EVERYONE QUICK! LIVELINE NOW THEY'RE DISCUSSING OUR STRANGE SPECIES.

Turtwig

Disclaimer: Yeah, uh it's not like I regularly listen to this show or anything, I just hear it in passing.

There's no Joe Duffy today btw.

So, yeah, Atheism, what is that all about? Huh!? Not Irish apparently.
Anyone courageous enough to waste money, get through and fool the researcher, then proceed to talk about biscuits live on Air?

Delirium

he's pacing the kitchen!! PACING!!! :eek::P

EDIT: "So what? so what?" great empathy from the Angelus fan :rolleyes:

lazygal

In all seriousness, the 'Catholic country' view pisses me rightly off. Ireland is NOT a catholic country. It is a country with Catholics. If you want to live in a catholic country move to vatican city.

Delirium

"leave it to the Irish people". Charming suggestion that non-Catholic isn't Irish :rolleyes:

lazygal

Whenever I hear the 'We're catholic, its part of being irish' or rural or whatever else I and my family are not, I'm genuinely insulted. I am as Irish as anyone who's catholic or not from Dublin.

swampgas

lazygal wrote: »

Whenever I hear the 'We're catholic, its part of being irish' or rural or whatever else I and my family are not, I'm genuinely insulted. I am as Irish as anyone who's catholic or not from Dublin.

What's obnoxious is the implication that being Catholic is somehow compulsory.

If you scratch a little bit deeper there's often a hint of "and screw the prods while you're at it" lurking in the Irish = Catholic mindset.

robindch

Sure, what's the harm?

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

Sure, what's the harm?

See also; just turn it off; if you were in a Muslim country; it's for people of all faiths; et al.

Barr125

I especially loved the lady near the end of the program when she brought Saudi Arabia/Middle East in general up.

Her: "Sure when you're in Tunisia or these places, you've to pay taxes and the like to support their media and their religious propaganda."

Phillip: "Are you saying the Angelus is Catholic propaganda?"

Her: "What? NO, The Angelus isn't propaganda, it's a call to prayer!"

The irony was seeping through my car speakers.

See also; just turn it off; if you were in a Muslim country; it's for people of all faiths; et al.

I especially dislike "It's part of tradition. We've always done it."

Wasn't it also "tradition" that corporal punishment be allowed in schools? Wasn't it "tradition" to attend Mass every Sunday, where now, one in 5 self-identified Catholics actually attend?

Cabaal

Barr125 wrote: »

I especially dislike "It's part of tradition. We've always done it."

It was tradition for parents to turn against their own daughter if she got pregnant outside of marriage.

It was tradition for the local bishops and priests to turn an ex priests own family against him (and the town) and to get the ex priest to sign an agreement never to return to the town he was a priest in.

It was tradition for the ex priests family to be told to destroy all photos of their own son!

It was tradition for the mortality rate in mother and baby homes run by the Catholics c church to be abnormally high.

It was tradition for the Catholic Church to not do any proper checks on the actual suitability of parents they sold children to (were they criminals, why we're they unable to adopt in the USA etc) , all they wanted to know was if the people really baby would be sold to were Catholic.

Chance The Rapper

You're a shocking bitter bunch

eviltwin

What was the discussion about? The Angeles?

swampgas

Chance The Rapper wrote: »

You're a shocking bitter bunch

Nah, we're lovely really. We just get a bit annoyed when other people blindly assume we're Catholics and want to hear a Catholic call to prayer on the radio twice a day.

Delirium

Chance The Rapper wrote: »

You're a shocking bitter bunch

porsche959

lazygal wrote: »

Whenever I hear the 'We're catholic, its part of being irish' or rural or whatever else I and my family are not, I'm genuinely insulted. I am as Irish as anyone who's catholic or not from Dublin.

Every district of Ireland, every social stratum contained non-Catholics even at a time when 95% of the population were RC.

Arguably our greatest cultural export in recent years, U2, of the four members not a single one is Roman Catholic.

porsche959

Chance The Rapper wrote: »

You're a shocking bitter bunch

No, we just prefer accuracy and dislike soft bigotry on account of our IQs being slightly higher than goombeen knuckledraggers.

