TDs have voted to make it compulsory to stand during the Dail prayer

Ush1

RobertKK wrote: »

This is the post in question.

Are you going to continue to argue the state has public holidays for pagan festivals?

I said people were hypocrites about the prayer and standing up for it, while the same people complaining have no problem accepting days off work for public holidays for the birth and death of Jesus, and our national day being named after a man who is credited with bringing Christianity to Ireland.

Where is the outrage over the state giving special days off to mark big Christian events.
They were not made public holidays for pagan events.

This is the hypocrisy that exists and which is uncomfortable for the people who like to complain, but happy to take something that is linked to Christianity if it benefits them.

1. What you're doing is whataboutery and building strawmen.

2. Public holidays being religious is a different argument altogether. Is there anything religious about them anymore? But if someone wants to argue to remove them and they have good reason, that's fine.

3. Even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't matter. You see when you aren't Catholic, Muslim, Jewish etc..you can pick and choose things and don't need dogma to back it up(most "religious" people do this anyway). So I can get a day off at Christmas and not go to church on Sunday and be perfectly fine with that because I don't have to follow a set of rules. The ones you should be calling hypocrites are the ones that profess to be Catholic, but clearly don't adhere to any part of the dogma with inconveniences them.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Like I said way back nozz it's time to suck it up! The 10% that you belong to have again failed to bully the other 90% into ye're way of thinking.

Nice of you to quote the entire post while not replying to any part of it. If at any time you want to reply to anything I said though, I am here for you.

tomwaterford

RobertKK wrote: »

Is it really that hard for small a minority to show respect to their fellow TDs who democratically voted for this?

They can easily put it on Dail record they are standing up, not that they believe, but that they respect their fellow TDs who wanted this.
But that would be too simple.

Is it really bad to expect a Republic and it's parliament to be free from religious interference?


Surly the simple solution would be to drag it into the 21st century?
Not bow to religious extremism??


If/when a muslim td gets elected are we to stop all dail business at 12 or whatever....so as they can pull out a rug and face mecca and pray??

RobertKK

lawred2 wrote: »

One way respect - just how good catholics like it.

But it is not a Catholic prayer.

nozzferrahhtoo

lawred2 wrote: »

One way respect - just how good catholics like it.

Think that one has been done before

Though as far as I can see (unless I missed something) we have managed to get to post #365 without anyone doing THIS one

But it can't be long now.

Woodville56

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

screamer wrote: »

Oh outrage outrage...... They've done a lot worse with no outcry from the masses (no pun intended)........ Pathetic to be so outraged over this. Don't wanna stand or pray you don't have to attend.... About time we grew up and focused our outrage on important matters.

And yet the only one coming across as outraged is you, that people are simply explaining why they think this is a bad and even harmful idea. Probably not your fault. I blame our media for having everyone fall over themselves to slap the word "outrage" on even the most modicum of dissent. Someone says "Hmmm I am not sure that is a good idea" and suddenly it is "Speaker OUTRAGED with idea!!!!!".

But I would point out that dealing with "more important matters" is not mutually exclusive with dealing with THIS one. Many of us deal with many matters in parallel, with and without levels of overlap.

But what constitutes "important" is also worth consideration. Quite often with issues like this one, it is not entirely the issue itself that is "important" but the implications and precedents it sets, and the awareness of OTHER important issues that it displays. There are issues bigger than this one sole particular issue, that make this one sole particular issue important by proxy.

So if you are looking at it and only seeing the sole issue itself, then you are the one at fault here, not the ones discussing it.

As for "growing up", perhaps that is better directed at people who talk to their imaginary friend, or who do not know how and when to keep their own personal hobby out of the workplace? Because they are the only ones I am seeing here requiring any maturation process. There are few people I can think of, other than these religious here, who seem to suffer with this inability to keep personal hobbies in personal time, and out of their work place and work time.

realdanbreen wrote: »

So you want us to have a country where there is religious oppression, somewhere like Burma or China.

Again I have to ask, where DO you people get all this straw? That is not the position that many, if anyone, on this thread is suggesting or espousing. Keeping peoples personal hobby out of the workplace...... especially a public state workplace......... is not "oppression".

Not allowing them to partake of their personal hobby of choice at any time, ever, even in their own personal downtime...... now THAT would be oppression and you would........ for once......... have a valid basis for playing the "persecution card" that you are so fond of.

