Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should religious paraphernalia be removed from polling stations on the day of voting?
Options
Comments
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Seems a bit spiteful to be honest. If it doesn't have any impact from your point of view, and it is identified as offensive by some people, then why not remove it for the day of voting. That won't cause you any direct harm.
If the presence of religious iconography is causing people direct harm, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask that it be removed. If on the other hand, some people have chosen to take offence at the presence of religious iconography and demanded that it be removed, I would see that solely as those people being spiteful, and suggest that it might serve their interests better to pick their battles more wisely.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »If the presence of religious iconography is causing people direct harm, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask that it be removed. If on the other hand, some people have chosen to take offence at the presence of religious iconography and demanded that it be removed, I would see that solely as those people being spiteful, and suggest that it might serve their interests better to pick their battles more wisely.
Its not about taking offence. Read the thread. Its about subconscious priming that may affect the results. Polling places should be neutral in all ways relevant to the vote.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Personally, I suspect this latest publicity stunt has more to do with Michael's concern for raising the public profile of AI, than it has anything to do with his concerns for the integrity of the democratic process.
Of course you do, because doing so gives people an "out" from actually addressing the concerns raised. Much easier to simply invent an agenda for people once again, then actually deal with the concerns they raise huh?One eyed Jack wrote: »Sounds to me like a long winded way of suggesting people are stupid and can't be trusted with no minds of their own.
No need to brush the concerns of others under the carpet with a broom made of hyperbole. It is perfectly possible to trust people with their own mind while ALSO realizing that humans are an interplay of rationality and emotion and influencing one can influence the other.
I know you fear studies on humanity are just liberal run with the agenda of producing liberal results that support the liberal mindset. But the rest of us take scientific studies seriously. And if iconography is shown in study to influence voting results then that does raise legitimate concerns whether you personally like it or not.One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm trying to understand the relationship between Christianity and rape
Are you? I can not imagine why you are given no one suggested one. I have heard of people missing the point before, but not by quite such a magnificently wide and embarrassing margin.
The point you are missing is that those Christians who do not think the concerns warranted.......... that religious iconography could influence the vote......... would do well to consider how having such a vote in a rape crisis center might influence the voter. If people are put in the mind of rape, one of the things for which Abortion is often legitimately sought, they could potentially be influenced towards a vote that they feel might allow abortion.One eyed Jack wrote: »Oldtree you claim you're not superstitious, and that's fair enough.
Then what's all this then about your objection to there being bibles present at polling stations on the basis that it might influence the results of a referendum one way or the other?
Because those concerns are not superstitious, and that is not what superstitious even means? You need that dictionary I keep offering you.B.A._Baracus wrote: »Another anti religion thread in after hours? Surely that can't be lol.
It is not though, is it. The thread is not anti religion. It is anti having religious iconography in a place where it MAY influence the result of an election. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thinking there is a time and a place for "X", is not being anti "X". I do not think people should be having sex on the bus. I am not anti sex. And if I think religion should not be at a voting booth, that does not make me anti religion.AudreyHepburn wrote: »I tend to take everything that man says with a pinch of salt. He looks for reasons to be offended and I honestly believe that if you told him the sky is blue he’d argue with you.
I am cautious with everything he says too. I suspect he would prefer it that way. Because unlike some religions he does not want a personality cult. He wants a society where we listen to what others say, and then QUESTION it and TEST it for accuracy and efficacy and worth.
I think he would be genuinely upset if you did NOT Take what he says with the salt shaker to hand.
But the point you are missing is the concerns being expressed here are nothing at all to do with being offended. And you suggestion they are shows you did not take what he said with a pinch of salt, but with ear plugs so you did not even hear it at all.0 -
Stonedpilot wrote: »Right bunch of sensitive whingebags these atheists. Is that ALL they have worry about taking offense to a bible?