Cabaal

Chance The Rapper wrote: »

You're a shocking bitter bunch

Wanting equality, respect for belief or non belief when it comes to health and education and equal treatment for my fellow human beings makes me bitter?

Weird world you live in,

Nodin

Turtwig wrote: »

Disclaimer: Yeah, uh it's not like I regularly listen to this show or anything, I just hear it in passing.

There's no Joe Duffy today btw.

So, yeah, Atheism, what is that all about? Huh!? Not Irish apparently.
Anyone courageous enough to waste money, get through and fool the researcher, then proceed to talk about biscuits live on Air?

I can't bear to listen to it, and the 5 second delay means my more direct comments would be denied to the world.

Chance The Rapper

porsche959 wrote: »

No, we just prefer accuracy and dislike soft bigotry on account of our IQs being slightly higher than goombeen knuckledraggers.

Who, anyone religious?

eviltwin

Chance The Rapper wrote: »

Who, anyone religious?

Just the ones who think their religion grants them special status

Nodin

Chance The Rapper wrote: »

Who, anyone religious?

Anyone who conflates being Irish with being catholic, etc, I'd imagine.

robindch

porsche959 wrote: »

[...] our IQs being slightly higher than goombeen knuckledraggers.

Even as an apparently ironic aside, that's not a fair comment.

Chillax, dude.

Dades

porsche959 wrote: »

Arguably our greatest cultural export in recent years, U2, of the four members not a single one is Roman Catholic.

Not sure if RC or not, but it surprised me recently to find out Bono is quite the God-botherer. I suspect he mainly walks with the Nazarene though.

As for Angelus, I wish people would pick their battles personally as otherwise we all get labelled like Chance The Rapper has us in this thread.

iguana

porsche959 wrote: »

Every district of Ireland, every social stratum contained non-Catholics even at a time when 95% of the population were RC.

Arguably our greatest cultural export in recent years, U2, of the four members not a single one is Roman Catholic.

I remember a discussion I overheard in the late 90s about whether Graham Norton was really Irish or not seeing as how his family were Protestants.

Hotblack Desiato

Dades wrote: »

As for Angelus, I wish people would pick their battles personally as otherwise we all get labelled like Chance The Rapper has us in this thread.

Problem with that is that the same BS arguments that 'justify' a minute's bonging on the national broadcaster are also used to 'justify' forcing catholic indoctrination on children from non-catholic families, or banging up crucifixes in council chambers

It's all part of the same battle really, to fully separate church and state.

Barr125

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Problem with that is that the same BS arguments that 'justify' a minute's bonging on the national broadcaster are also used to 'justify' forcing catholic indoctrination on children from non-catholic families, or banging up crucifixes in council chambers

It's all part of the same battle really, to fully separate church and state.

It's basically trying to unravel the cloth by pulling at individual threads.

Some will just break off, some will cause it to disintegrate.

swampgas

iguana wrote: »

I remember a discussion I overheard in the late 90s about whether Graham Norton was really Irish or not seeing as how his family were Protestants.

What's funny about that is how quick Irish people are to claim genuine foreigners as Irish: JFK, Ronald Reagan, even Obama. My mother often comments how an actor or actress she likes has a parent or grandparent from Ireland (like it matters!).

How can Graham Norton not be Irish? Is it so hard to accept that some Irish people might actually be Protestant?

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

As for Angelus, I wish people would pick their battles personally as otherwise we all get labelled like Chance The Rapper has us in this thread.

So we shouldn't argue against something we perceive as wrong because the opposition may respond with ad hominems?

Penn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So we shouldn't argue against something we perceive as wrong because the opposition may respond with ad hominems?

No, but when there are much bigger and more important arguments to be made, arguing for the removal of something small such as the Angelus can just come across as kinda petty and unreasonable. Should RTE play the Angelus? No. But trying to get something as small and insignificant to non-Catholics like that would serve no purpose other than make Catholics more resistant to changes.

