Atheist Ireland, pick your battles, will ya?

Shrap

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/atheists-label-rising-rebels-undemocratic-killers-1.2589126

Have to say, I cringed reading this. When I read a line like "the State was reinforcing the rebellion’s “religious connotations” by holding the celebrations on Easter Sunday" , my first reaction is a reversion to the vernacular "Ahh, for the love of god ". It comes across as so petty that no bloody wonder "atheism" is getting a bad name for whining.

It didn't get better as I read on....."Mr Nugent said members of the organisation were free to celebrate or refrain from celebrating the occasion as they wished, and that he respected the Government’s right to commemorate the Rising." Well, thanks very much Michael. Good to know your members have your permission to celebrate whatever the fcuk they want, but do you have to make it sound like they needed it? Ouch.

I just feel like AI would do well to remember that they don't always have to comment on everything in the most pedantic way possible. For example, I've been merrily staying out of all the "celebrations" in a "let 'em off" kind of way, as I figure there's little to be gained in bursting anyone's bubble - I have friends who are proudly flying flags, watching parades and tuning into all the RTE luvvies telling us about history, but I genuinely don't feel the need to start correcting their take on it by banging on about the state of the nation. That's called picking your battles.

Rant over. Anyone else?

rsh118

I actually get this argument though maybe not the religious element of it. It's still only 99 years since the rising since it happened during one of those ridiculous pantomime moveable feasts.

If you are going to have the celebration of a centenary, have it on the feckin' centenary!

Shrap

rsh118 wrote: »

I actually get this argument though maybe not the religious element of it. It's still only 99 years since the rising since it happened during one of those ridiculous pantomime moveable feasts.

If you are going to have the celebration of a centenary, have it on the feckin' centenary!

I personally would say that holding the celebrations on an Easter holiday weekend when everyone is guaranteed to be off work is the more obvious and logistically favourable choice for an Easter rising commemoration, but why should we care anyway? My point is, did the point really have to be made? Way to get the backs up of half the country (again).

rsh118

Shrap wrote: »

I personally would say that holding the celebrations on an Easter holiday weekend when everyone is guaranteed to be off work is the more obvious and logistically favourable choice for an Easter rising commemoration, but why should we care anyway? My point is, did the point really have to be made? Way to get the backs up of half the country (again).

Yeah, I'm never that comfortable with constant militant atheism. As long as I'm free to be a heathen I'm happy enough for other people to believe whatever scary book things they want to believe.

Picking our battles is certainly important! You'd have to say abortion is the most important one by a mile.

iDave

Agreed bigger things to be worrying about.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

It didn't get better as I read on....."Mr Nugent said members of the organisation were free to celebrate or refrain from celebrating the occasion as they wished, and that he respected the Government’s right to commemorate the Rising." Well, thanks very much Michael. Good to know your members have your permission to celebrate whatever the fcuk they want, but do you have to make it sound like they needed it? Ouch.

I haven't followed this item in any depth - as I haven't followed any of the events of the last week at all - so forgive me if I'm jumping in here at the end and missing something obvious to everybody else

Anyhow, I'd imagine that Michael is simply pointing out, as he often has to, that AI is not a church and that its members can do whatever they want. A lot of religious appear to assume that AI operates in a fairly dictatorial fashion, perhaps to mimic the churches they're familiar with. That's not the case and while it's a little tiresome to have to be told that, unfortunately, history shows that it's usually a good idea to do so.

And while referring to the rebellion as one lead by "undemocratic killers" is certainly un-PC - so far as I understand the sequence of events before, during and after the rising, there's more than a little bit of truth there too.

Hotblack Desiato

Some serious spin being applied by the IT there.

He's right in that it's ridiculous we have a commemoration of an event taking place at the wrong time for no other reason than the religious event which happened to occur at the same time has moved.

We must be one of the only countries in the world with no proper national day or independence commemoration, the nearest we have is poxy St Patrick's day :rolleyes: of course there's a whole can of worms here about the 'national project' and whether some perceive it to be 'completed' or not

Very valid points raised about religious oaths etc. which should have no place whatsoever in a republic.

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

I haven't followed this item in any depth - as I haven't followed any of the events of the last week at all - so forgive me if I'm jumping in here at the end and missing something obvious to everybody else

Anyhow, I'd imagine that Michael is simply pointing out, as he often has to, that AI is not a church and that its members can do whatever they want. A lot of religious appear to assume that AI operates in a fairly dictatorial fashion, perhaps to mimic the churches they're familiar with. That's not the case and while it's a little tiresome to have to be told that, unfortunately, history shows that it's sometimes necessary.