Maybe you should let them tell you what their issue is, rather than presuming to tell us what it is. It is nothing about being offended at the Bible. Rather studies have suggested that religious iconography in the area of voting booths can have an effect on the result. And I would warrant the more influence religion has had on the issue being voted on, the greater that potential effect would be.
If you are going to disagree with people, at least disagree with their actual position and not one of your own fabrication. That would be..... at least honest.... doncha think?splinter65 wrote: »I’d like a show of hands here of boardsies who could be persuaded to vote against repealing the 8th amendment because
I would not suggest assuming such people KNOW they are being influenced. Nor would I assume they would admit it to you if they did.
I would also not be quick to assume what can and can not influence people. There was an interesting study recently I could cite for you if you want to read it where they tested how honest people were in certain activities. What they found was.... doing nothing but sticking a picture of a pair of human eyes on the wall had a beneficial effect on how honest people were.
All that said, I think a few other users have pointed out something I agree with. I think the fact people might be voting in a school could even up influencing people more than what happens to be on the walls of those schools.Scarlette Modern Muffin wrote: »If somebody goes to vote and is deflected from their intended opinion by the simple presence of a bible or a cross somewhere in the room, then they are easily influenced and obviously hadn't a notion what way they actually felt on the issue.
That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that humans are complex creatures with a mixture of rationality and emotion going on in their brain at any given time. And one can, and often does, suddenly over rule the other.
People can intend to vote one way for rational reasons and their choice be over ruled by emotional reasons in the end. And vice versa. Regardless what their notions and feelings were on the issue going in.
But on top of that, the idea that people are often not totally sure which way to vote is a reality. It is easy to get the idea from a forum like this, where the debate is very polarized, that people are generally sure of their position. Generally I think people are more hovering around the middle ground however and are often not entirely sure what to do.It's unfair to ask schools to hide this stuff because AI are offended.
Who said they were offended or what is why they want to hide it? AGAIN.... the issue is that studies have suggested such iconography can influence the result. Nothing AT ALL about offence, let alone specifically AI being offended.Irish Guitarist wrote: »They're in for a shock when they discover that not everyone that votes against abortion will be doing so for religious reasons.
That or you might be in for a shock when you discover that the basis of their concerns never once presupposed what you here imagine it did.0 -
splinter65 wrote: »Apparently Irish citizens are so weak and susceptible to influence that mere objects need to be removed from their eyeline to prevent their tiny tiny minds from being swayed.
No one is making it about Irish citizens except YOU. The effect that is raising the concerns in question are a HUMAN attribute. Not an Irish one.
No detachment from reality either. It has been shown to be a real effect. Ignoring actual data on actual effects would make YOU The one detached from reality. No one else.AudreyHepburn wrote: »But removing simply because it's religious is just silly.
They are not removing it simply because it's religious though. SO what is your point exactly?
They are requesting its TEMPORARY removal because it might influence voters. Nothing more. Nothing less. YOU are making it about religion. They aren't.AudreyHepburn wrote: »I don't mean it to sound spiteful - I just get frustrated by this new idea of being offended by every little thing.
Again.... on the hope saying it often enough might make it sink in........... no one is offended here, and the concerns being raised are not about ANYONE getting or being offended. You are making it about offence. They aren't.
You are making it about a lot of silly things in fact, and then blaming THEM for what only YOU have done.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its not about taking offence. Read the thread. Its about subconscious priming that may affect the results. Polling places should be neutral in all ways relevant to the vote.
I've read the thread, and it's based upon the assumption that people will be influenced one way or the other with regards to how they vote, due to the presence of religious iconography. It's perfectly reasonable then to argue that the banning of religious iconography would also unduly influence the outcome of the democratic process.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I've read the thread, and it's based upon the assumption that people will be influenced one way or the other with regards to how they vote
Couple of language fails from you here.
Firstly the use of the word "assumption". There is no "assumption" here. Rather a set of concerns generated based on a demonstrably real effect. No "assumptions" are required. Just the acknowledgement of something that has been shown to be a reality.
