Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

weisses

Cabaal wrote: »

We've already covered the very fact that the RCC doesn't represent the majority of Ireland when it comes to their stance on abortion.

Majority of Ireland think abortion in rape or incest cases should be allowed, the RCC say its wrong no matter what.

So your statement is inaccurate,

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/02/ireland-poll-shows-60-oppose-abortion-on-suicide-grounds/

Not according to this poll

And you did not made clear if the "shopkeepers" need to have the same view as the RCC ...You only asked if they could make their point regarding Abortion legislation

Cabaal wrote: »

The Catholic Bishops were given microphone time, this is special treatment. Should we also give shopkeepers mic time when it comes to abortion legislation?

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. 1 is a right of all citizens and groups of citizens as far as I know.

No, you are entitled to set up a private school, but not a public one. A private organisation must conform to the rules the state lays down when setting up a public school.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. 2 I think you'll find this is the case for other civil society actors (ICTU, IFA, IBEC).....that the RCC is very good at lobbying and making itself heard is not a crime.

It's not the same. It's rare for members of lobbying groups to be invited to read over legislation before it's submitted. It is in fact something that should not be done unless looking for expert opinions and even then, both sides of experts should be consulted.

Penn

I Heart Internet wrote: »

When you prescribe (or seek to) what issues relate to people/organisations or not, you are effectvely telling them that they cannot have a voice. People/Organisations should be allowed to have a say in whatever area interests them.

Okay, I have an interest in abortion legislation. I ask to be allowed to speak at the Government's meeting to discuss it. The Pope asks to be allowed to come to Ireland and speak on it too.

Who do you think is more likely to be allowed to speak? Me, a complete randomer with no scientific, medical or psychological qualifications, but who wants to voice his opinion on the topic; or Pope Francis, who isn't even a citizen of this country.

I Heart Internet

King Mob wrote: »

No. they shouldn't have control of state schools at all let alone have such influence on education..

But they're not state schools.

King Mob wrote: »

But they want to enforce their rules on other, non catholic people..

I'd like to enforce my personal rule around not killing people on every single person in Ireland too.....if only there was a way I could make this a reality....oh, wait

King Mob wrote: »

Why do they think that everyone should not be allowed access to contraception when only Catholics are forbidden from using them?.

Could you link to a single comment by a single catholic (not even priest or religious, just a RCC of any description) from the last 20 years suggesting contraception should be illegal - contraception now, not abortificants.

I Heart Internet

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Okay, I have an interest in abortion legislation. I ask to be allowed to speak at the Government's meeting to discuss it. The Pope asks to be allowed to come to Ireland and speak on it too.

Who do you think is more likely to be allowed to speak? Me, a complete randomer with no scientific, medical or psychological qualifications, but who wants to voice his opinion on the topic; or Pope Francis, who isn't even a citizen of this country.

I honestly think you'd be more likely to be successful. I really do. It would be a diplomatic nightmare to have "himself" turn up for a meeting like that. I'm genuine when I say i think you'd have a better shot.

J_E

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'd like to enforce my personal rule around not killing people on every single person in Ireland too.....if only there was a way I could make this a reality....oh, wait

Please never confuse law and religion.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I honestly think you'd be more likely to be successful. I really do. It would be a diplomatic nightmare to have "himself" turn up for a meeting like that. I'm genuine when I say i think you'd have a better shot.

Playing coy is really not your thing.

I Heart Internet

Cydoniac wrote: »

Please never confuse law and religion.


Playing coy is really not your thing.

Please read the conversation betwen myself and King. It was about "imposing" (or seeking to impose) private/personal/religious views on the rest of society.

Another example, I personally believe littering to be abhorent. It offend me and I think it is a crime against nature. My neighbour thinks it's fine. If I campaign for more/tougher laws against litter, am I imposing my private beliefs on my neighbour? Well, indireclty, yes. But likewise, my neighbour has the right to campaign for littering to be made legal.

I Heart Internet

Cydoniac wrote: »

Playing coy is really not your thing.

That was a genuine response to a genuine (if unlikely) scenario.

I Heart Internet

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But they're not state schools.

Ah I got confused with all those state funding and employees and what not...