I haven't followed any of it either, till I saw twitter hopping with the usual "jaysus, atheists banging on again" comments. It's that that annoys the head off me - the fact that this petty sounding article distracts from the important stuff and turns people right off the actual injustices of non-separation of church/state.

I realise that the part about "permission" was probably Michael having to point out that there aren't any dictatorial rules for atheists, but the way it's reported makes it look like he walked right into it. And my point is, he doesn't have to wade into every topic with a pedantically atheist angle on it. It doesn't help and is about as diplomatic/welcome as a goat in a veg garden.

wokingvoter

rsh118 wrote: »

I actually get this argument though maybe not the religious element of it. It's still only 99 years since the rising since it happened during one of those ridiculous pantomime moveable feasts.

If you are going to have the celebration of a centenary, have it on the feckin' centenary!

.....or have a good old celebration/commemoration on an almost worldwide 4 day weekend, allowing visitors from other countries who are also on a 4 day weekend to visit us and celebrate/commemorate with us and leave lots of money here.
I also want to give my thanks to AI for permitting us to acknowledge that the Easter Rising happened at Easter.
I suppose it should be renamed April Rising to avoid further insult.

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Some serious spin being applied by the IT there.

YES. The spin is what is so predictable every time AI open their mouths these days. Looked like Michael walked right into it My question is, did he have to? You say there are valid points - and so there are, but did they have to be pointed out? It's so unimportant in the greater scheme of things that I think it does more harm than good to constantly be pointing out the religious element as if the rest of the country are thick.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We must be one of the only countries in the world with no proper national day or independence commemoration [...]

Given the nationalist sentiments which frequently accompany national independence days, I for one, am quite happy we've avoided the idea entirely.

12Phase

There is a point but it's more that it's a bit cringeworthy and tacky.

If I were Christian I think I might be offended to have a violent uprising linked to a festival of a religion that would claim to be about peace.

It does strike me as a little bit of an attempt by the state at mythology creation through the linking of a "birth moment" to a major religious festival.

That being said, Easter symbolism is all mixed up. It's basically the Christian community hijacking the ancient festival of the Giant Chocolate Egg Laying Bunny.

All Hail the Bunny!

recedite

I was in town at the parade yesterday, and I was a bit surprised at the amount of prayers being read out via big screens by various dignitaries, at the end of which a large part of the crowd were mumbling and making the sign of the cross. So no harm for AI to remind "the state" that a secular republic as envisaged by some in 1916 would not behave like that.

The whole situation is complicated and hypocritical on many levels now, just as it was back in 1916. Connolly was a far-left marxist, probably the nearest thing we have ever had to a Stalin "in the making". Pearse was a right-wing catholic, and the nearest thing to a Franco in the making. If they both hadn't been shot by the British, they probably would have been at each others throats before long. I doubt either would be happy with the Ireland of today.

12Phase

Well there was undoubtedly a major issue with some people trying to create 'Holy Catholic Ireland' (TM) rather than an actual republic.

The reasons and motivations for different factions were very different.

The outcome : a highly conservative state that looked inwards and sank into an economic depression by the mid 20th century was hardly something that I would imagine some of the more passionate republicans and freedom fighter types were rising up in 1916 for.

2016 as a vision for a real, modern, Republic would have been a nice idea.

weisses

12Phase wrote: »

There is a point but it's more that it's a bit cringeworthy and tacky.

If I were Christian I think I might be offended to have a violent uprising linked to a festival of a religion that would claim to be about peace.

Why ... Wasn't the old chap violently crucified 3 days earlier ?

I also think they got it balanced with what happened on a certain good Friday not so long ago

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

The whole situation is complicated and hypocritical on many levels now, just as it was back in 1916. Connolly was a far-left marxist, probably the nearest thing we have ever had to a Stalin "in the making". Pearse was a right-wing catholic, and the nearest thing to a Franco in the making. If they both hadn't been shot by the British, they probably would have been at each others throats before long. I doubt either would be happy with the Ireland of today.

It is of course incredibly hypocritical - but it does more harm than good IMO to point that out to a nation of people caught up in varying degrees of revisionism about the centenary of a morally and ethically dodgy deal. Kind of as useful as pissing into the wind the UK kerfuffles over refusing to wear a poppy to commemorate the war dead.