The Angelus is a minor annoyance. The schools issue is a major problem. Degree matters. We should be focusing on issues like schools which have a real impact on non-Catholic peoples lives, rather than arguing about a minute's worth of bell ringing before the news which is easily ignored.

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So we shouldn't argue against something we perceive as wrong because the opposition may respond with ad hominems?

No, because people who might otherwise agree with real change like in schools might decide we're a bunch of dicks.

Brian Shanahan

Barr125 wrote: »

Wasn't it "tradition" to attend Mass every Sunday, where now, one in 5 self-identified Catholics actually attend?

No it wasn't, for most of the church's history it would be impossible for the vast majority of parishoners to attend church every sunday. For example in rural Ireland up until electrification and the advent of modern machine-assisted farming, very few farmers would attend more than the big festivals, funerals, weddings and other family masse events in the year. The "go every sunday" has been a very recent stricture (if I remember correctly, it was actually first brought in as a response to protestant attendance requirements with the counter-reformation), with only the rich and the members of religious organisations having the opportunity to attend regular Sunday service for most of the last 2,000 years.

Brian Shanahan

porsche959 wrote: »

Arguably our greatest cultural export in recent years, U2, of the four members not a single one is Roman Catholic.

Not taking away from your point, but if U2 were our greatest cultural export of the last few years, our culture is dead. Far more accurate to say that they are our greatest, combined, tax evasion and hypocracy exports of the last few years.

Cabaal

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

tax evasion

Always find this remark amusing,
Ask the avg joe on the street if they'd like to pay less tax legally and they'll jump at the chance....but we'll begrudge anyone that actually legally does it.

:rolleyes:

krudler

Had to laugh at the old guy spouting things like the angelus was the "last thing we have left to cling to" as Irish people, what utter bollocks, you'd swear there were atheist goon squads going around burning down churches and breaking into old peoples houses and stealing pictures of jeebus.

Mark Hamill

Penn wrote: »

No, but when there are much bigger and more important arguments to be made, arguing for the removal of something small such as the Angelus can just come across as kinda petty and unreasonable. Should RTE play the Angelus? No. But trying to get something as small and insignificant to non-Catholics like that would serve no purpose other than make Catholics more resistant to changes.

The Angelus is a minor annoyance. The schools issue is a major problem. Degree matters. We should be focusing on issues like schools which have a real impact on non-Catholic peoples lives, rather than arguing about a minute's worth of bell ringing before the news which is easily ignored.

We can focus on more than one issue at a time.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

No, because people who might otherwise agree with real change like in schools might decide we're a bunch of dicks.

All separation of church and state is real change. I know which would be lauded as the bigger victory, but that doesn't mean we need not fight both fights equally, especially when the arguments are foundationally the same.

As for thinking that we are dicks, people will think that no matter what arguments we limit ourselves to.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

Ask the avg joe on the street if they'd like to pay less tax legally and they'll jump at the chance....but we'll begrudge anyone that actually legally does it.

:rolleyes:

There's a big difference between what the likes of you or me (when I'm working) are obliged to pay and corporations like U2 are obliged to pay. The tax system in Ireland (and globally) is already way too skewed to the ordinary PAYE worker (in that they pay a far too large share of the tax compared to the benefits they receive from the state, or even their earnings) even if we assumed that every major corporation payed their taxes in full accordance with current law.

And that's actually the rub of it, even with the massive advantages of low tax rates and the ability to write off nearly every expense (whether real or a polite fiction) no matter how esoteric against profits to calculate liability, most large companies (in terms of revenue) use offshore tax havens (including Ireland, any company based in the IFSC contributes less to the Irish economy than a single unemployed 21 year old) to evade their taxes. And most of these schemes are illegal even under the very lax laws in place, it's just that too many politicians and too many at the top of the various tax and fiscal authorities are in the pockets of these companies (bought and paid for for a song, literally) to enforce the laws.

If it were any other area of the law and criminality, there would be whigs on the green, and political parties destroyed (remember GUBU anyone?), but we've been sold the Horatio Alger line all too successfully, that we encourage people to avoid paying back to society for the advantages given to them in the misplaced hope that, someday, with a bit of elbow grease and application we will join the monied elite too. This despite the game having been rigged so that it is harder than ever before to gain wealth without having it given to you.

