John Waters: "Mental Civil War" in Ireland ...

Roger Buck

Just posted this another sub forum - but think it will be of interest here as well …

Whether you're voting yes or no, what John Waters writes in today's Sunday Independent poses grave question for the future of democracy in Ireland.

IMHO, if even 10% of what he reports is true, that future looks scary indeed.

Please note that what I am bolding is not about whether one should one vote yes or no … it's about the impossibility of democracy in conditions like this …

Some extracts follow. I don't find long posts easy to read in this forum, so I've added some white space plus some bolding in red.

"Last Monday evening I was scheduled to launch a magazine for the transition year students in a school down West. …

On Monday afternoon, my car broke down, so, in the tow truck to the car hospital, I called the school principal to see if someone might come and collect me.

She was relieved to hear that I was close at hand and promised to dispatch a posse. Then she ventured something else: earlier in the day, she had received calls from activists on the Yes side in the same-sex marriage referendum asking her why the hell was I being allowed to speak in the school. Did she not know what "that fellow stands for"?

The principal told them I had been invited as a journalist to speak at the launch of a school magazine. It was a private gathering - nothing to do with the referendum.

Unappeased, the callers intimated that they might have something to say if the event went ahead. The principal, determined not to be intimidated, told them she would have to call the gardai if any attempt was made to disrupt the launch.

Link to full article

Frank Bullitt

John Waters needs help.

If he really thinks any of this trash that he writes, then his head is firmly in the sand. No mention at all about persecution of the LGBT community in this, yet he spins it so that he and his cohorts are the victims.

Its pathetic and sickening that he is able to even get this in the public domain.

frostyjacks

I'm glad that at least one journalist has the balls to speak his mind. It's as if the homosexual community are trying to punish everyone for the wrongs they suffered decades ago. Two wrongs don't make a right.

garhjw

Watters is a loser who has no place in modern society

Gone West

Held to ransom by a tiny indigenous minority with global muscle

Yeah, the Catholic church sure did have us in their grip for a long time.

homer911

I note that very few of the posters so far, and probably those that voted, are regular contributors on this forum, so can we take it that they are blow-ins from the Yes campaign?

garhjw

homer911 wrote: »

I note that very few of the posters so far, and probably those that voted, are regular contributors on this forum, so can we take it that they are blow-ins from the Yes campaign?

is it a members only forum? or should you only post if you share the same views as losers like john watters?

Greaney

OP, thank you for posting. I was to attend the meeting he mentioned in Galway and it ended up just a few of us in a private house. Just by the way, there was only one Catholic in attendance! When I mentioned this on another thread in this Christian forum, the moderator said it was 'Not News'. Well this was news... To Christians. Aontas, the Association of Irish Evangelicals was pretty shocked by this and have written an open letter various papers on the matter. They still don't know if it'll be published.

I believe that after May 22nd some of the threads (discussions on Homosexuality and Sex-ed) might have to be closed for legal reasons. I don't think I'm being paranoid here. Waters arguments have really evolved during this process and unlike other contributors to the discussion, he's explored the implications beyond human reproduction.

keano_afc

Having witnessed the taking down of No posters on Friday evening last, I'd agree with a lot of what he says. Its been a pretty despicable campaign, with rubbish such as "make love the law" tugging at heart strings and celebrity after celebrity telling us how we should vote Yes. I'll be glad when its over but fearful also.

PopePalpatine

It's convenient that he ignores douchebaggery from the No side. :rolleyes:

Huntergonzo

The No side have performed remarkably well it has to be said, they're actually the ones trying to intimidate people by whipping up all sorts of fear, but where they've really excelled is, incredibly they've managed to accuse the Yes side of intimidating people with some success.

I mean you only have to turn on the radio to prove what the No side are at, I just heard a primary school teacher supporting No saying that he's worried about children handing out mammys day cards if Yes wins, he reckons it may have to stop, one word for that argument = pathetic.

Huntergonzo

keano_afc wrote: »

Having witnessed the taking down of No posters on Friday evening last, I'd agree with a lot of what he says. Its been a pretty despicable campaign, with rubbish such as "make love the law" tugging at heart strings and celebrity after celebrity telling us how we should vote Yes. I'll be glad when its over but fearful also.