It's quite condescending to regard one's Christian faith and the practice of it as a hobby. The Oxford dictionary defines a hobby as " an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure"
I doubt many practicing christians would define their religious practice and observances in this way - it's taken a bit more seriously than that. I've no issue with people having an alternative or conflicting view on Christianity and Catholicism but it's the " we know better" superiority and condescension towards anyone who defends their Christian beliefs that's annoying. I respect your right to hold the views you pronounce here , why not reciprocate that respect without the demeaning references to my religious beliefs ?

RobertKK

tomwaterford wrote: »

Is it really bad to expect a Republic and it's parliament to be free from religious interference?


Surly the simple solution would be to drag it into the 21st century?
Not bow to religious extremism??


If/when a muslim td gets elected are we to stop all dail business at 12 or whatever....so as they can pull out a rug and face mecca and pray??

Other republics also have prayer in parliament.

Prayer is associated with well being, look it up.
Theu should probably bring in mandatory exercise too.
At least standing up is better than sitting down...

There is no extremism involved.

We had the Clare TD in the past who was elected and Muslim, didn't hear the complaints.

tomwaterford

RobertKK wrote: »

Other republics also have prayer in parliament.

Prayer is associated with well being, look it up.
Theu should probably bring in mandatory exercise too.
At least standing up is better than sitting down...

There is no extremism involved.

We had the Clare TD in the past who was elected and Muslim, didn't hear the complaints.

So it's ok because everywhere deos it??


Ireland of course shouldn't lead the way and the fight on religious extremism....if tds want to pray...let them do it in private and away from the dail chambers..


Sure look it....smoking weed and drinking wine is associated with well being. ....at what stage we stop and have a bit of cop on




IMO extremism is forcing your beliefs down someone's troat...I also believe everyone should be able to go to work without putting up with this forced nonsense about to start the day

Knex*

I'm actually stunned by this news, in this day and age. Religion has no place in government. Their job is to represent the people, in their entirety.

That means not prioritising something personal like your own religion, which in its nature is quite a divisive topic, and instead representing all people. Be they Catholic, Atheist, Muslim or anything else.

To do otherwise is bordering unconstitutional.

If you refuse to stand for prayer, you get ejected from that Dail and fined. You literally get prevented from representing your people. Bordering on fascism here.

nozzferrahhtoo

Woodville56 wrote: »

It's quite condescending to regard one's Christian faith and the practice of it as a hobby. The Oxford dictionary defines a hobby as " an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure"

And what part of that definition do you think fails to apply? It bears all the hall marks of a hobby to me both from that definition and just about every experience or knowledge I have had in my life of "hobbies". They even have club houses. I know, I have been invited to them on multiple occasions.

Now it might be more important to SOME of them than the norm for a hobby........ but so too can be the following of a football club for some who see football more than a mere game and something akin to a way of life.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I doubt many practicing christians would define their religious practice and observances in this way - it's taken a bit more seriously than that.

And most racists I have met do not define themselves AS racists either. And I have yet to see a spade call ITSELF a spade. But generally words apply regardless of whether the thing...... which it applies to....... applies it to itself.

But when a spade is a spade, I will call it a spade, even if it does not join me in that regard. So I am more interested in whether a word applies, rather than WHO would move to apply it.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I've no issue with people having an alternative or conflicting view on Christianity and Catholicism but it's the " we know better" superiority and condescension towards anyone who defends their Christian beliefs that's annoying.

I will have to take your word for it given that in over 25 years of asking I have not had one person EVER "defend their Christian beliefs". They ESPOUSE them happily, but no "defense" or "substantiation" of them has ever been offered me.

So whether I show "superiority" or "condescension" towards someone who does it......... will really only be revealed WHEN someone finally does it. So far they have not, so we simply do not know.

I can not speak for anyone else of course, nor do I pretend to, but I know hat ME PERSONALLY, I have never been shown a shred of even a modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends an iota of credence to whole swaths of Christian Belief such as, for example, their core claim that the explanation for the existence of our universe lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

So if you want to comment on the treatment of people who defend such claims, perhaps wait until someone actually defends those claims. No one on this forum has, least of all on this thread and absolutely least of all you.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I respect your right to hold the views you pronounce here , why not reciprocate that respect without the demeaning references to my religious beliefs ?

If you think something being a "hobby" demeans it then that is your issue, not mine. If a spade felt demeaned by being called a spade, I would still call it a spade because it IS, in fact, a spade. It is you, not I, placing a value judgement on the word and then blaming me for your own allocation of it. Hardly fair. Or moving enough to pander to.