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'd like to enforce my personal rule around not killing people on every single person in Ireland too.....if only there was a way I could make this a reality....oh, wait

Could you link to a single comment by a single catholic (not even priest or religious, just a RCC of any description) from the last 20 years suggesting contraception should be illegal - contraception now, not abortificants.

You didn't answer the question. The very clearly did oppose contraception before it was legalised.
Why?

Also:
In 1997, the Vatican released a document entitled "Vademecum for Confessors" (2:4) which states "[t]he Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception."

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Another example, I personally believe littering to be abhorent. It offend me and I think it is a crime against nature. My neighbour thinks it's fine. If I campaign for more/tougher laws against litter, am I imposing my private beliefs on my neighbour? Well, indireclty, yes. But likewise, my neighbour has the right to campaign for littering to be made legal.

What about a Muslim neighbour campaign to remove all alcohol from Ireland or a jehovah's witness trying to outlaw blood transfusions.
These are more appropriate examples because they are silly abitrary beliefs that only apply to the members of that religion.

And my question is not about whether they should or not, it's about why they want to. The obvious answer is that it is because they want to impose religious laws onto people not of their religion.
That is what the church does, did and wants to do.
You are playing naive to avoid this fact.

I Heart Internet

King Mob wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. The very clearly did oppose contraception before it was legalised.
Why?

Also:
In 1997, the Vatican released a document entitled "Vademecum for Confessors" (2:4) which states "[t]he Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception."

Sorry. Why? Because they believed it to be "an intrinsic evil" I guess.

You seem to have answered your own question.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Another example, I personally believe littering to be abhorent. It offend me and I think it is a crime against nature. My neighbour thinks it's fine. If I campaign for more/tougher laws against litter, am I imposing my private beliefs on my neighbour? Well, indireclty, yes. But likewise, my neighbour has the right to campaign for littering to be made legal.

Seriously,
Thats your comparison?

Littering has an impact on the environment, it costs money for the state to clean it up.

Tell me, whats the negative impact is caused to Catholics directly from making gay marriage legal?
- Happy couples?
- Boost to hotel industry?

Go on, what?

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously,
Thats your comparison?

Littering has an impact on the environment, it costs money for the state to clean it up.

Tell me, whats the negative impact is caused to Catholics directly from making gay marriage legal?
- Happy couples?
- Boost to hotel industry?

Go on, what?

I'm not going to debate gay marriage with you. I'm just not.

But I will (as I have been) debate the right of anyone or any organisation to debate whatever they like in a democracy.

Penn

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I honestly think you'd be more likely to be successful. I really do. It would be a diplomatic nightmare to have "himself" turn up for a meeting like that. I'm genuine when I say i think you'd have a better shot.

Not a chance . Even if the Government weren't going to allow the Pope to come and speak, they would at least consider his request. They would not consider mine. They wouldn't consider any randomers like me. And it's a damn good thing that they wouldn't too.

That's the point I'm trying to make. They don't let randomers speak because that's giving those people special privilege over others. They let groups and organisations who are actually involved in the proposed legislation to speak because they are speaking from a position of experience, research, knowledge and fact. They do so to get more information on things they aren't as knowledgeable in themselves. John-Joe FitzCulchie and I can go to the McDonalds on Kilkenny Street, Kilkenny and discuss it between ourselves, but opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one. Groups/organisations who are affected by proposed legislation aren't just giving opinions when they're allowed to speak to the Government.

That's why in matters relating to religion or the RCC, the RCC should absolutely be afforded the opportunity to speak to the Government. But they should not be afforded that same opportunity in matters to which they only have an opinion on. John-Joe and I will save them a seat at McDonalds and they can sit with us while groups who are actually involved in the proposals are given time to speak.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not going to debate gay marriage with you. I'm just not.

But I will (as I have been) debate the right of anyone or any organisation to debate whatever they like in a democracy.

Thought as much,
Not one valid meaningful reason.
:rolleyes:

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Thought as much,
Not one valid meaningful reason.
:rolleyes:

Why do you assume i would have a reason? When did I suggest in this thread that I was against it?

I Heart Internet

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sorry. Why? Because they believed it to be "an intrinsic evil" I guess.

You seem to have answered your own question.

But again, Catholics are supposed to think it's an intrinsic evil. Why force this on people who are not catholic and who don't think it's evil?

househero

King Mob wrote: »

No. they shouldn't have control of state schools at all let alone have such influence on education..