The word "will" is also the wrong one to use here. More correct would be "may". Just like having lunch with someone who has the flu MAY cause you to catch the flu. Not WILL. There MAY be an effect, and that effect is a legitimate concern.One eyed Jack wrote: »due to the presence of religious iconography. It's perfectly reasonable then to argue that the banning of religious iconography would also unduly influence the outcome of the democratic process.
Well I guess if my hitting you in the face influences your levels of pain, my simply NOT hitting you in the face could in some twisted way be said to influence your levels of pain too.
But I do not see anything "unduly" warranted about the effect of attempting to ensure that a voting area is a neutral one. I would see that as very much due and warranted indeed.
But no one is talking about BANNING religious iconography. There is that hyperbole again. They are simply asking that it not be there on that given day, for very genuine reasons. And it is not just about religious iconography either. I reckon AI and myself would be equally opposed to pictures of babies all over the wall too. Or pictures of rape. Or pictures of anything at all that could be suspected of influencing the result of the election.0 -
0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Of course you do, because doing so gives people an "out" from actually addressing the concerns raised. Much easier to simply invent an agenda for people once again, then actually deal with the concerns they raise huh?
I haven't invented an agenda, that is the agenda of AI -
Promoting atheism, reason and an ethical, secular state
I've acknowledged their concerns, I don't think their concerns have any merit other than to use the referendum as a vehicle to raise their own public profile.No need to brush the concerns of others under the carpet with a broom made of hyperbole. It is perfectly possible to trust people with their own mind while ALSO realizing that humans are an interplay of rationality and emotion and influencing one can influence the other.
Yes, but the assumption of Atheist Ireland is that with the presence of religious iconography they could be influenced to vote in a way that would be an unfavourable outcome given Atheist Irelands support for the repeal of the 8th amendment, whereas we've already seen with the marriage equality referendum that just hasn't been the case.I know you fear studies on humanity are just liberal run with the agenda of producing liberal results that support the liberal mindset. But the rest of us take scientific studies seriously. And if iconography is shown in study to influence voting results then that does raise legitimate concerns whether you personally like it or not.
I think it's cute that you're still at pains at every turn to try and undermine my opinion (what with you purporting to be a scientist and I'm just a layman after all :pac:), but again, you're missing one simple point - there is simply no way to tell whether that influence will affect the eventual outcome of the democratic process, simply because there is no way to tell how an individual is influenced by the presence of religious iconography. It could either be a positive influence on one individual, or a negative influence on another, as would it's removal - there is simply no way of knowing.
What with you now purporting to be a philosopher and I a mere layman, you might be able to understand this better than I -
The problem of other minds is the problem of how to justify the almost universal belief that others have minds very like our own. It is one of the hallowed, if nowadays unfashionable, problems in philosophy.
The problem of Other Minds, Stanford Encyclopaedia of PhilosophyAre you? I can not imagine why you are given no one suggested one. I have heard of people missing the point before, but not by quite such a magnificently wide and embarrassing margin.
Akrasia posed the question as to whether Christians would have an issue with having a Rape Crisis Centre as a polling station. I fail to see how the association between the two that would present some sort of moral conflict either for Christians or victims of rape, given they aren't mutually exclusive in the same way as religious iconography would be for people who are non-religious.The point you are missing is that those Christians who do not think the concerns warranted.......... that religious iconography could influence the vote......... would do well to consider how having such a vote in a rape crisis center might influence the voter. If people are put in the mind of rape, one of the things for which Abortion is often legitimately sought, they could potentially be influenced towards a vote that they feel might allow abortion.
There's simply no way of telling how holding a vote on the issue of abortion in a rape crisis centre would influence a Christian voter, given that none of the above are mutually exclusive! It's perfectly reasonable to assume that many rape victims who have had abortions are Christian, so I'm still not seeing what Akrasia's point was in making that association.Because those concerns are not superstitious, and that is not what superstitious even means? You need that dictionary I keep offering you.