12Phase

weisses wrote: »

Why ... Wasn't the old chap violently crucified 3 days earlier ?

I also think they got it balanced with what happened on a certain good Friday not so long ago

Yeah but, you can see its all about symbolism and a rather propaganda type attempt to give the state a mythological link.

These guys and girls weren't fools when it came to marketing and understanding of how to use symbolism and mythology.

I would doubt it's coincidental.

It's actually a very theatrical 1910s piece of state creation.

Quite clever really when you think of it in the context of a pretty religious 1910s society.

12Phase

Shrap wrote: »

It is of course incredibly hypocritical - but it does more harm than good IMO to point that out to a nation of people caught up in varying degrees of revisionism about the centenary of a morally and ethically dodgy deal. Kind of as useful as pissing into the wind the UK kerfuffles over refusing to wear a poppy to commemorate the war dead.

I tend to agree. It's probably counterproductive for AI as they'll raise the heckles of conservative nationalism and get nowhere.

They should keep focuses on the issues that actually impact day to day lives ; that mostly lack of access to public education tbh.

RealJohn

In fairness OP, from what I've seen, atheist typically do pick their battles, specifically the easy targets. No chance of big objections to Christmas or to Ireland's national holiday being St. Patrick's Day because those are popular events. No objections to Easter (or chocolate Christmas) either but very happy to attack the alcohol ban on Good Friday because if there's one thing guaranteed to get support in Ireland, it's objecting to restriction of alcohol intake (other than if you're going to be driving somewhere other than rural Kerry afterwards).

To be honest, I would think that atheists who are truly looking to separate Church and state should be targeting St. Patrick's Day, looking to get a separate national day (Ireland Day perhaps? Or maybe some form of Irish Independence Day?) and allowing the religious to celebrate St. Patrick if they wished but not getting a public holiday to do it (much like St. Bridget's Day - no equality needed there, eh?). It seems only logical to me. Problem is it would be horrendously unpopular to do so so integrity goes out the window to focus on easy targets.

12Phase

As for revisionism, I had an elderly relative yesterday tell me "if it wasn't for 1916 we'd never have had womens' rights...

A living history of Magdalene laundries, child exporting, no contraception, no divorce, symphisiotomy, no access to legal abortion, highly conservative laws and practices that limited working rights etc etc etc etc

By Western Europen standards, after a good start Ireland ended up tripping and being almost last to the finish line on women's rights.

Stealthfins

AI are entitled to their opinion but I think using the easter celebration as a pedestal to get their point across is a bit petty.

Religion,history and politics are full of contradictions.

12Phase

To be honest, I think we need Secular Ireland.

There's too much confusion about atheism and secularism and I think we really need a movement to bring secular Catholics, Protestants and the many, many people who might define as agnostic, lapsed Catholic, spiritual etc etc and others on board.

Atheist Ireland do a good job on making the points but I think a lot of our problems are lack of secularism and lack of understanding of what that is.

I'd rather see a vision for a totally inclusive, secular society. I know AI does that and I am very appreciative of their standing up for Non religious rights but, I think we need something that's a lot broader as well.

They're parallel things really.

Links234

Shrap wrote: »

I just feel like AI would do well to remember that they don't always have to comment on everything in the most pedantic way possible.

I think that Michael does this as much for the self promotion as anything else, while you're far from the first person to express frustration with him on this forum, the point that's missed is that this is about growing the "Atheist Ireland" brand, and name recognition, it's about getting Michael Nugent in the papers. If instead of assuming this is about promoting atheism, and instead about promoting Michael Nugent and the AI brand, then right now is the most opportune time for an attention grabbing contrarian comment.

Stealthfins

Links234 wrote:

I think that Michael does this as much for the self promotion as anything else, while you're far from the first person to express frustration with him on this forum, the point that's missed is that this is about growing the "Atheist Ireland" brand, and name recognition, it's about getting Michael Nugent in the papers. If instead of assuming this is about promoting atheism, and instead about promoting Michael Nugent and the AI brand, then right now is the most opportune time for an attention grabbing contrarian comment.

He does like to moan a lot,I seen and heard him speaking and he doesn't promote his AI very well.

Maybe if he was less serious and a bit more funny and witty sometimes he'd be more easy on the ears.