Agreed. The church hardly has a good history with education.

After being educated elsewhere, i'm quite surprised how little Irish young people know about contraception, other peoples religion and questioning authority.

The church has no right to educate our youth.

I Heart Internet

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Not a chance . Even if the Government weren't going to allow the Pope to come and speak, they would at least consider his request. They would not consider mine. They wouldn't consider any randomers like me. And it's a damn good thing that they wouldn't too.

You're running yourself down there Penncil. You'd be surprised how far you'd get with a bit of persistance. A meeting with a TD or Minister to discuss a matter is entirely routinue - even for very small organisations or even individuals.

Penncil Dick wrote: »

That's why in matters relating to religion or the RCC, the RCC should absolutely be afforded the opportunity to speak to the Government. But they should not be afforded that same opportunity in matters to which they only have an opinion on. John-Joe and I will save them a seat at McDonalds and they can sit with us while groups who are actually involved in the proposals are given time to speak.

Problem there (highlighted) is what relates to religion or RCC. Some would say nothing except the pH of altar wine and the height of gravestones. Others would say that the right to life, the institution of marriage, etc are religious or at least ethical issues that the RCC may reasonably take an interest in.

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Like it or not, they actually do have that right. You might find it repulsive, but I don't remember anyone suggesting that the RCC telling catholics not to support abortion was illegal.



The above paragraph contradicts your 1st paragraph to almost comic effect.

To summarise: "The RCC shouldn't threaten (catholic) politicians. But they should focus on getting catholics to abide by the rules."



Again, totally contradicting your first paragraph on (catholic) politicians.

What part of on an individual basis do you not understand?

Why did you completely ignore where I said TDs are free to resign from the Dail if they feel there is a conflict and then let the electorate decide if they wish to return that person in a by-election?

What the RCC did was publicly announce excommunication was a possibility for any TD who voted for the Protection of Life Bill even though this Bill was covering the bare minimum as required under the X Referendum.

The RCC attempted to subvert the will of the electorate by publicly applying pressure on elected representatives.

Are you really ok with that?

I Heart Internet

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What part of on an individual basis do you not understand?

Why did you completely ignore where I said TDs are free to resign from the Dail if they feel there is a conflict and then let the electorate decide if they wish to return that person in a by-election?

Why should a TD be compelled to resign if he wants to vote yes/no on any matter that he thinks may upset a portion of his constituents?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What the RCC did was publicly announce excommunication was a possibility for any TD who voted for the Protection of Life Bill even though this Bill was covering the bare minimum as required under the X Referendum.

The RCC attempted to subvert the will of the electorate by publicly applying pressure on elected representatives.

Are you really ok with that?

What the RCC did (at worst...and egged-on throughout by a gloating media) is that individaul bishops put a "shot across the bows" of catholics who happened to be TDs. The "shot" basically reminded them that the RCC believes it is a grave sin to support abortion and that those who have committed such a sin (and remain unreconciled through the sacrament of confession - including a change of heart) should not receive communion.

I'm entirely fine with that.

Corkfeen

weisses wrote: »

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/02/ireland-poll-shows-60-oppose-abortion-on-suicide-grounds/

Not according to this poll

And you did not made clear if the "shopkeepers" need to have the same view as the RCC ...You only asked if they could make their point regarding Abortion legislation

There was the referendum where the majority did support it. Much more accurate than a poll, no? :rolleyes:

I Heart Internet

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What the RCC did (at worst...and egged-on throughout by a gloating media) is that individaul bishops put a "shot across the bows" of catholics who happened to be TDs. The "shot" basically reminded them that the RCC believes it is a grave sin to support abortion and that those who have committed such a sin (and remain unreconciled through the sacrament of confession - including a change of heart) should not receive communion.

I'm entirely fine with that.

So you are fine with people threatening people's immortal souls and salvation as blackmail to influence legislation?

Do you not understand why we and others might find that a little evil?

I Heart Internet

King Mob wrote: »

So you are fine with people threatening people's immortal souls and salvation as blackmail to influence legislation?

Do you not understand why we and others might find that a little evil?

I'm fine with a church reminding adherents that they risk their salvation if they do things such as support abortions. It is not the church who is putting these people's salvation at risk - they are - because they are supporting the killing of unborn humans.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why should a TD be compelled to resign if he wants to vote yes/no on any matter that he thinks may upset a portion of his constituents?
.