Brian Shanahan

Dades wrote: »

No, because people who might otherwise agree with real change like in schools might decide we're a bunch of dicks.

You know, that line is trotted out every time a group looks for their fair share of civil rights, sometimes (like with yourself) fellow fighters for the cause. But all too often this kind of talk is music to the ears of those who want the immoral and skewed status quo in place.

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All separation of church and state is real change. I know which would be lauded as the bigger victory, but that doesn't mean we need not fight both fights equally, especially when the arguments are foundationally the same.

Disagree completely that removing the Angelus is real change. It's symbolic change.

Remove indoctrination from schools and EVERYTHING else will follow. This, as a goal, is a million times more important than some bonging at 6 o'clock.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As for thinking that we are dicks, people will think that no matter what arguments we limit ourselves to.

Some people, maybe, but not as many as if we start stripping people's little cultural indulgences instead of keeping them on our side while working for the one goal to achieve them all.

Penn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We can focus on more than one issue at a time.

But even outside of the schools issue there are far more important issues than The Angelus. It's pretty far down the list and I think trying to change too much at the same time would be met with more resistance than trying to fix the more important, pressing issues.

Degree matters. The level of hardship people can face due to religious discrimination in schools, their jobs, their communities and even by the Government where legitimate and well-reasoned debates can be held and real progress made is basically a necessity to try and achieve. The news being one minute late because of the angelus isn't a non-issue, but it's not an high priority issue, and with the important changes which do need to be made, crying out for the removal of the angelus and other unimportant issues just comes across as unreasonable and kind of petty, and ultimately does more harm than good.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

Disagree completely that removing the Angelus is real change. It's symbolic change.

Remove indoctrination from schools and EVERYTHING else will follow. This, as a goal, is a million times more important than some bonging at 6 o'clock.

Again, there is no reason why we cant do both at once.

Dades wrote: »

Some people, maybe, but not as many as if we start stripping people's little cultural indulgences instead of keeping them on our side while working for the one goal to achieve them all.

So we should patronise people to stop from hurting their feelings? Rather than use their irrational knee-jerk defence of a government-sanctioned religious call to prayer as a perfect example of the damage that the joining of church and state creates?

While we are at it, maybe we should only argue for gay marriage but not joint adoption rights, as that might alienate the homophobes that support one and not the other.

Mark Hamill

Penn wrote: »

The news being one minute late because of the angelus isn't a non-issue, but it's not an high priority issue, and with the important changes which do need to be made, crying out for the removal of the angelus and other unimportant issues just comes across as unreasonable and kind of petty, and ultimately does more harm than good.

You're saying this like we haven't been made out to be unreasonable and petty for wanting to take religion out of schools. Mean-spirited atheists wanting to take the nice bible stories away from kids and leave them with no moral compass. Atheists are the second least liked "religious group" in America, and they don't even have the Angelus there.
If it's a small issue then it only requires a small effort to tackle it.

I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do, they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.

Czarcasm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, there is no reason why we cant do both at once.

That's true and all Mark, but what the lads are saying is that with limited resources, you need to prioritise, and the angelus before the six-one news should be way, waaaaay down on the list of issues that need to be addressed by those people campaigning for a secular State.

Pick your battles basically, and if you go for the removal of the angelus, chances are you're likely to meet with much more resistance than addressing the issues where they start - with the educational system in schools. Even before they enter school, the children of parents who would like their child to receive a secular education face prejudice and discrimination... and you're worried about a minute of bell ringing before the news?

So we should patronise people to stop from hurting their feelings? Rather than use their irrational knee-jerk defence of a government-sanctioned religious call to prayer as a perfect example of the damage that the joining of church and state creates?

You don't have to patronise at all, but with your limited resources at your dispoal, you have to pick your battles more wisely than going up against the State broadcaster and the Church, who will swat you down like a fly if you go in with a disorganised gung-ho approach. That strategy in itself is an example of a knee-jerk irrational approach that's simply doomed to failure and bound to be a waste of resources.