ClovenHoof

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Did Atheist Ireland Snub the Royal Visit?
Reading over their anti-1916 manifesto last night, I could not think how every issue they have grievances with here, are just as applicable (and then some) to the British Royals which is a sectarian, non-democratic bloodline, 'divine rights' and all that, who have started numerous undemocratic wars which cost the live of millions of innocent people. The Queen derives her powers directly from God and so on...

So where was these smug, self-righteous and infallible lot protesting the royal visit then? I did not see them out of the streets. Did you?

[The above thread was closed on After Hours, and we were directed here]

A bit of uncomfortable history follows:

Curiously, Anne Holliday and her partner Michael Nugent (the founders of Atheist Ireland) were founders of the British state-funded "peace" lobby group New Consensus in the 1990s which had the amazing skill of never condemning British state or loyalist violence (actually, they condemned one piece of loyalist violence when people pointed out they were only condemning republican violence; they never once condemned British state violence). They were both also closely associated with the explicitly unionist so-called Reform Movement.

More pertinently, to answer your question read this from The Irish Times in June 1995. It's the report of the visit by Britain's Prince Charles to Dublin:

"Then a lone lady in red - red hat, red lipstick, red jacket, red skirt - appeared from nowhere, draped a Union Jack over the barrier in front of her, right beside the Bloody Sunday people and held up a poster proclaiming 'Welcome Prince Charles'.... She was Anne Holliday of the New Consensus group...she explained how wonderful it all was "It's just wonderful he is able to come", she said, "and let's hope it's the first of many royal visits"

- Patsy McGarry, The Irish Times, 2nd June 1995.

Clearly this representative of the institutionally sectarian British monarchy is perfectly acceptable to these two founders of Atheist Ireland. Irish Catholic nationalist believers = bad; British Protestant unionist believers = good.

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent. That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for their growth in Ireland.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent. That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for the growth in Ireland.

You were directed here? Can you also direct yourself back out again? The carry on above is exactly why I avoided the whole centenary bullsh1t.

12Phase

12Phase wrote: »

To be honest, I think we need Secular Ireland.

That actually sounds good. I wouldn't have the sense of certainty to be either an atheist or a theist so if I'm to have a label it's probably agnosticism - having said that, I find Gregorian Chant, baroque and other church music uniquely spiritual, far more spiritual than any sermon.

Hopefully whatever group does emerge to lobby to get the churches out of Irish education won't have the baggage that Atheist Ireland has in terms of its founders and leader. I'd venture to guess that most Irish agnostics and atheists, like the rest of the population, are quietly proud to be Irish and of our struggle against British colonial rule.

12Phase

To be honest someone like Dara O'Briain or Stephen Fry probably have more public opinion sway and making people actually think about secularism and atheism.

In the LGBT movement recently on marriage equality it was people like that (including Panti) and creating a forum for your average gay person to tell their story was probably what won it.

Secularism needs to be discussed and religious state merger nonsense needs to be shown up for what it is : sectarianism and religious discrimination.

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

You were directed here? Can you also direct yourself back out again? The carry on above is exactly why I avoided the whole centenary bullsh1t.

Have you a problem with the political hypocrisy on this issue of Michael Nugent/the founders of Atheist Ireland being highlighted?

They won't attend the Easter Rising ceremony (God knows why they were invited) because it's allegedly "sectarian" but they were out on the streets of Dublin back in 1995 waving union jacks and dressed up in red, white and blue to welcome the next head of the explicitly sectarian British monarch. Soak that Michael Nugent historical reality, and astonishing hypocrisy, up quick smart.

12Phase

I just think you can't be negative about everything. Ireland has a somewhat screwed up history. What country doesn't?

Sometimes you have grab thr positive aspects of a culture and run with them. Part of creating a better place is to select the good stuff and move forwards.

There were very high ideals in 1916 and plenty of very positive things in terms of ideas of a modern republic.

Grabbing those and expanding on them is one way of linking our revolutionary, passionate past with a vision for a modern, inclusive future.

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

[The above thread was closed on After Hours, and we were directed here]

A bit of uncomfortable history follows:

Curiously, Anne Holliday and her partner Michael Nugent (the founders of Atheist Ireland) were founders of the British state-funded "peace" lobby group New Consensus in the 1990s which had the amazing skill of never condemning British state or loyalist violence (actually, they condemned one piece of loyalist violence when people pointed out they were only condemning republican violence; they never once condemned British state violence). They were both also closely associated with the explicitly unionist so-called Reform Movement

More pertinently, to answer your question read this from The Irish Times in June 1995. It's the report of the visit by Britain's Prince Charles to Dublin:

"Then a lone lady in red - red hat, red lipstick, red jacket, red skirt - appeared from nowhere, draped a Union Jack over the barrier in front of her, right beside the Bloody Sunday people and held up a poster proclaiming 'Welcome Prince Charles'.... She was Anne Holliday of the New Consensus group...she explained how wonderful it all was "It's just wonderful he is able to come", she said, "and let's hope it's the first of many royal visits"

- Patsy McGarry, The Irish Times, 2nd June 1995.