Most people on the Yes don't support the taking down of posters and I'd be far more skeptical of the manipulation from the No side than any on the Yes. I mean they're all out worried about mammies, 'she deserves to know who her mother is', 'nobody can replace a mothers love', '2 men can't replace a mother' etc etc etc just some of the irrelevant rubbish I've seen on posters

Now apart from those statements having nothing to do with the referendum, it's obvious as a punch in the face that, that's nothing more than manipulation and scaremongering. Notice they're trying to appeal to our emotions by using mammies and women on posters more often than not, for example '2 women can't replace a daddy' doesn't have the same weight behind it.

Victor

keano_afc wrote: »

Having witnessed the taking down of No posters on Friday evening last

You don't say who took them down.

I think some of the posters don't comply with the law, as they fail to include the the of the party erecting them or who they were printed by.

Victor

Obviously Waters forgets things like the Troubles.

Roger Buck wrote: »

Whether you're voting yes or no, what John Waters writes in today's Sunday Independent poses grave question for the future of democracy in Ireland.

I think there have been pockets of incivility, however it is nothing worse than has happened elsewhere over the last 10 years.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Copying and pasting a complete article is not allowed. Posters are also required to provide a link when quoting from articles.

Please remember this when posting quoted text in future.

Thanks for your attention.

copy and pasting a full piece of an article from a newspaper or blog etc will not be allowed. You may copy a paragraph of the piece and must provide a link to the source under what we hope will be seen as a common sense and fair use approach.

Link to original post by Dav

Delirium

homer911 wrote: »

I note that very few of the posters so far, and probably those that voted, are regular contributors on this forum, so can we take it that they are blow-ins from the Yes campaign?

MOD NOTE

Everyone is welcome to contribute to the thread, be they forum regulars or new posters to the forum.

Please address the content of contributions rather than posters time spent posting on the forum.

Thanks for your attention.

Benny_Cake

Greaney wrote: »

Aontas, the Association of Irish Evangelicals was pretty shocked by this and have written an open letter various papers on the matter. They still don't know if it'll be published.

It was published in the Irish Times today.

I think both sides of the debate have received a fair level of coverage. Claims that the Yes side is using "emotional language" is nonsensical - of course they are, marriage is an emotional thing. Posters with babies aren't designed to provoke an emotional reaction? Yes, there are idiots on both sides pulling down posters and so on...but why would anyone let that affect the way they are going to vote?

I can't help but think that a lot of the handwringing about media coverage and so on by the No side relates to the fact that they seem unable to put forward a convincing argument against allowing same-sex marriage. Which is why surrogacy and so on keep being dragged into it.

Peregrinus

To be honest, I think Water may be part of the problem about which he is complaining.

His article seems to me to be overstating the problem. I’m not about to defend everything that anyone on the ‘Yes’ side (or on the ‘No’ side) has done, but much of what he cites is fairly small beer, and hardly an existential threat to human freedom. This isn’t the first campaign in which partisans of one view have taken down or obscured posters put up by partisans of another view, for example. It may not be admirable behaviour, but democracy survives, somehow. As for parents being begged by their adolescent children not to embarrass them, is that not a daily occurrence?

I was particularly struck by his statement that he was “attacked, without basis or evidence, by a drag queen on a TV show”. I didn’t see the broadcast concerned but I have read a transcript of it and, I have to say, Water’s characterisation of what was said strikes me as fairly dramatic.

Having said that, I don’t doubt the sincerity of his perception that he was “attacked without basis or evidence”. And this, I think, points to the real problem. What O’Neill said on that occasion was actually pretty measured and moderate, and was mainly focussed on talking down the implications of the suggestion, which came from someone else, that Waters was homophobic. What Waters has to accept is that, if he can genuinely and honestly experience what was said on that occasion as an “attack”, then there are people who will equally genuinely and equally honestly experience what he writes as an attack on them. And, furthermore, they don’t experience it as an attack on them for what they think, but an attack on them for who they are.

Waters may protest that it is unreasonable to put such a construction on what he writes. But so what? O’Neill might with equal justification have said that Waters’ reading of what was said on the TV programme was likewise unreasonable. The point is, feelings run high on a matter which goes right to the heart of who people consider themselves to be. Water’s concern about the possibility of discrimination and exclusion on the basis of religion is exactly matched – and with some historical justification – by a concern on the other about the possibility of discrimination and exclusion on the basis of sexual orientation or identity.

