Atheist Ireland, pick your battles, will ya?

recedite

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Collateral damage, innocents died, freedom is a bloody business, just because its unpalatable for the modern PC "I actually feel more European than Irish" brigade, doesn't change that fact. Nor does it make it ok to refer to the 1916 rising as a "killing of innocents", it wasnt.

You say innocents died, but then say it its not OK to refer to "the killing of innocents" unless you are a unionist. How do you you work that one out? The fact is the majority of those killed were civilians. Not northern unionists, but ordinary Dubliners.

I was at the parade, and I remember very well the words of a prayer, or a quote from the bible I think it was, being read out over the loudspeakers by some dignitary. "...there is a time for everything; a time to kill...".
Of course the bible and the church are full of hypocrisy, and there is a quote in there somewhere to back up anything, and another quote saying the exact opposite.

That does not mean AI should be equally hypocritical. They have chosen a policy that says democratic change is OK, but violence/terrorism especially without a democratic mandate is not. They are sticking to this line.

JPNelsforearm

Innocents die in every war, but that is not the goal of war, you dont describe every battle a "killing of innocents", you describe it by its name aka "The Battle of Kursk", AI deliberately described the rising as a killing of innocents(in the name of god), they have taken a political stance as regards the rising. A stance that reflects a certain groups view of the rising, as a mistake, an illegitimate, criminal act, what you could class as a "killing of innocents", I would class those people as Unionists.

I dont care about the Bible, the church or religion, they can produce whatever babble they want, its irrelevant to 1916.

AI are engaging in historical relativism, blabbering about democratic mandate is fine, they are free do so. However, in doing so they have shown their true colours, which are internationalist in nature. I suggest they drop the Ireland from their name as its clearly a country of convenience given how they view the Rising.

expectationlost

Letter form AI to IT where the rebut the atheist leaders thing which Donald Clarke raised because the Irish Times said they were http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/atheist-ireland-and-commemorations-1.2597865 which is fine but no war is really about gods, if you believe that you might believe ISIS is perpetrating a religious war, is about power and land and resources, if you can't see that you may ascribe a little more to relgion or Islam there there is.

also Nugent has form in not being able to see violence from states until they were criticised about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Nugent#New_Consensus

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

also Nugent has form in not being able to see violence from states until they were criticised about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Nugent#New_Consensus

Actually, Sinn Fein has form in falsely making that claim.

The claims in the article you link to are from 1992 and 1993.

The Irish Times published this letter from new Consensus on 13 August 1991.

robindch

^^^ That's a great letter, Michael.

The Black Oil

Heard an angry caller on a local Cork station a few days ago saying AI is anti-Catholic.

expectationlost

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Actually, Sinn Fein has form in falsely making that claim.

The claims in the article you link to are from 1992 and 1993.

The Irish Times published this letter from new Consensus on 13 August 1991.

there seems to be a pattern though..., maybe sometimes groups do need their own defense, when society breaks down, thats what you can't see, but when inevitably it goes beyond that theres a problem. reform the security forces what if the state isn't interest in that and is actually doing the opposite, your letter is nery nice and clean and high and mighty.

I wouldn't celebrate the rising the only reason such a big deal was made of it was to not give the space to SF

volchitsa

The Black Oil wrote: »

Heard an angry caller on a local Cork station a few days ago saying AI is anti-Catholic.

LOL. Wrong thread, surely? - this needs to go in the "Funny stuff about religion" thread!

Lucy8080

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just want to point out that it was Connolly not Pearse who was the driving force behind the Rising.

Nobody thanked this post.

Maybe Bannasidhe would be kind enough to lend all here her knowledge of Connollys ( the driving force behind the rising) religious journey/viewpoints.

They are interesting.

Lucy8080

Nick Park wrote: »

I admire your faith that the guy who oversaw the League of the Militant Godless was a Christian and not an atheist at all. Today is a singularly appropriate day to acknowledge such a stance. Of course I made no claim as to whether Stalin was a true Scotsman atheist or not.

However, in your impatient zeal to say something witty every time a Christian makes a point in this forum, you failed to address what I was saying. I wasn't just addressing the view that religions shouldn't advertise commercially. I was addressing the view that seeks to both prevent religions from advertising commercially and also complains about them being given any free air time - in effect wanting religion to be banned from the airwaves altogether. I think Stalinism is indeed an appropriate term for such an intolerant position.





Nice try. But you speak English well enough to know that nobody attempted to make any such equation.

^^^^^^^^^

That's a great response,Nick.

Just for balance.

Bannasidhe

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Nobody thanked this post.

Maybe Bannasidhe would be kind enough to lend all here her knowledge of Connollys ( the driving force behind the rising) religious journey/viewpoints.

They are interesting.

I don't see how Connolly's 'religious' views are relevant.

Since you obviously have something in mind why don't you lend us your knowledge?

robindch

Nick Park wrote: »

I was addressing the view that seeks to both prevent religions from advertising commercially and also complains about them being given any free air time - in effect wanting religion to be banned from the airwaves altogether. I think Stalinism is indeed an appropriate term for such an intolerant position.

Reaching for Godwin is rarely an effective debating tactic, regardless of whether the comparison is appropriate. It's quite right to ask whether state broadcaster should be providing free advertizing to religious outfits. But comparing the asking of the question to the activities of regime which murdered millions is really splendidly overblown.

Do remember as well that nobody has called for the banning of entire religious stations of which there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands filling the airwaves with the ravings of people who are as well-funded as they are improbably pious.

This part of this discussion is solely about privileges provided to religious outfits which are denied to others.

Lucy8080

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't see how Connolly's 'religious' views are relevant.

Since you obviously have something in mind why don't you lend us your knowledge?

Well, in the context of this thread and how organisations might view the Rising, i thought it might lend another angle on whether it was about God or not. I also brought up Nicks post because ,again , we have the Theist/Atheist debate around Stalins motivations.

And...well, my heart ain't quite in it now.

I saw on twitter today that it is the anniversary of the loss of Michael's wife.

If somebody/anybody wants to defend the organisations position ,fine (it's impersonal).

I came into the thread late and I think I missed something early in the thread.

I now realise that the impersonal and the personal are overlapping in a way that would be unsettling for any of us. Maybe the topic will come around again at a later date and we can all have a good old disagreement.

I'll just send an internet hug to Michael for the day that's in it. Anniversaries can land all sorts of poignancy and feelings on folks ,so maybe we can all try this again sometime, and criticise/praise A.I. (the organisation) as we deem fit.

I can't/don't expect Michael to contribute anymore to this thread.

Michael Nugent

Thanks for the hug, Lucy

pauldla

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Thanks for the hug, Lucy

Lucy in this guise is a diamond.