NUIG Suspends Legion of Mary over Leaflets

Truley

News article here http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1205/491018-nuig-legion-mary/

NUI Galway have suspended the Legion of Mary from operating as a college society following complaints over homophobic posters they distributed on campus.

Personally I'm happy to see this action taken by the University.

Authorities at the National University of Ireland in Galway have suspended the Legion of Mary as a college society.
A4-sized posters that triggered the suspension of the organisation were placed on a noticeboard outside the library reading room last week.
The poster in question was from a grouping calling itself the Courage Community.
It invited people with "same sex attractions" to "develop an interior life of chastity ... to move beyond the confines of the homosexual label to a more complete identity in Christ".
The poster stated that this "purity matters initiative" was in conjunction with the NUIG Legion of Mary society.
NUI Galway says it is committed to protecting the liberty and equality of all students.
It reviewed the actions of the society in the context of the University's code of conduct and policies governing harassment.
This led to the immediate suspension of the Legion of Mary. It is understood the society had only a handful of members.
In the region of 70 complaints were received.

mud

Was this the "pray away the gay" crowd?

Glad the university stepped in.

errlloyd

I actually don't understand religious societies on campuses at all these days. It would actually be incredibly easy for them be popular. College students have such low expectations of the church that all they have to do is be a little bit nice and they will probably impress people. Instead they seem to take it as challenge to exceed people's already incredibly low expectations, something they are incredibly ****ing good at it.

I think the Chaplain in Trinity (I didn't go there) is pretty sound with the old advice and free soup stuff, more of that, less of the killing of the gays.

LoonyLovegood

I'm an NUIG student, and I'm glad they were banned because of this particular incident. But I have to admit, while I'm not religious, the chaplancy here is fantastic with helping people with any issues they have.

Daqster

Someone should get one those big outdoor projection kits and screen Where The Boys Aren't 7 on the largest walls on the NUIG campus, on a Sunday.

WilyCoyote

Legion Of Mary? How did they achieve such prominence? A single mother who had her husband cuckholded by a ghost. And a cult built around her. Truly amazing the power of the mind. Jesus H Christ!

padd b1975

errlloyd wrote: »

I actually don't understand religious societies on campuses at all these days. It would actually be incredibly easy for them be popular. College students have such low expectations of the church that all they have to do is be a little bit nice and they will probably impress people. Instead they seem to take it as challenge to exceed people's already incredibly low expectations, something they are incredibly ****ing good at it.

I think the Chaplain in Trinity (I didn't go there) is pretty sound with the old advice and free soup stuff, more of that, less of the killing of the gays.

How many gays have the Legion of Mary killed?

Cabaal

padd b1975 wrote: »

How many gays have the Legion of Mary killed?

Well the Bible does say that gay's should be put to death, it's the word of their god

efb

The chaplains were dead on alright. But there was a lot of crazies between the anti war, anti abortion and gaelgoirz on campus

BMJD

I wanna see a Legion Of Doom Vs Legion Of Mary deathmatch

gandalf

Hmm I thought the Legion of Mary were a fairly benign bunch. Wouldn't surprise me if you found that it was the same wacko's from Youth Defense involved with the hand of Opus Dei directing in the background.

Whoever is behind it fair play to the authorities in NUIG in nipping this particular flavour of hate crime in the bud.

cletus van damme

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outraged if somebody was silenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

Daith

I actually didn't see the fuss either. Far better than the society getting no interest whatsoever than ending it. Though I'd argue there could be room for an LGBT religious soc or inviting religious leaders to speak at the LGBT soc.

Having saying that I didn't realize Christians were supposed to live a life of chastity. How quaint.

_Redzer_

cletus van damme wrote: »

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outrage if somebody wassilenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

Freedom of speech only works until somebody is starting to be negatively affected. Freedom of speech would not permit racism or something like this.

Why this shouldn't have happened is because it makes being gay appear as something negative that can be 'fixed'. And that's ignoring the fact that these 'pray the gay away' things don't even work in the first place, so how would that affect someone who actually was gay and wasn't comfortable deal with their sexuality, tried to fix themselves and found out it wasn't working. That's not healthy.

Best to keep a positive message that it's nothing wrong in the first place and nothing needing of a fix. It's far, far healthier.