It seems to me that if you ramp up this discourse of victimisation, as Waters seems to be doing, you’re setting up a situation in which both sides are operating in fear of exclusion and discrimination, and pretty well assuring that both possible outcomes for the referendum will be seen as negative, and destructive of rights and freedoms. I don’t think that makes for a healthy discourse.

BuilderPlumber

Gintonious wrote: »

John Waters needs help.

If he really thinks any of this trash that he writes, then his head is firmly in the sand. No mention at all about persecution of the LGBT community in this, yet he spins it so that he and his cohorts are the victims.

Its pathetic and sickening that he is able to even get this in the public domain.

We are seeing and hearing too much from John Waters. I read this article online yesterday for a laugh. Typical Waters with a little bit of a Mad Max descriptor put in about 'Ireland 2015'.

Not a lover of Panti either (like Waters, he is an opportunist) but at least Panti does not pose a threat. Waters and other very conservative lay Catholics are very dangerous. Ailtirí na hAiséirghe is their ancestor: a fascist, Catholic descendant of the old IRA that sought to set up a Nazi style Catholic Irish speaking state.

Waters and his Iona Institute allies are the new style lay Catholics who seek to set up a voice to speak out against things like same sex marriage, abortion and other such issues. What is most amazing is that the church often even distances itself from these and that none of the members are even priests. Religion in lay hands can often be dangerous and has produced some of the most intolerant regimes in history.

Black Menorca

Its all part of the re-engineering of our society by the Godless, secular extremists in the elites.

Disturbing times await people of Faith in coming years.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its all part of the re-engineering of our society by the Godless, secular extremists in the elites.

Disturbing times await people of Faith in coming years.

OK Father McKevitt, back in your box.

Delirium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

OK Father McKevitt, back in your box.

MOD NOTE

Less of the name calling please.

Thanks for your attention.

BuilderPlumber

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be honest, I think Water may be part of the problem about which he is complaining.

His article seems to me to be overstating the problem. I’m not about to defend everything that anyone on the ‘Yes’ side (or on the ‘No’ side) has done, but much of what he cites is fairly small beer, and hardly an existential threat to human freedom. This isn’t the first campaign in which partisans of one view have taken down or obscured posters put up by partisans of another view, for example. It may not be admirable behaviour, but democracy survives, somehow. As for parents being begged by their adolescent children not to embarrass them, is that not a daily occurrence?

I was particularly struck by his statement that he was “attacked, without basis or evidence, by a drag queen on a TV show”. I didn’t see the broadcast concerned but I have read a transcript of it and, I have to say, Water’s characterisation of what was said strikes me as fairly dramatic.

Having said that, I don’t doubt the sincerity of his perception that he was “attacked without basis or evidence”. And this, I think, points to the real problem. What O’Neill said on that occasion was actually pretty measured and moderate, and was mainly focussed on talking down the implications of the suggestion, which came from someone else, that Waters was homophobic. What Waters has to accept is that, if he can genuinely and honestly experience what was said on that occasion as an “attack”, then there are people who will equally genuinely and equally honestly experience what he writes as an attack on them. And, furthermore, they don’t experience it as an attack on them for what they think, but an attack on them for who they are.

Waters may protest that it is unreasonable to put such a construction on what he writes. But so what? O’Neill might with equal justification have said that Waters’ reading of what was said on the TV programme was likewise unreasonable. The point is, feelings run high on a matter which goes right to the heart of who people consider themselves to be. Water’s concern about the possibility of discrimination and exclusion on the basis of religion is exactly matched – and with some historical justification – by a concern on the other about the possibility of discrimination and exclusion on the basis of sexual orientation or identity.

It seems to me that if you ramp up this discourse of victimisation, as Waters seems to be doing, you’re setting up a situation in which both sides are operating in fear of exclusion and discrimination, and pretty well assuring that both possible outcomes for the referendum will be seen as negative, and destructive of rights and freedoms. I don’t think that makes for a healthy discourse.