You clearly missed the tongue in cheek nature of that post. It's fine though, Oldtree, the intended recipient understood the humour. A dictionary isn't likely to be of any use to you on this occasion, and you're not needed to explain anything to anyone, we're all just fine as we are.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The polling station could have a nativity scene in situ with a real live newborn in the manger and I'd still vote for a woman's right to choose.
So, no. Not necessary for me anyway.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I haven't invented an agenda, that is the agenda of AI
I am not talking about the mission statement of AI and you well know it. I am talking about the practice, when people raise a genuine concern, of pretending they are only doing so to raise their own profile.
That practice is a cop out canard used to invent agendas in order to not have to deal with what peoples actual points are. It is invalid. It is dishonest. It is crass. There is not a single concern they could EVER raise that you could not dismiss with that crass little move.One eyed Jack wrote: »I've acknowledged their concerns, I don't think their concerns have any merit other than to use the referendum as a vehicle to raise their own public profile.
Yet the data is there. You will just have to dismiss actual studies in favor of your own opinion as usual to hold that position. The simple fact is it has been SHOWN that such things do influence voter behavior. And that influence IS a genuine concern. You can not wish it away by sticking your head in the sand again.One eyed Jack wrote: »Yes, but the assumption of Atheist Ireland is that with the presence of religious iconography they could be influenced to vote in a way that would be an unfavourable outcome
Could you quote where they said their concerns are that they will produce an unfavorable outcome please? OR did you just make that up yourself and shove it in their mouth? Certainly nothing in the link from the OP quotes them saying that. I think you are misrepresenting. Again.
Their concerns as cited in the OP are that "in a secular environment Referendums should take place in a secular environment that is neutral between religious and atheistic beliefs."
Nothing about the concerns they raised are based on how favorable or unfavorable they want the result to be. Stop strawmanning.One eyed Jack wrote: »I think it's cute that you're still at pains at every turn to try and undermine my opinion
Dont need to, you do that all by yourself by making things up, misrepresenting, dismissing studies that do not agree with your world view, and inventing agendas to dismiss peoples opinions without actually addressing them.One eyed Jack wrote: »there is simply no way to tell whether that influence will affect the eventual outcome of the democratic process, simply because there is no way to tell how an individual is influenced by the presence of religious iconography.
And here is the shocking part for you. No one NEEDS to do that. The data in real studies out here in the real world HAS shown such things influence voter behavior and therefore it is a legitimate concern. That is all. Nothing more is needed.
It might influences loads of people. It might not influence one. But the simple fact is the data suggests it is a legitimate concern that it COULD do so, and so that legitimate concern should, and can very easily, be addressed.
So it is you missing the simple point, not me. Projection again. There are legitimate reasons to call for a neutral voting environment. There is not a single reason being put forward as yet, least of all from you, to suggest doing otherwise would be beneficial.
Citing philosophy you do not understand, while ignoring science you do not understand, is not going to change that either.One eyed Jack wrote: »I fail to see how the association between the two
Missing the point is fine, missing it after having had it explained again however is pretty bad. His point was not about an "association between the two" at all. Even a little bit. It was about tasking people who think influencing the voter in one scenario is not a legitimate concern, to imagine other scenarios that might influence voters.One eyed Jack wrote: »There's simply no way of telling how holding a vote on the issue of abortion in a rape crisis centre would influence a Christian voter
Wow I did not think someone could go from missing the point to actually missing it MORE than before. The point was not about how it would influence a christian voter. Not a bit. He was asking Christians how they would feel about holding the vote in a location that would influence OTHER voters. I am genuinely baffled as to how you can miss the point by THIS wide a margin.One eyed Jack wrote: »You clearly missed the tongue in cheek nature of that post.
I admit when the general quality of a persons points is remarkably low, it does become somewhat hard to distinguish it from their attempts at humor.0 -
Bubbaclaus wrote: »You mean the Lisbon treaty which we voted 'No' to initially due to specific concerns on a few sections, which was then amended in consideration of those concerns and a vote put to us for the updated one that had fixed the issues? What was wrong with that exactly?