TD's join a party and as such agree to party policy's and views, ...its the same as if you work for a company you agree to follow company policy's and rules. (Being a td is a job after all, you get paid for it)

If TD's want to do whatever they choose to do nothing is stopping them, they should have run as independents.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

TD's join a party and as such agree to party policy's and views, ...its the same as if you work for a company you agree to follow company policy's and rules. (Being a td is a job after all, you get paid for it)

If TD's want to do whatever they choose to do nothing is stopping them, they should have run as independents.

What you're describing is the whip system. Fine.

But some people stray outside the whip system, for a variety of reasons (they always have). Fair enough.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why should a TD be compelled to resign if he wants to vote yes/no on any matter that he thinks may upset a portion of his constituents?



What the RCC did (at worst...and egged-on throughout by a gloating media) is that individaul bishops put a "shot across the bows" of catholics who happened to be TDs. The "shot" basically reminded them that the RCC believes it is a grave sin to support abortion and that those who have committed such a sin (and remain unreconciled through the sacrament of confession - including a change of heart) should not receive communion.

I'm entirely fine with that.

If a TD puts his religious beliefs before his duties to the citizens of the country, I don't think he is fit to be a TD.

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why should a TD be compelled to resign if he wants to vote yes/no on any matter that he thinks may upset a portion of his constituents?



What the RCC did (at worst...and egged-on throughout by a gloating media) is that individaul bishops put a "shot across the bows" of catholics who happened to be TDs. The "shot" basically reminded them that the RCC believes it is a grave sin to support abortion and that those who have committed such a sin (and remain unreconciled through the sacrament of confession - including a change of heart) should not receive communion.

I'm entirely fine with that.

I will write this slowly for you.

There was a referendum.
The electorate voted for abortion in certain circumstances.

There was another referendum seeking to remove one of the clauses the electorate had approved. The electorate voted to keep this clause.

To threaten TDs publicly with excommunication for legislating according to the results of several referenda was an act of political subversion designed to undermine the democratic process and bully government into ignoring the electorate and abiding by the wishes of the RCC.

Any TD who felt that for religious reasons they were unable to do as the electorate had instructed them should have the courage of their convictions and resign. They then have the option of explaining to their constituents why their personal religions beliefs prevented them from voting for Referenda mandated legislation as required under the Constitution.

Do you understand yet?

Or do you believe the RCC has the right to coerce elected representatives into disobeying the expressed will of the electorate?

I Heart Internet

gaynorvader wrote: »

If a TD puts his religious beliefs before his duties to the citizens of the country, I don't think he is fit to be a TD.

And it's your right not to vote for him.

Penn

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You're running yourself down there Penncil. You'd be surprised how far you'd get with a bit of persistance. A meeting with a TD or Minister to discuss a matter is entirely routinue - even for very small organisations or even individuals.

I didn't say a meeting with a TD or Minister, I said a Government Meeting to discuss proposed legislation. Such people are not afforded the opportunity to speak just because they asked if they can give their opinion. And again, rightfully so.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Problem there (highlighted) is what relates to religion or RCC. Some would say nothing except the pH of altar wine and the height of gravestones. Others would say that the right to life, the institution of marriage, etc are religious or at least ethical issues that the RCC may reasonably take an interest in.

If the proposed legislation on same-sex marriage said Churches would have to provide same-sex marriages, the RCC should definitely be allowed to speak. But if it doesn't, and same-sex marriages are performed by the State only and there's no infringement on the religious rights of anyone, then no, the RCC have zero claim to be able to speak. Abortion is a medical procedure which doesn't involve religion in any way. So no, the RCC has zero claim to be able to speak.

They are not religious issues. As for "ethical", just because the RCC deem it an ethical issue, doesn't make it so. The RCC can preach to its members about how unethical it is and how it's against the religion to be involved, but that doesn't mean it affects the church in any tangible way.

If it affects the RCC itself, or will have an impact on the religious rights of people, then yes. Otherwise, again, their opinions hold no more weight than my own, and they shouldn't be granted any more privilege to voice their opinion by the Government than I am.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And it's your right not to vote for him.

It's not about voting. He is making a mockery of the democratic process. He is betraying the oath he made upon being sworn in as a TD.