What I fear is actually in play here is not that the word "hobby" demeans it at all......... because it doesn't........... but in fact it fails to elevate it or revere it in the way you would wish it to be. And there is a MASSIVE difference linguistically, AND in practice, between demeaning something, and not putting it on a pedestal that is not it's due.

Failing to show the same reverence for something that you do, is not to demean it. Much as you might (and here have) move to pretend otherwise.

RobertKK

tomwaterford wrote: »

So it's ok because everywhere deos it??


Ireland of course shouldn't lead the way and the fight on religious extremism....if tds want to pray...let them do it in private and away from the dail chambers..


Sure look it....smoking weed and drinking wine is associated with well being. ....at what stage we stop and have a bit of cop on




IMO extremism is forcing your beliefs down someone's troat...I also believe everyone should be able to go to work without putting up with this forced nonsense about to start the day

It has been tradition to say a prayer.
It is not unusual.

People are taking issue with standing up.
I would have no problem standing up if I was in a group of people of some other religion who wanted this, I would do it to show respect to them, not stay sitting to look down my nose at them.

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Like I said way back nozz it's time to suck it up! The 10% that you belong to have again failed to bully the other 90% into ye're way of thinking.

Christianity now is 90% of the population? You really do enjoy pulling figures and facts out of your arse dont you?

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

It has been tradition to say a prayer.
It is not unusual.

Tradition for sake of tradition is not a valid argument to continue anything

RobertKK wrote: »

People are taking issue with standing up.

No people are taking issue with being punished for apparently "disrespecting" one set of beliefs while those in the majority are disrespecting everyone elses by forcing their beliefs on everyone else

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Other republics also have prayer in parliament.

So? What people do in other countries can be used for reference and interest, but it should not be used to dictate what we should do here. For example in the abortion debate how much stock would you put in the argument "We should have abortion because other countries/republics/democracies have it"? I warrant none at all, so why should we???

RobertKK wrote: »

Prayer is associated with well being, look it up.

Not always no. Talking to people who are not there for example is very much associtate with, and indicative of, all sorts of physical and mental illnesses. While studies have shown that people recovering from medical issues who have prayed for and KNOW they are being prayed for actually fare worse that control groups who were not.

There is also correlation and causation divides to be considered. The kind of people who get down and pray together are often already in a context or scenario that is beneficial to well being...... so the fact they pray together might merely be a correlation coincidence with no actual effect.

But rather than vague "look it up" cop outs, by all means cite your sources.

RobertKK wrote: »

We had the Clare TD in the past who was elected and Muslim, didn't hear the complaints.

Why would there be? Or should there be? I for one have no issue with what a persons religion is when they are elected to office. What their religion is is irrelevant compared to how/if their religion informs their policy. And as I keep pointing out there are MANY MANY secular theists in this world.

RobertKK wrote: »

It has been tradition to say a prayer.
It is not unusual.

What is also not unusual is looking at traditions and see if they are still warranted, or whether there is good reason to keep them or remove them.

So by all means lets have that conversation. What is the benefit of SPECIFICALLY having members of public office instigate fixed rules on public prayer time before work. Not some vauge "Oh sometimes prayer is beneficial" but what SPECIFICALLY is the benefit of doing so HERE in this "tradition".

Because the thread is already heavily punctuated with arguments you have yet to rebut on why it is a BAD idea to have it. But other than "Oh this is all so anti catholic" statements of outrage at peoples dissent....... I am not seeing any substance in terms of arguing why it is a good idea in the first place to have such a thing.

RobertKK wrote: »

People are taking issue with standing up.

Nope. That is what YOU think the issue is over all. Which is not a problem as a first timer, but it is pretty embarrassing when you have had the actual issue(s) explained to you multiple times by multiple posters, myself included.

But if all you can glean from looking at this entire issue, and this entire thread, is that people are moaning about having to stand up....... then I can but despair for the level of comprehension and awareness you are displaying here.

RobertKK

114 TDs voted
97 for
17 against

85% of TDs who voted wanted this change.

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

114 TDs voted
97 for
17 against

85% of TDs who voted wanted this change.

Ahhh so you subscribe to the trumpian of logic of "you lost so shut up?", I forget is that how democratic democracies work and people arent allowed voice their opinions?

Shenshen

RobertKK wrote: »

114 TDs voted
97 for
17 against

85% of TDs who voted wanted this change.

And I'd want at least 30% of those who voted in favour explain their reasoning to the electorate. Surely that's only fair.