The treaty wasn't amended to address Irish concerns. There were a few clarifying declarations.0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I admit when the general quality of a persons points is remarkably low, it does become somewhat hard to distinguish it from their attempts at humor.
Q.E.D mate.
(although I suspect it's unintentional on your part)0 -
So no reply to anything I wrote then. No surprises there. QED absolutely indeed.
But for the rest of the people capable of discussing the issue, there is nothing about offence here. Nor an agenda to get a "favorable outcome" in the election. Rather the agenda is to ensure a neutral and fair environment in which to vote that will not unduly influence the electorate with iconography in ANY direction.
There is for example a negative attitude to church and religion out there. It is JUST as likely that religious iconography will motivate one to want to "stick it to the church" and vote AGAINST the historical attitudes the church holds. And I am JUST as against that myself, even though that would make them vote the way I want them to vote.
So inventing agendas and biases for people is not the way to go. They are not looking for a fair and neutral voting environment to get the result they want. They are looking for a fair and neutral voting environment because that is the right things to do.0 -
We have a local community hall which is rarely used yet we close the local school 100 yards away for the day to vote.
Never understood that one.
:-)
My polling station used to be a hall built and run by the local brass band - with some parking just outside, and very well located for public transport access.
But a local councillor complained that because it was next to a homeless shelter for men, some ladies might be intimidated. So it was moved to a primary school with no parking at the door at all.
I wonder what would be more intimidating: a homeless man, or a crucifix?0 -
Kermit.de.frog wrote: »No they should not be removed and it does not bother me in the slightest.
Is 'something bothering you' the sole criteria for removal? If something bothers someone else, should it be removed?AudreyHepburn wrote: »I don't mean it to sound spiteful - I just get frustrated by this new idea of being offended by every little thing.
It's a statue hanging on a wall, nothing more. There are bigger things related to the church to worry about.
Certainly, there are bigger issues out there, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't pick off the low hanging fruit where possible.
I think we're getting to the core of the issue now about 'choosing to take offence'. You're suggesting that the offence is not genuine then, is that right?One eyed Jack wrote: »If the presence of religious iconography is causing people direct harm, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask that it be removed. If on the other hand, some people have chosen to take offence at the presence of religious iconography and demanded that it be removed, I would see that solely as those people being spiteful, and suggest that it might serve their interests better to pick their battles more wisely.
Where exactly did this happen? It is generally very, very difficult to get polling stations moved, because of political territories and boundaries. Any suggestion that the new station is closer to the political stronghold of an opponent is politically explosive. Whereabouts was this?Mrs OBumble wrote: »:-)
My polling station used to be a hall built and run by the local brass band - with some parking just outside, and very well located for public transport access.
But a local councillor complained that because it was next to a homeless shelter for men, some ladies might be intimidated. So it was moved to a primary school with no parking at the door at all.
I wonder what would be more intimidating: a homeless man, or a crucifix?Deleted User wrote: »Quick financial reality recap here: schools, the vast majority of them (and probably all of the ones with the "offending" religious paraphernalia), are in the possession of a private international business known as the Roman Catholic Church. This state uses the property of that private business for state business, namely education and elections, and you think the Irish state has a right to go into their property and remove its products when it's good enough to facilitate the needs of a state which still refuses to buy/build its own schools and instead depends upon the goodwill of said international business?
Cheeky bastards. Seriously, either the Irish state buys its own school buildings or people just shut up and accept that Irish schools and Irish elections are guest events on the private property of the Roman church. Beggars cannot be choosers and if this all matters to you start lobbying for the Irish state to spend billions of our taxes buying out that private business from ownership of Irish schools. Blame the Irish state and its priorities, not the Roman Church for this one. Irish people had to buy out Irish land from foreign ownership, so why do people think Irish schools will be any different? Personally, given the perennial straightened financial circumstances of this state I think those billions would be better spent and I've little bother using the Roman church's property, and respecting their property rights. As we live in a democracy, everybody who disagrees is more than free to lobby that those billions of our taxes be redirected to buy out the Roman Church's schools. Like the British state with which they collaborated in the cultural colonisation of the Irish mind, I'd love to see them gone from this little island.