Waters and Panti are two sides of the same coin imo. Fed up of both personally and both are 100% opportunists but Waters represents the more dangerous stream of thought on this and a wide range of other issues too.

Indeed, Waters is part of what he is complaining about as said. So is Panti. So are the Iona Institute and so is every other opportunist who the media seem to have a love affair with these days. 'Victimisation' is something NONE of these (on either side) know anything about. They have used their status to sell more of what they have and have made careers out of it.

Panti calling Waters homophobic on a chat show and Waters then bashing gays every chance he gets are both part of the reason why I am voting yes. I vote yes because one has to stand for equality and to not side with bigots. But I am not voting yes for Panti (a pampered celebrity who is NOT doing what he does for gay rights but for to promote himself and his pub) but for the 1000s of young gay people who are in ORDINARY middle class or poor families who endure years of bullying and snide put down jokes. The likes of Panti are rich and will always have friends and support and are in a sheltered life. But the ordinary gay is trapped in a lonely life where all they experience is discrimination.

It is to those Waters' comments hurt the most. What Waters does not know is that his articles could lead to suicide. But the papers are worse for allowing him and other bigots to get published.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its all part of the re-engineering of our society by the Godless, secular extremists in the elites.

Disturbing times await people of Faith in coming years.

OK, first of all the term "secular extremist" is nonsensical. Secularism is about separating religion from the state.

Secondly, you do realise that the RCC was quite adept at "re-engineering of our society"? Up until the middle of the 19th century, the Irish branch of the RCC was quite heterodox until the ultramontanist regression spearheaded by Cardinal Paul Cullen.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

OK, first of all the term "secular extremist" is nonsensical. Secularism is about separating religion from the state.

Secondly, you do realise that the RCC was quite adept at "re-engineering of our society"? Up until the middle of the 19th century, the Irish branch of the RCC was quite heterodox until the ultramontanist regression spearheaded by Cardinal Paul Cullen.

We can all engage in whatabouteries from the past. Jo Stalin was a great man for crushing Christians when the mood suited.

However we are talking about 21 century Ireland and the group think that has justified the message that a person voting No on friday is automatically a bigot.

How did we come to this scenario?

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its all part of the re-engineering of our society by the Godless, secular extremists in the elites.

Disturbing times await people of Faith in coming years.

Well it can't be any worse than some things that people of faith have had to endure under the rule of the Catholic church over the years.

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well it can't be any worse than some things that people of faith have had to endure under the rule of the Catholic church over the years.

So lets say its half as bad. Is that acceptable in a new, Liberal Ireland?

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

However we are talking about 21 century Ireland and the group think that has justified the message that a person voting No on friday is automatically a bigot.

How did we come to this scenario?

You're not doing a great job of dispelling the stereotype, especially considering the roots of the word "bigot".

Kh1993

Black Menorca wrote: »

We can all engage in whatabouteries from the past. Jo Stalin was a great man for crushing Christians when the mood suited.

However we are talking about 21 century Ireland and the group think that has justified the message that a person voting No on friday is automatically a bigot.

How did we come to this scenario?

"group think" - this seems to be a term bandied about by the no side, yet what about their own "group think"?

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You're not doing a great job of dispelling the stereotype, especially considering the roots of the word "bigot".

You prove my point beautifully.

How did we get to this scenario?

Black Menorca

Kh1993 wrote: »

"group think" - this seems to be a term bandied about by the no side, yet what about their own "group think"?

What about it?

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

So lets say its half as bad. Is that acceptable in a new, Liberal Ireland?

Well compared to say the Spanish inquisition i would say it's not even 1% as bad.

Poulgorm

I don't agree with John Waters that democracy is in danger. We are the only country (that I know of) where this question is being put directly to the people - as opposed to having it decided by parliament or supreme court judges.

However, it is worrying, that anyone how dares to voice his opinion on the no side, seems to be labelled a bigot. Even a spokesperson a few days ago mentioned the Nazis, in the course of arguing for a yes vote.

This just drives people into the no camp

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well compared to say the Spanish inquisition i would say it's not even 1% as bad.

But its still acceptable in your eyes. Nice.

Manach

Mr. Walter's role role as a gadfly attracts a similar amount of attraction from the radical left as Mr. Peter Hitchens, for the similar reasons of being an intellectual not subscribing to the progressive ideology that deems deviation from their aspect of norm. Thus their one unforgivable sin.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

But its still acceptable in your eyes. Nice.