While we are at it, maybe we should only argue for gay marriage but not joint adoption rights, as that might alienate the homophobes that support one and not the other.

I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but adoption laws in Ireland are currently under review and will have been completed before the referendum on marriage equality. The outcome of the referendum on marriage equality will have no bearing on adoption rights for same sex couples -

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/equal-parent-rights-for-gay-couples-256111.html

Czarcasm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.

Or, more likely, they'll just take an instant dislike to you when you come at them with this sort of attitude -

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do

That survey you linked to had a point - if you can promote your message with a positive attitude, more people are likely to warm to you and listen to what you have to say. If you disregard people who don't share your views as incapable of rational discussion like rational adults, you're far more likely to be viewed as the only irrational one in the room.

You need to promote the positives of a secular society, not take pot shots at what you see as irrational juveniles with indoctrinated sensibilities. That might have them tell you go look in a mirror, and no, it really won't matter what you say or do by then, you'll have already lost your audience.

Penn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You're saying this like we haven't been made out to be unreasonable and petty for wanting to take religion out of schools. Mean-spirited atheists wanting to take the nice bible stories away from kids and leave them with no moral compass. Atheists are the second least liked "religious group" in America, and they don't even have the Angelus there.
If it's a small issue then it only requires a small effort to tackle it.

I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do, they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.

All we're saying is that dealing with real, tangible issues which actually affect people before dealing with those which should be done on principle alone will be more effective and advantageous. Stuff like the angelus will simply conflate the issue.

It's not about fear of offending them. The majority of theists are rational and capable of adult discussion. But I simply don't think that any effort to remove the angelus considering some of the other issues which should be focused on instead, is rational from our point of view. It's not worth dealing with at this point in time.

iguana

There is however the argument that it would take very little to stop airing the Angelus. All that would have to happen is that RTÉ airs the news one minute earlier. Something that could actually benefit RTÉ as it would up their ratings slightly. Changing the school patronage is actually a complex process and can't be done easily. I didn't hear Liveline but my mother did and told me that they could only get one Irish person who was willing to defend the Angelus being aired. It seems that few people would actually care that much at all if they were gone.

magicbastarder

an argument to keep the angelus. well worth a read.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/angelus-bells-ireland-1585363-Jul2014/?utm_source=shortlink

Lapin

Ian O'Doherty winning the battle on The Right Hook over on Newstalk at the moment.

Mark Hamill

Czarcasm wrote: »

You don't have to patronise at all, but with your limited resources at your dispoal, you have to pick your battles more wisely than going up against the State broadcaster and the Church, who will swat you down like a fly if you go in with a disorganised gung-ho approach. That strategy in itself is an example of a knee-jerk irrational approach that's simply doomed to failure and bound to be a waste of resources.

Exactly how much resources do you think it takes to argue against the Angelus? It's the same foundational argument as getting the church out of schools.

Exactly how much do you think it would take for RTE to stop playing it? All it would take is for them to charge for the time the same way all other advertising time is sold.

Mark Hamill

Czarcasm wrote: »

If you disregard people who don't share your views as incapable of rational discussion like rational adults, you're far more likely to be viewed as the only irrational one in the room.

I'm not the one disregarding them. I'm not the one saying we can't express opinions that may offend them, except in certain circumstances, because they might not like us. I'm not the one who is arguing that we patronise them to get across other arguments easier.

Brian Shanahan

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying we need to pussy foot around theists out of fear of offending their indoctrinated sensibilities when we argue for a change. Either theists are capable of rational discussion and therefore we can discuss issues with them like adults, or they are not and therefore it doesn't matter what we say or do, they'll dislike us regardless because it's what they are programmed to do.

And remember it is often the smaller issues which galvanise the necessary momentum to ensure that the larger wrongs are challenged and eventually overturned. Not trying to compare US civil rights to our problems (what black people faced in the US was far more serious of a set of wrongs), but it was the relatively minor issue of where a black woman could sit on a bus, and her standing up for her rights to be treated equally which kickstarted Martin Luther King's campaign as a national issue.