You know that the vast majority of current schools were built with Dept Education funds, right?0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »I think we're getting to the core of the issue now about 'choosing to take offence'. You're suggesting that the offence is not genuine then, is that right?
I'm not suggesting that any offence taken isn't genuine, I'm suggesting that the request to ban any offending items is a request that I don't think warrants any serious consideration, particularly as you say yourself -AndrewJRenko wrote: »Certainly, there are bigger issues out there, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't pick off the low hanging fruit where possible.
All this is, is an attempt to pick off the low hanging fruit where one imagines it is possible. I think it's a poorly orchestrated attempt, and I personally don't see any reason why it should be entertained.0 -
NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »The polling station could have a nativity scene in situ with a real live newborn in the manger and I'd still vote for a woman's right to choose.
So, no. Not necessary for me anyway.
A woman’s right to choose. For how many weeks has she the right to choose?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
A homeless man.Mrs OBumble wrote: »I wonder what would be more intimidating: a homeless man, or a crucifix?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm not suggesting that any offence taken isn't genuine, I'm suggesting that the request to ban any offending items is a request that I don't think warrants any serious consideration, particularly as you say yourself -
All this is, is an attempt to pick off the low hanging fruit where one imagines it is possible. I think it's a poorly orchestrated attempt, and I personally don't see any reason why it should be entertained.
Poorly orchestrated? What do you want before a request is taken seriously - a professional PR campaign with videos by Snapchat influencers?0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Poorly orchestrated? What do you want before a request is taken seriously - a professional PR campaign with videos by Snapchat influencers?
A campaign not run by a pack of chancers chancing their arm to pick the low hanging fruit in order to raise their own public profile would be a good start.0 -
But that is just the narrative you are inventing because you can not undermine or rebut the legitimate concerns they have raised. Ad hominem fantasies all the way, rather than consider and discuss their actual points.0
-
Haven't read the thread but in parts of Asia, every single shop, building, station, street, square is Vishnu this, Lakshmi that, Shiva the other and do you know how I'll tell you how I feel about it as a Catholic born atheist - I get over it. Religion is ingrained in culture there as it is here. I accept that crosses hang on walls for cultural and religious reasons. If you conflate voting for in a room with a cross on the wall as somehow inherently meaning voting for another religion, then you're just a giant dummy.0
-
cantdecide wrote: »If you conflate voting for in a room with a cross on the wall as somehow inherently meaning voting for another religion, then you're just a giant dummy.
Who is doing that though? No one on this thread.
Again.... the concerns of this thread are based on studies that suggest the environment in which people vote......... influences how they vote.
So people, like Atheist Ireland, are suggesting that in the light of such findings.......... for a fair and honest democracy we should strive to have the most neutral voting environment we can so such influences can be negated.
Really it is nothing more than that, despite the wild and fantastical fantasy narratives people have so desperately invented on their behalf over the course of this short thread.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So people, like Atheist Ireland, are suggesting that in the light of such findings.......... for a fair and honest democracy we should strive to have the most neutral voting environment we can so such influences can be negated.
How did religious paraphernalia affect the marriage equality vote, I wonder?0 -
Advertisement
-
cantdecide wrote: »How did religious paraphernalia affect the marriage equality vote, I wonder?
Certainly a good question. The problem is we simply do not know. We just know the effect exists. Not how much the affect works in any single given situation.
It is like me saying "We know Flu is contagious and the more people who are together in one place, the more people will be infected" and then someone like yourself asks "Well how many people got infected at the last Concert in the National Concert hall?"
We do not need to know how much one given thing is affected by something, to k now the affect exists, and to know it is a good idea to negate it.0
Advertisement