Woodville56

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Woodville56 wrote: »

It's quite condescending to regard one's Christian faith and the practice of it as a hobby. The Oxford dictionary defines a hobby as " an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure"

And what part of that definition do you think fails to apply? It bears all the hall marks of a hobby to me both from that definition and just about every experience or knowledge I have had in my life of "hobbies". They even have club houses. I know, I have been invited to them on multiple occasions.

Now it might be more important to SOME of them than the norm for a hobby........ but so too can be the following of a football club for some who see football more than a mere game and something akin to a way of life.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I doubt many practicing christians would define their religious practice and observances in this way - it's taken a bit more seriously than that.

And most racists I have met do not define themselves AS racists either. And I have yet to see a spade call ITSELF a spade. But generally words apply regardless of whether the thing...... which it applies to....... applies it to itself.

But when a spade is a spade, I will call it a spade, even if it does not join me in that regard. So I am more interested in whether a word applies, rather than WHO would move to apply it.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I've no issue with people having an alternative or conflicting view on Christianity and Catholicism but it's the " we know better" superiority and condescension towards anyone who defends their Christian beliefs that's annoying.

I will have to take your word for it given that in over 25 years of asking I have not had one person EVER "defend their Christian beliefs". They ESPOUSE them happily, but no "defense" or "substantiation" of them has ever been offered me.

So whether I show "superiority" or "condescension" towards someone who does it......... will really only be revealed WHEN someone finally does it. So far they have not, so we simply do not know.

I can not speak for anyone else of course, nor do I pretend to, but I know hat ME PERSONALLY, I have never been shown a shred of even a modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends an iota of credence to whole swaths of Christian Belief such as, for example, their core claim that the explanation for the existence of our universe lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

So if you want to comment on the treatment of people who defend such claims, perhaps wait until someone actually defends those claims. No one on this forum has, least of all on this thread and absolutely least of all you.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I respect your right to hold the views you pronounce here , why not reciprocate that respect without the demeaning references to my religious beliefs ?

If you think something being a "hobby" demeans it then that is your issue, not mine. If a spade felt demeaned by being called a spade, I would still call it a spade because it IS, in fact, a spade. It is you, not I, placing a value judgement on the word and then blaming me for your own allocation of it. Hardly fair. Or moving enough to pander to.

What I fear is actually in play here is not that the word "hobby" demeans it at all......... because it doesn't........... but in fact it fails to elevate it or revere it in the way you would wish it to be. And there is a MASSIVE difference linguistically, AND in practice, between demeaning something, and not putting it on a pedestal that is not it's due.

Failing to show the same reverence for something that you do, is not to demean it. Much as you might (and here have) move to pretend otherwise.

Thank you for your dissection of my posting and for setting me straight on my pretensions. It's so easy to defend the "godless" argument - no rules, no diktats, all very much do as you please, think as you wish, declare your own infallibility on these issues and castigate anyone who has alternate views ! Game set and match so.
As regards your demeaning description of religion and religious practice as being a "hobby" etc I've yet to meet anyone who has every described it as such - have you , apart from your fellow secularist enthusiasts here ? Then again, you're always right yeah ?

RobertKK

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahhh so you subscribe to the trumpian of logic of "you lost so shut up?", I forget is that how democratic democracies work and people arent allowed voice their opinions?

Does voicing opinion mean votes shouldn't count?

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

Does voicing opinion mean votes shouldn't count?

Well when you just post vote counts without making any relevant point its hard to read your mind as to what the point of such a post is.

Also its naive to believe 85% wanted this change, 85% believe their older constituents will vote for them if they support this change is what you meant surely?

nozzferrahhtoo

Woodville56 wrote: »

Thank you for your dissection of my posting and for setting me straight on my pretensions.

No problem. It would not be a discussion forum if people did not engage in discussion after all, would it now?

Woodville56 wrote: »

It's so easy to defend the "godless" argument - no rules, no diktats, all very much do as you please, think as you wish, declare your own infallibility on these issues and castigate anyone who has alternate views ! Game set and match so.

I am sure it is "easy" to do so but given that I have not said I can do as I please, declared myself to be infallible, or castigated ANYONE........ I am not sure why you are bringing it up with me?

In fact the entire form of discourse I adhere to, and the methodologies of things like science I apply, are very much built around the concept of being hyper AWARE of ones own fallibility on these issues.

Perhaps you would do better to find someone who IS doing these things and bring it up with them?

What certainly is "easy" however, and I do do it, is to call a claim unsubstantiated when, in fact, the people making the claim refuse to substantiate it. But that is not an approach I would suggest anyone apologize for taking. Would you?