Clearly this representative of the institutionally sectarian British monarchy is perfectly acceptable to these two founders of Atheist Ireland. Irish Catholic nationalist believers = bad; British Protestant unionist believers = good.

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent. That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for their growth in Ireland.

Oh dear, the Reform Group, really?

12Phase

Can we be a bit careful here not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think Michael has played a very important role in facilitating debate and calling the state to account on issues where they've been actively discriminating against non religious (and religious minorities).

I hate this kind of in fighting that develops in movements.

The guy has done huge work on actually highlighting the plight of atheists and others here.

I think myself that AI is too narrow to be the only voice on secularism though. That's not in any way taking from the work they've done to put these issues on the agenda.

It's important and healthy to have those views put across. It's something that was lacking it sidelined from Irish debate for decades.

Samaris

To be honest, I really don't care if people want to celebrate Easter, Christmas, Halloween and St. Brigid's Day. I don't really approve of the Good Friday alcohol ban, mostly because it leads to an almost embarrassing build-up to buy out the offies on Holy Thursday and then people probably get MORE drunk on Good Friday Just Because. It's one day out of the year, and if people are buying out the off-licences specifically to be able to get bladdered the next day then what on earth is the point of the supposed "dry-day". Open the dratted things and let people trundle along deciding to be involved in it or not.

On a vaguely related note, I wish people would stop pointing out to me that my birthday falls on a religious feast-day. Yes, I know it does, and no, this does not make my birthday any more special or holy for it. Sheesh. Also, I'm never quite sure how to respond to it. Someday, I may, with a totally serious face, say that yes, it was on purpose as I am the reincarnation of said person.

And then run away very quickly before the explosion happens.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you a problem with the political hypocrisy on this issue of Michael Nugent/the founders of Atheist Ireland being highlighted?

They won't attend the Easter Rising ceremony (God knows why they were invited) because it's allegedly "sectarian" but they were out on the streets of Dublin back in 1995 waving union jacks and dressed up in red, white and blue to welcome the next head of the explicitly sectarian British monarch. Soak that Michael Nugent historical reality, and astonishing hypocrisy, up quick smart.

I think you have me wrongly placed as a fan. In fact, I am just a person who supports secularism and has started a thread about how I think AI is doing some damage to that with pedantic and petty soundbites.

No, I have no problem with political hypocrisy being highlighted, but as an Irish woman of mixed Irish/British parents, your comments ("Pro-british"??? I mean, really??? You do know we're living in 2016, yes?) weren't highlighting anything to me except the kind of bias I worked very hard to ignore since the 70's. So I presume you won't mind if I don't engage with your derailing.

Jimoslimos

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you a problem with the political hypocrisy on this issue of Michael Nugent/the founders of Atheist Ireland being highlighted?

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the fact that you are attacking a woman who has passed away just over 5 years ago.

Personally I think it was foolish of AI and Michael Nugent to get involved. "Undemocratic killers" is straying dangerously into political territory. I don't have a problem with people holding pro-unionist* viewpoints but these shouldn't be mixed up with AI.

Monday after the Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox Rising. Nobody offended now?


*I find it baffling how anyone could call themselves an atheist and yet not question the position of monarch as the head of an established church

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

I think you have me wrongly placed as a fan. In fact, I am just a person who supports secularism and has started a thread about how I think AI is doing some damage to that with pedantic and petty soundbites.

No, I have no problem with political hypocrisy being highlighted, but as an Irish woman of mixed Irish/British parents, your comments ("Pro-british"??? I mean, really??? You do know we're living in 2016, yes?) weren't highlighting anything to me except the kind of bias I worked very hard to ignore since the 70's. So I presume you won't mind if I don't engage with your derailing.

I don't care what you are so get over yourself. I pointed out that Nugent has a record of supporting British political violence and opposing Irish political violence, of supporting British Protestant unionists, and opposing Irish Catholic nationalists. This issue highlights his hypocrisy perfectly, especially when I give evidence of his political positions in the past. So, yes, in the context of his politics "Pro-British" is perfectly accurate. And please take a chill pill with the ??? It looks like you're losing it.