You said

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its all part of the re-engineering of our society by the Godless, secular extremists in the elites.

Disturbing times await people of Faith in coming years.

I am pointing out that it has been "disturbing times for people of faith" for many centuries due solely to the actions of the CC. What "disturbing times ahead" do you forsee?

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said



I am pointing out that it has been "disturbing times for people of faith" for many centuries due solely to the actions of the CC. What "disturbing times ahead" do you forsee?

People of Faith being bullied into silence, fearing the badge of bigot being pinned to their collars.

Hopefully a No vote on Friday will make the Liberal orthodoxy think again.

silverharp

Black Menorca wrote: »

People of Faith being bullied into silence, fearing the badge of bigot being pinned to their collars.

Hopefully a No vote on Friday will make the Liberal orthodoxy think again.

they cant have much faith to begin with. Do you not know the sermon on the mount? you are supposed to embrace this kind of stuff

Black Menorca

silverharp wrote: »

they cant have much faith to begin with. Do you not know the sermon on the mount? you are supposed to embrace this kind of stuff

Educate me.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

People of Faith being bullied into silence, fearing the badge of bigot being pinned to their collars.

Hopefully a No vote on Friday will make the Liberal orthodoxy think again.

They are also being bullied by the CC and have been for years, Bishops and priests TELLING them how they shod vote or they will go to hell.

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

They are also being bullied by the CC and have been for years, Bishops and priests TELLING them how they shod vote or they will go to hell.

I missed that encylical.

mikom

"Last Monday evening I was scheduled to launch a magazine for the transition year students in a school down West. …

On Monday afternoon, my car broke down,

Waters will probably sue his car.

lazybones32

"...the impossibility of democracy in conditions like this" - OP

It's not the impossibility of democracy; it's the inability* of people to respect a person and that person's view which differs from their own.
There is much slandering and maligning of those who hold an opposing view but this isn't peculiar to this Referendum; this time it's just louder and longer-lasting.

* - it's not that people are unable to respect another person who holds an opposing view, they choose not to.

silverharp

Black Menorca wrote: »

Educate me.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Better?

Black Menorca

silverharp wrote: »

Better?

To see you using holy Scripture to justify bullying of people who go against the Liberal Group think really is something.

My Parish Priest will love this one when I say it to him tomorrow.

BuilderPlumber

Poulgorm wrote: »

I don't agree with John Waters that democracy is in danger. We are the only country (that I know of) where this question is being put directly to the people - as opposed to having it decided by parliament or supreme court judges.

However, it is worrying, that anyone how dares to voice his opinion on the no side, seems to be labelled a bigot. Even a spokesperson a few days ago mentioned the Nazis, in the course of arguing for a yes vote.

This just drives people into the no camp

A lot of offputting sensationalism and hyperbole is what I see coming from both sides. A typical Irish referendum. There are bigots on both sides. But as long as people will be buying rags like the Sindo and watching vile personalities from both sides debate on talk shows, then they will always be around. People do all these things out of habit and these people sneak their way into our living rooms, kitchens and bedrooms.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Mr. Walter's role role as a gadfly attracts a similar amount of attraction from the radical left as Mr. Peter Hitchens, for the similar reasons of being an intellectual not subscribing to the progressive ideology that deems deviation from their aspect of norm. Thus their one unforgivable sin.

"More matter, less art."

Manach

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"More matter, less art."

Ah ... cryptic. More of a King Lear fan myself.

silverharp

Black Menorca wrote: »

To see you using holy Scripture to justify bullying of people who go against the Liberal Group think really is something.

My Parish Priest will love this one when I say it to him tomorrow.

no, I am saying you stop moaning about it and behave like you have the spirit 'n stuff not behave like a bunch of delicate flowers.

Black Menorca

silverharp wrote: »

no, I am saying you stop moaning about it and behave like you have the spirit 'n stuff not behave like a bunch of delicate flowers.

Telling me how to behave. Yep, typical of the Liberal group think alright.

PopePalpatine

Well, at least the "liberal groupthink" isn't duping families into handing over their "fallen" daughters.