Woodville56 wrote: »

As regards your demeaning description of religion and religious practice as being a "hobby" etc I've yet to meet anyone who has every described it as such

To make the mistake that the term is "demeaning" is entirely forgivable. To make the same error AGAIN having JUST moments before had the error explained to you is pretty embarrassing though.

AGAIN there is nothing demeaning about calling a spade a spade when it is, in fact, a spade. That YOU consider it demeaning is an attribute of YOUR value judgement of the term. Not mine. So YOU are applying the value judgement, projecting it on to me, and then attacking me for the result.

There is nothing wrong with hobbies, so calling something a hobby is not demeaning. Especially when it shows all the hall marks of being one.

As I said I somewhat suspect the problem here is not that the term demeans it, but fails to elevate it and revere it in the way you do. It is not that I am demeaning it below it's due, but I am not elevating it beyond it's due in the same way YOU do.

Woodville56 wrote: »

Then again, you're always right yeah ?

If you say so. I sure as hell never did. So while I can thank you for the compliment, I can not accept it.

dav3

RobertKK wrote: »

114 TDs voted
97 for
17 against

85% of TDs who voted wanted this change.

Who are we to argue with these people, let them get on with it.

Just like their pay restoration of €2,700 last month and another €2,700 in January.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/majority-of-tds-to-accept-2700-pay-hike-despite-calls-to-sign-waiver-35591583.html

Sinn Féin subsequently placed a Dáil motion calling on all TDs to forego their restoration - but this was defeated by 89 votes to 38.

€5,400 sure aren't they worth it.

Turn up, say a few prayers, head to the Dáil bar all day and then head back into the chamber steaming drunk to debate abortion while god whispers in your ear to do the right thing.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/300-pints-and-59-bottles-of-wine-bought-at-dail-bar-on-night-of-abortion-debate-606059.html

Almost €1.5k spent in Dáil bar on night of abortion debate

According to figures obtained by the Irish Sun, TD's clocked up a bar bill of over €10,000 in the 48-hour period around the abortion debate.

The newspaper today revealed that 59 quarter-bottles of wine were consumed along with around 300 pints and almost 50 spirits.

How could we dare question such upstanding citizens. Whatever our leaders vote for, we should just accept it.

RobertKK

VinLieger wrote: »

Well when you just post vote counts without making any relevant point its hard to read your mind as to what the point of such a post is.

Also its naive to believe 85% wanted this change, 85% believe their older constituents will vote for them if they support this change is what you meant surely?

It is the vote that people are discussing here.

It is 85% of people who this directly affects that want this.

Woodville56

VinLieger wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

114 TDs voted
97 for
17 against

85% of TDs who voted wanted this change.

Ahhh so you subscribe to the trumpian of logic of "you lost so shut up?", I forget is that how democratic democracies work and people arent allowed voice their opinions?

But it's not about denying the right of people to voice their opinions really - it's about not accepting a democratically arrived at majority decision - that's what all the moaning is about - the fact that a majority of TD's don't hold the same views as a minority of their constituents ?

RobertKK

dav3 wrote: »

Who are we to argue with these people, let them get on with it.

Just like their pay restoration of €2,700 last month and another €2,700 in January.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/majority-of-tds-to-accept-2700-pay-hike-despite-calls-to-sign-waiver-35591583.html



€5,400 sure aren't they worth it.

Turn up, say a few prayers, head to the Dáil bar all day and then head back into the chamber steaming drunk to debate abortion while god whispers in your ear to do the right thing.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/300-pints-and-59-bottles-of-wine-bought-at-dail-bar-on-night-of-abortion-debate-606059.html

Almost €1.5k spent in Dáil bar on night of abortion debate



How could we dare question such upstanding citizens. Whatever our leaders vote for, we should just accept it.

They do more than that.

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the vote that people are discussing here.

It is 85% of people who this directly affects that want this.

I find it funny that you believe all 97 who voted for this actually are genuine, some may be, but im in no doubt the majority are doing it in an attempt to secure and placate the grey vote.

Id be very interested to know how many of the 97 regularly attend mass outside of funerals and weddings. If they are so worried about their immortal souls as to demand time to pray every day surely they also make time in their lives to keep holy the sabbath as the commandments and the leader of the church direct them to do?

Woodville56 wrote: »

But it's not about denying the right of people to voice their opinions really - it's about not accepting a democratically arrived at majority decision - that's what all the moaning is about - the fact that a majority of TD's don't hold the same views as a minority of their constituents ?