Shrap

Should have known better than to start a simple thread about AI being more careful over picking battles. Irony overload! Think I'll unfollow my own thread now....

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the fact that you are attacking a woman who has passed away just over 5 years ago.

All I did was quote from a news story covering people welcoming the [not exactly democratically elected or indeed non-sectarian] Prince of Wales in The Irish Times in June 1995 where the views of one of the founders of Atheist Ireland, Anne Holliday, spoke for themselves.

This is exceedingly relevant given that her co-founder of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent, has suddenly in 2016 a conversion to non-attendance at a ceremony commemorating the "undemocratic" Rising and its "religious connotations".

Jimoslimos

Deleted User wrote: »

All I did was quote from a news story covering people welcoming the [not exactly democratically elected or indeed non-sectarian] Prince of Wales in The Irish Times in June 1995 where the views of one of the founders of Atheist Ireland, Anne Holliday, spoke for themselves.

But that's my point, she wasn't acting as a spokesperson for AI.

Michael Nugent has backed himself into a corner now, given that he will be expected to condemn any future royal visits due to religious connections - nevermind that such visits may be instrumental in fostering goodwill between Catholics and Protestants and preventing sectarianism.

PopePalpatine

recedite wrote: »

The whole situation is complicated and hypocritical on many levels now, just as it was back in 1916. Connolly was a far-left marxist, probably the nearest thing we have ever had to a Stalin "in the making". Pearse was a right-wing catholic, and the nearest thing to a Franco in the making. If they both hadn't been shot by the British, they probably would have been at each others throats before long. I doubt either would be happy with the Ireland of today.

I'm aware of Pearse invoking Christ-like comparisons by using the term "blood sacrifice", but I'm just wondering, do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that he was a "Franco in the making"?

Michael Nugent

While I am at this stage used to reading five untrue things about myself before breakfast, it is still a novelty to read a paragraph that contains five sentences, all of them untrue, about my late wife Anne Holliday and me.

I am busy this week preparing for lobby meetings with the UN Human Rights Council about Ireland's human rights record, so I don't have time to respond to this in detail now, but for the record:

Deleted User wrote: »

Curiously, Anne Holliday and her partner Michael Nugent (the founders of Atheist Ireland)

This is not true. My late wife Anne was not a founder of Atheist Ireland. She was not even involved in Atheist Ireland, as she was diagnosed with cancer shortly after Atheist Ireland was founded.

Deleted User wrote: »

were founders of the British state-funded "peace" lobby group New Consensus in the 1990s

This is not true. New Consensus was was not funded by the British State. We were not funded by anyone other than our members, precisely because we wanted to retain our political independence from any State or other funder.

Deleted User wrote: »

which had the amazing skill of never condemning British state or loyalist violence

This is not true. New Consensus protested when agents of the British or Irish States acted outside the law. This included publicly raising concerns about the Stalker case, the Gibraltar killings, the Falls Road bookie shop killings, the Fergal Caraher killing, the Dessie O’Hare shooting, and the convictions of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Armagh Four and Nicky Kelly.

Deleted User wrote: »

(actually, they condemned one piece of loyalist violence when people pointed out they were only condemning republican violence; they never once condemned British state violence).

This is not true. In fact, New Consensus is the only group that I am aware of that held a public protest outside the UDA headquarters in Belfast, bringing together unionist and nationalist politicians, and a Catholic priest, from both sides of the border. We also took part in a protest picket outside the British embassy in London.

Deleted User wrote: »

They were both also closely associated with the explicitly unionist so-called Reform Movement.

This is not true. My late wife Anne was associated with the Reform Movement. That is because she was philosophically atheist, culturally Protestant and politically Unionist. There is nothing wrong with any of those identities, and to say "explicitly unionist" as if it is an admission of something bad says a lot about your own political credentials.

Deleted User wrote: »

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent.

On the contrary, I am pro-Republican, as well as pro-Irish, pro-British, pro-European, pro-human and pro-animal. I am particularly pro-British in the case of Leeds United, though that was influenced by Johnny Giles playing for them when I was a child.

Deleted User wrote: »

That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for their growth in Ireland.

I am chairperson, not leader, of Atheist Ireland. I am one of a hardworking committee of unpaid volunteers, and we are quite happy that we have advanced the cases of atheism and secularism in Ireland since we were founded. Whatever our flaws and mistakes, I think Ireland without us would be less secular than it is becoming today.