Dravokivich

cletus van damme wrote: »

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outrage if somebody wassilenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

It's not about silencing opposition ideals. It's about not endorsing them. NUIG would have been seen as party to the campaign by allowing the posters to remain on their property, posted up by a body of their students.

Benny_Cake

gandalf wrote: »

Hmm I thought the Legion of Mary were a fairly benign bunch. Wouldn't surprise me if you found that it was the same wacko's from Youth Defense involved with the hand of Opus Dei directing in the background.

Whoever is behind it fair play to the authorities in NUIG in nipping this particular flavour of hate crime in the bud.

I suspect it may be a solo run on the part of the NUIG group. I find it very hard to believe that an organisation with deep roots in Ireland such as the LoM has would get involved with this ex-gay nonsense. They would know that it would be a message that would get a frosty reception, even from more conservative types.

Shenshen

cletus van damme wrote: »

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outraged if somebody was silenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

There's nobody stopping them for putting up posters like this in their own front gardens, if they so wish, or elsewhere with permission of the owner of the place.

NUIG are well within their rights to restrict what can be said and shown within their own buildings.

Benny_Cake

cletus van damme wrote: »

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

Tbh these are the people who I'd be most concerned about. Despite what some may think, it is perfectly possible to be gay and Christian and to imply that young people should have to choose is cruel.

If people are struggling come to terms with their sexuality, it would be far better to provide any necessary counselling to allow them to do so and live a life of integrity.

freedominacup

Shenshen wrote: »

There's nobody stopping them for putting up posters like this in their own front gardens, if they so wish, or elsewhere with permission of the owner of the place.

NUIG are well within their rights to restrict what can be said and shown within their own buildings.

Here it is in a nutshell, everything that's wrong with Irish people who consider themselves "liberal". You think that a university of all places should stifle ideas and debate? Off all institutions anywhere in the country a university should encourage people to express their ideas. The loony ones like those expressed in the poster in the OP will very quickly be exposed for the nonsense they are but only if they are debated.

I would be regarded by many as conservative but I'm one person you could rely on to back you regardless of how distasteful I find your views if anyone/any authority tries to shut you down, unless you are actually inciting violence. So maybe I'm a bit liberal certainly a lot more liberal than the cretins who think shutting these people down is the correct course of action.

cletus van damme

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Freedom of speech only works until somebody is starting to be negatively affected. Freedom of speech would not permit racism or something like this.

Why this shouldn't have happened is because it makes being gay appear as something negative that can be 'fixed'. And that's ignoring the fact that these 'pray the gay away' things don't even work in the first place, so how would that affect someone who actually was gay and wasn't comfortable deal with their sexuality, tried to fix themselves and found out it wasn't working. That's not healthy.

Best to keep a positive message that it's nothing wrong in the first place and nothing needing of a fix. It's far, far healthier.

I don't disagree much with you tbh.

But I think they are entitled to claim that being gay is somewhat negative - being critical of a section of society isn't a terrible thing.

They appear in the case to do it in a quite benign way - which is essentially my point I can't see it as harassment.

as for offering a service that mightn't work - they wouldn't be the only ones, in fairness.
Are we going to ban all cults / religious or Weight watchers(!) for false advertising?

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not about silencing opposition ideals. It's about not endorsing them. NUIG would have been seen as party to the campaign by allowing the posters to remain on their property, posted up by a body of their students.

I see your point. But NUIG allow a host of of varied groups to poster at will.
They singled this one cos the group don't agree with their ideals.

Saying "i'm don't think this life is a good one " is perfectly reasonable as it wasn't in an aggressive threatening manner.

If it's a gay rights Issue then I'd argue that for true gay rights - it has to happen naturally without enforcement and allow for people to be critical.

GLaDOS

cletus van damme wrote: »

But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

"Pray out the Gay" isn't a solution, it's a harmful exercise where people are basically told what they are isn't right and needs to be changed. It would be similar to advertising homeopathy for illnesses. You can argue that it's harmless if people want to try it, but if there's a serious issue there, not treating it properly can lead to serious problems. I know I wouldn't want to be seen endorsing something like that.

Daith

cletus van damme wrote: »

But I think they are entitled to claim that being gay is somewhat negative - being critical of a section of society isn't a terrible thing.

Sorry the fcuk?

If I set up a Atheist group who's message is to convert those backwards religious people because that's a negative thing that would be fine with you?