Actually its about punishing those who don't hold or respect your views, that's pretty close to instituting a law for thought crime.

Woodville56

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Woodville56 wrote: »

Thank you for your dissection of my posting and for setting me straight on my pretensions.

No problem. It would not be a discussion forum if people did not engage in discussion after all, would it now?

Woodville56 wrote: »

It's so easy to defend the "godless" argument - no rules, no diktats, all very much do as you please, think as you wish, declare your own infallibility on these issues and castigate anyone who has alternate views ! Game set and match so.

I am sure it is "easy" to do so but given that I have not said I can do as I please, declared myself to be infallible, or castigated ANYONE........ I am not sure why you are bringing it up with me?

In fact the entire form of discourse I adhere to, and the methodologies of things like science I apply, are very much built around the concept of being hyper AWARE of ones own fallibility on these issues.

Perhaps you would do better to find someone who IS doing these things and bring it up with them?

What certainly is "easy" however, and I do do it, is to call a claim unsubstantiated when, in fact, the people making the claim refuse to substantiate it. But that is not an approach I would suggest anyone apologize for taking. Would you?

Woodville56 wrote: »

As regards your demeaning description of religion and religious practice as being a "hobby" etc I've yet to meet anyone who has every described it as such

To make the mistake that the term is "demeaning" is entirely forgivable. To make the same error AGAIN having JUST moments before had the error explained to you is pretty embarrassing though.

AGAIN there is nothing demeaning about calling a spade a spade when it is, in fact, a spade. That YOU consider it demeaning is an attribute of YOUR value judgement of the term. Not mine. So YOU are applying the value judgement, projecting it on to me, and then attacking me for the result.

There is nothing wrong with hobbies, so calling something a hobby is not demeaning. Especially when it shows all the hall marks of being one.

As I said I somewhat suspect the problem here is not that the term demeans it, but fails to elevate it and revere it in the way you do. It is not that I am demeaning it below it's due, but I am not elevating it beyond it's due in the same way YOU do.

Woodville56 wrote: »

Then again, you're always right yeah ?

If you say so. I sure as hell never did. So while I can thank you for the compliment, I can not accept it.

There was no mistake in me choosing to use the word "demeaning" in relation to your reference to the practice of one's religious beliefs as a hobby. In fact it was quite deliberate and intended so no apology or withdrawal on that score. How many people have you heard call their religious practice a hobby ? Please tell ? Mind you it's been called much worse in fora on this site so perhaps we should be thankful. Conversation ended on my part.

Woodville56

VinLieger wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the vote that people are discussing here.

It is 85% of people who this directly affects that want this.

I find it funny that you believe all 97 who voted for this actually are genuine, some may be, but im in no doubt the majority are doing it in an attempt to secure and placate the grey vote.

Id be very interested to know how many of the 97 regularly attend mass outside of funerals and weddings. If they are so worried about their immortal souls as to demand time to pray every day surely they also make time in their lives to keep holy the sabbath as the commandments and the leader of the church direct them to do?

Woodville56 wrote: »

But it's not about denying the right of people to voice their opinions really - it's about not accepting a democratically arrived at majority decision - that's what all the moaning is about - the fact that a majority of TD's don't hold the same views as a minority of their constituents ?

Actually its about punishing those who don't hold or respect your views, that's pretty close to instituting a law for thought crime.

If you care to read my previous posts you will see that I don't support penalizing in any way those who wish to absent themselves or not take part in the prayer of the Dail . Any such penalty is a mistake and should be removed. It's the issue of a minority not accepting the democratically arrived at vote that's irksome .

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the vote that people are discussing here.

It is 85% of people who this directly affects that want this.

You see that's the strawman that you're constructing.

85% of the TDs who voted on this, voted to have this for everyone. Not for themselves, instead they wanted to force it on everyone.

They were not being prevented from praying, nor from standing during any prayer.

But they decided that they wanted everyone to stand during their prayer regardless of whether they wanted to.

That's fascism, not democracy. Democracy represents everyone, not just the majority.

VinLieger

Woodville56 wrote: »

If you care to read my previous posts you will see that I don't support penalizing in any way those who wish to absent themselves or not take part in the prayer of the Dail . Any such penalty is a mistake and should be removed. It's the issue of a minority not accepting the democratically arrived at vote that's irksome .

I am aware of your position but I would contend the minority not accepting the vote has a lot to do with that punishment. If the punishment was removed I would still be annoyed as I disagree fundamentally with religion having any involvement with government but probably wouldn't care half as much.