12Phase

When you consider where Ireland was a very short few years ago it's clear that AI has been very important in kicking off debate and discussion.

Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with some of the displays of Chuch and Military crossover that happens here.

I remember being fairly shocked as a teen seeing soldiers guarding the relic of some Saint.
They're not the Swiss guards in the Vatican nor should they be.

I think Ireland is moving on but I think we should be carful to avoid continuing to confuse being Irish and being Catholic.

It's actually disturbing to see how after 1916 and what followed that despite women having played a very strong role they were just swept aside unless they wanted to exercise power via the convent.

After all the discussion of being oppressed under the thumb of a state religion what did the state do ? Rapidly establish the Catholic Church as a stage religion (it was the official case until the 1970s) and remains the de facto situation today in areas like education.

I still find it shocking that our legislators see nothing odd about having prayers at the Oireachtas.

Why exactly? It's meant to be a meeting of the representatives of the people. It's not mass.

All of these little and not so little things basically say that we are a theocracy and not a republic.

I can understand that our constitution is heavily influenced by Edwardian British structures and values. We didn't really make very many radical changes to how the Dail should operate - largely a frozen in time copy of Westminster in terms of procedures and it seems to have borrowed many of the trappings of religiosity too.

The school system is similar. It never developed beyond church sponsorship, unlike most of or European neighbours and in stark contrast to the US public school system.

To me Ireland seemed to just become independent then retreated into an inward looking shell and became frozen in the interwar period while the rest of Europe and North America rapidly progressed and went trough a social revolution after WWII. We sort of langushed in 1937 until about 1990.

Hotblack Desiato

Stealthfins wrote: »

He does like to moan a lot,I seen and heard him speaking and he doesn't promote his AI very well.

Maybe if he was less serious and a bit more funny and witty sometimes he'd be more easy on the ears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJzMAMXLhGM

recedite

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm aware of Pearse invoking Christ-like comparisons by using the term "blood sacrifice", but I'm just wondering, do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that he was a "Franco in the making"?

Apart from being overtly Catholic he showed a disdain for democracy in starting a violent insurrection without support from the general public. He did calculate correctly that his christ-like "blood sacrifice" would generate that support later on, but getting popular support after the event is a tricky concept.
The organisers of the rebellion acted in secret, without the agreement of the leader of the Irish Volunteers (Eoin Mc Neill), and then went ahead with it after Mc Neill had discovered and countermanded the plan. That was effectively an undemocratic coup within that organisation. This is typical of how dictators rise to power; by seizing control of a military group.

The school he ran, St Enda's, was militaristic in many ways, and prepared the boys as cannon fodder. Even today, the grounds which are now a public park seem like an early version of a paintball course. There are little bridges and forts dotted around it, where Pearse enjoyed watching the boys stage mock battles with toy spears and swords while wearing what he considered to be celtic style uniforms or clothing. The idea of indoctrinating boys into a nationalist militaristic mindset is a common theme among fascist regimes. Girls were generally provided with parallel clubs under such fascist regimes, more focused on nursing the wounded and producing more children to continue the cycle. According to reports..

A large group from St Enda’s Secondary School in Rathfarnham joined Na Fianna, and even the IRB, and 15 of these later joined in the 1916 rebellion. It’s no coincidence that the school was run by Pádraig Pearse. He once offered a new rifle as a prize for a poetry competition.

Also worth remembering that although in Ireland a "republican" is often thought of as a more extreme version of a "nationalist", that is not a definition used elsewhere. The Spanish civil war was Republicans V Nationalists. Franco was right-wing, pro RCC, militaristic and nationalist in outlook, all characteristics shared by Pearse. The Spanish republicans he opposed were left-wing, favoured a secular republic, and were more internationalist in outlook (as in, they looked to international workers solidarity) Much closer to Connolly's outlook.

One eyed Jack

I read that article linked in the Irish Times, and I think it's a very unusual angle taken by the IT, almost scoffing at Atheist Ireland for it's refusal of an invitation to the Commemoration. Almost as though the article is written in a "they think they're too good for us" vibe coming from it, when the IT is always favourable to the advocacy of secularism in Ireland. It's very odd to say the least.

That last line where Michael refers to members of Atheist Ireland doing as they please, I simply read it as Michael making a clear distinction between the position of Atheist Ireland as an organisation, and it's members who are individuals in their own right.