Dravokivich

cletus van damme wrote: »

I see your point. But NUIG allow a host of of varied groups to poster at will.
They singled this one cos the group don't agree with their ideals.

Saying "i'm don't think this life is a good one " is perfectly reasonable as it wasn't in an aggressive threatening manner.

If it's a gay rights Issue then I'd argue that for true gay rights - it has to happen naturally without enforcement and allow for people to be critical.

The content does not need to be expressed in a direct and vulgar manner for it to be considered aggressive. There were a multitude of complaints in regards to the campaign and the general feedback received by NUIG appeared to be as follows:

"The Societies Chairperson at the University, Patrick O'Flaherty, said he had been contacted by a number of students who were upset or felt threatened by the content of the poster."

If there were such issue's with other poster campaigns that had similar affects to students at NUIG, I'd expect NUIG to react in a similar manner on behalf and in consideration of their students.

freedominacup

Daith wrote: »

Sorry the fcuk?

If I set up a Atheist group who's message is to convert those backwards religious people because that's a negative thing that would be fine with you?

Absolutely, I'd even throw a few cent in the collection bucket, it's always good to see youngsters getting involved in social activities. It's your opinion and you're entitled to express it and I'm entitled to engage you in debate about if I wish or to just as publically dismiss your beliefs as the mis-informed ramblings of a weak mind, to which you're entitled to counter with anything you like as long as you're not encouraging people to physically attack me.

Phoebas

Shenshen wrote: »

NUIG are well within their rights to restrict what can be said and shown within their own buildings.

They're a public organisation, so they aren't (or at least shouldn't be) within their rights to restrict free speech.

golfball37

This is a joke. Liberals believe they have a monopoly on idealism when in fact whats happened in here in NUIG, whether you agree or not with the LOM, is closer to facism than anything pertaining to Liberalism.

cletus van damme

Daith wrote: »

Sorry the fcuk?

If I set up a Atheist group who's message is to convert those backwards religious people because that's a negative thing that would be fine with you?

don't they exist already?
But yes.
Saying "I don't agree" isn't a bad thing - we can debate it out.
even prove them wrong.
I might not agree with them but I support their right to have an opinion and express it without censor.
you can be as critical in return.

Is that a bad thing?

freedominacup

Dravokivich wrote: »

The content does not need to be expressed in a direct and vulgar manner for it to be considered aggressive. There were a multitude of complaints in regards to the campaign and the general feedback received by NUIG appeared to be as follows:

"The Societies Chairperson at the University, Patrick O'Flaherty, said he had been contacted by a number of students who were upset or felt threatened by the content of the poster."

If there were such issue's with other poster campaigns that had similar affects to students at NUIG, I'd expect NUIG to react in a similar manner on behalf and in consideration of their students.

That number of students should cowboy the f**k up.

Dravokivich

freedominacup wrote: »

That number of students should cowboy the f**k up.

I believe that was the Legion of Mary's problem with them in the first place.

Daith

cletus van damme wrote: »

don't they exist already?
But yes.
Saying "I don't agree" isn't a bad thing - we can debate it out.
even prove them wrong.
I might not agree with them but I support their right to have an opinion and express it without censor.
you can be as critical in return.

Is that a bad thing?

Ok that's the issue. As an independent society they have the right. As a society on campus their rights come from the college itself. They don't have a right to do anything.

They are more than welcome to setup their own independent group if they want.

padd b1975

freedominacup wrote: »

Here it is in a nutshell, everything that's wrong with Irish people who consider themselves "liberal". You think that ua university of all places should stifle ideas and debate? Off all institutions anywhere in the country a university shIould encourage people to express their ideas. The loony ones like those expressed in the poster in the OP will very quickly be exposed for the nonsense they are but only if they are debated.

I would be regarded by many as conservative but I'm one person you could rely on to back you regardless of how distasteful I find your views if anyone/any authority tries to shut you down, unless you are actually inciting violence. So maybe I'm a bit liberal certainly a lot more liberal than the cretins who think shutting these people down is the correct course of action.

+1.

I have come to the conclusion that there are no true liberals in Ireland, just a gang of loonies who jump subjectively onto whatever populist bandwagon is passing on any given day and then proceed to shout down at anyone that dares to express a different opinion.