overt state support using the army.

Manach

Einhard wrote: »

So he should have provided the defence forces to provide an honour guard merely because of an historical association. Not to be flippant, but if that's the case, perhaps we should entrust vulnerable children to church-run institutions again? I mean, there's historical precedence and all.

Given the fine state of the current child protection HSE care and the state of the country's finances ... Then again, given the poor state of historical knowledge today I'm note sure many people would recognise what exactly a functional socially useful tradition is.

Wiggles88

What has tradition got to do with it? Are you saying the state should favour a religion simply because its what we did in the past?

al28283

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Well you see, some of the defense guys wanted to take part (it would seem) and yet they were not allowed.

:pac:

What if some of the defense guys want to take part in sporting events? I'm sure alot more of them would be interested in that.

Actor

Alan Shatter, a Jew, is using his ministerial office to promote his own ideology. That's fine. So long as Catholics (who also have an ideology) are allowed to promote their ideologies in their day-to-day business. It appears there are double standards when it comes to promoting secularism - it's ok for secularists to promote whatever they want, yet censure Catholics given any minor opportunity. People like Shatter should be resisted and told in the strongest of terms that his "separation of Church and State" is a two-way street.

Snappy Smurf

al28283 wrote: »

What if some of the defense guys want to take part in sporting events? I'm sure alot more of them would be interested in that.

At Wimbledon, the British security forces provide guards. It's a tradition.

It is also a tradition that Irish security forces provide cover at Church events, even until very recently.

al28283

Actor wrote: »

Alan Shatter, a Jew, is using his ministerial office to promote his own ideology. That's fine. So long as Catholics (who also have an ideology) are allowed to promote their ideologies in their day-to-day business. It appears there are double standards when it comes to promoting secularism - it's ok for secularists to promote whatever they want, yet censure Catholics given any minor opportunity. People like Shatter should be resisted and told in the strongest of terms that his "separation of Church and State" is a two-way street.

This doesn't make any sense, at all.

Secularism is not a religion, promoting secularism is not the same as promoting a religion.Catholics are allowed to promote whatever they want in their day to day business but the defense forces are not a catholic institution

Corkfeen

Actor wrote: »

Alan Shatter, a Jew, is using his ministerial office to promote his own ideology. That's fine. So long as Catholics (who also have an ideology) are allowed to promote their ideologies in their day-to-day business. It appears there are double standards when it comes to promoting secularism - it's ok for secularists to promote whatever they want, yet censure Catholics given any minor opportunity. People like Shatter should be resisted and told in the strongest of terms that his "separation of Church and State" is a two-way street.

What does Alan Shatter's religion have to do with anything? There was no necessity for the Irish military to have any involvement in the Eucharistic Congress and giving preference to a specific religion would hardly fit with separation of church and state... It's not as if they used the military to prevent it from going ahead. :pac:

Actor

al28283 wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense, at all.

Secularism is not a religion, promoting secularism is not the same as promoting a religion.Catholics are allowed to promote whatever they want in their day to day business but the defense forces are not a catholic institution

I never said secularism is a religion. Secularism, is however, a belief system with far-reaching ambitions.

AlfaZen

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Separation of Church and State. Religion is not a taxable product for the state. Religion must be free to pursue its agenda, free of state interference, which is what taxation would be.

Why should religious organisations be exempt from paying taxes?

Another option would be to tax people lets say 1% of taxable income based on their religion. This money would go to their nominated church (RC, Protestant, Jewish etc.)

Then tax the religious organisations @21% of all their income (incl. collections, donations, property rent/sales etc)

leeroybrown

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

At Wimbledon, the British security forces provide guards. It's a tradition.

It is also a tradition that Irish security forces provide cover at Church events, even until very recently.

Wimbledon is a a tennis tournament not a global religious organisation with immense financial and political power. In it's case there's no conflict of interest for the state.

Actor

Corkfeen wrote: »

What does Alan Shatter's religion have to do with anything? There was no necessity for the Irish military to have any involvement in the Eucharistic Congress and giving preference to a specific religion would hardly fit with separation of church and state... It's hardly as if they used the military to prevent it from going ahead. :pac:

The Church and the defence forces have always had a strong relationship with each other. A transient minister decided to interfere in this relationship for political reasons. That is the point.

al28283

Actor wrote: »

I never said secularism is a religion. Secularism, is however, a belief system with far-reaching ambitions.

Yes, it's own which doesn't prevent Catholics to promote their own idealogy, as you claim it does.

Wiggles88

Actor wrote: »

I never said secularism is a religion. Secularism, is however, a belief system with far-reaching ambitions.

The ambition to separate church and state so that no one religion is favoured and everyone is free to believe what they want without having someone else's beliefs forced on them? Yeah what a awful idea :rolleyes:

Actor

AlfaZen wrote: »

Why should religious organisations be exempt from paying taxes?

Another option would be to tax people lets say 1% of taxable income based on their religion. This money would go to their nominated church (RC, Protestant, Jewish etc.)

Then tax the religious organisations @21% of all their income (incl. collections, donations, property rent/sales etc)

Tax hospitals and schools eh? You're some socialist fool alright. You (the taxpayer, I assume?) would soon find out the real cost of taxing religious institutions.