I think it's unfortunate that Michael had to make such a pedantic distinction, as usually it would be assumed to be understood, but social media gives people with a hair trigger for offence the ability to twist the intended meaning of anything.


(Not referring to you Shrap, but to the idiots that inhabit twitter and feed off the slightest offence for this kind of stuff, actively looking to be offended, to find something to be outraged about)

riffmongous

recedite wrote: »

Apart from being overtly Catholic he showed a disdain for democracy in starting a violent insurrection without support from the general public. He did calculate correctly that his christ-like "blood sacrifice" would generate that support later on, but getting popular support after the event is a tricky concept.
The organisers of the rebellion acted in secret, without the agreement of the leader of the Irish Volunteers (Eoin Mc Neill), and then went ahead with it after Mc Neill had discovered and countermanded the plan. That was effectively an undemocratic coup within that organisation. This is typical of how dictators rise to power; by seizing control of a military group.

The school he ran, St Enda's, was militaristic in many ways, and prepared the boys as cannon fodder. Even today, the grounds which are now a public park seem like an early version of a paintball course. There are little bridges and forts dotted around it, where Pearse enjoyed watching the boys stage mock battles with toy spears and swords while wearing what he considered to be celtic style uniforms or clothing. The idea of indoctrinating boys into a nationalist militaristic mindset is a common theme among fascist regimes. Girls were generally provided with parallel clubs under such fascist regimes, more focused on nursing the wounded and producing more children to continue the cycle. According to reports..
Also worth remembering that although in Ireland a "republican" is often thought of as a more extreme version of a "nationalist", that is not a definition used elsewhere. The Spanish civil war was Republicans V Nationalists. Franco was right-wing, pro RCC, militaristic and nationalist in outlook, all characteristics shared by Pearse. The Spanish republicans he opposed were left-wing, favoured a secular republic, and were more internationalist in outlook (as in, they looked to international workers solidarity) Much closer to Connolly's outlook.

You are really stretching

Technocentral

robindch wrote:

And while referring to the rebellion as one lead by "undemocratic killers" is certainly un-PC - so far as I understand the sequence of events before, during and after the rising, there's more than a little bit of truth there too.

Yeah because the British Empire did a poll of the countries they invaded and raped before they took over get a grip ffs.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I read that article linked in the Irish Times, and I think it's a very unusual angle taken by the IT, almost scoffing at Atheist Ireland for it's refusal of an invitation to the Commemoration. Almost as though the article is written in a "they think they're too good for us" vibe coming from it, when the IT is always favourable to the advocacy of secularism in Ireland. It's very odd to say the least.

That last line where Michael refers to members of Atheist Ireland doing as they please, I simply read it as Michael making a clear distinction between the position of Atheist Ireland as an organisation, and it's members who are individuals in their own right.

I think it's unfortunate that Michael had to make such a pedantic distinction, as usually it would be assumed to be understood, but social media gives people with a hair trigger for offence the ability to twist the intended meaning of anything.


(Not referring to you Shrap, but to the idiots that inhabit twitter and feed off the slightest offence for this kind of stuff, actively looking to be offended, to find something to be outraged about)

No, you're fine - you have it bang on, in fact. And I'm probably wrong in starting this thread the way I have in the first place, as I'm more than likely institutionalised by being Irish and living in rural Ireland to "pick my battles" in a way that least offends "culturally" catholic people.

For instance, I have an unerring antennae for what is going to rub the "catholic culture" up the wrong way, and so I prefer to restrict my actual pronouncements on secularism to something indisputable (like educational inequality), but shy away from the more nuanced stuff (like that our treaty basically trashed the secular ideals of the uprising) for fear of upsetting the apple cart.

Beginning to think that makes me more deferential than respectful Which is probably why I took fright at the "pedantic distinction" highlighted above.

Oh, and Michael - sorry for how the thread took off towards your personal history. That was not my intention.

Shrap

Technocentral wrote: »

Well said, I'm an athiest but that [expletive deleted] doesn't speak for me.

So you decided to go full ar5ehole then? Nice. Classy, even.

recedite

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, and Michael - sorry for how the thread took off towards your personal history. That was not my intention.

Not your fault Shrap, some posts have been imported into this thread from an after hours thread, and brought with them the kind of people who really lower the tone.

Technocentral

Shrap wrote:

So you decided to go full ar5ehole then? Nice. Classy, even.

Classy just like you eh?