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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God.
-
06-06-2001 12:28pm#1I've always thought that the state leaned a bit to much towards Rome. But does it really make a difference to us? We still have our constitutional rights less the regards of The Dad, J.C. and The Spook. And the constitution doesn't not dictate what anybody should believe in them or anything else. I think every religion has it's own version of Almighty God. In fact it defends your beliefs:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
</font>
Now being Evil I'm total and utterly apposed to any form of religious freedom, 'specially with regards to those three mentioned above. But if I wasn't I'd say these were bloody good constitutional rights.
[edited to include this]
Welcome to boards
[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 06-06-2001).]0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Lilith ya brigand! Tis I, the feared martial arts expert, Hargaden.
Bunreacht na hEireann is a constitution we should be proud of generally. (It certainly tops that rag they have in the US) And de Valera caused quite a stir by not aligning Eire (as it was back then) with the Vatican.
The text does support religious freedom pretty thouroughly,
1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
1 prevents us from having extreme right wing Christians from bombing abortion information centers. 2 lets us feel secure in the fact that the state will never in the future adopt a particular creed. 3 gives us a practical freedom to believe as we see fit.
These 3 clauses allow us freedom within all reasonable bounds to practice whatever we like, be it Christianity, Catholicism, or Wicca.
"The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law..."
I would take out blasphemous. For sure.
"The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God."
The 3 afformentioned clauses protect the individual's interpretation or lack thereof of Supernaturalism.
"Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens."
Not even de Valera (turbo-Catholic that he was) could have claimed that such responibilities also required faith in his God, or any for that matter.
Geoff says:
"some sort of religious nut in power they would theoretically have a constitutional mandate for publicly enforced religion, but hey, that's highly unlikely."
He wouldn't have that mandate at all. Our freedoms are protected. Further to that, I don't think we will ever be faced with that prospect, de Valera was the closest we ever came to it.
"why not the same for God?"
Well, I wouldn't mind if it was removed. State and faith should not be mixed.
But then again, NekkidBibleMan did say, "While the mention of God in the constitution doesn't affect our rights as such". If its not broke... or rather more rigourously, if you don't feel the impact of any breakage it as if it has not broken.
"The State acknowledges that heterosexuality is the only valid sexual practice."
Can I get a link to that. I know that we allow homosexuality in this country now. But if their rights are not protected by the constitution I think it is a matter of serious concern and not mere pedantry.
Overall I think the changes will come but we should be thankful we live in a country that is so far removed from theocracy (not so much in the past) and that allows such clearly defined freedom to believe.
Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=0 -
Martial arts expert? Pah - you bounce too much.
Although with a little work I'd say you could do well ;-)
>>The text does support religious freedom pretty thouroughly,
Agreed, especially in the case of monotheistic religions.
However, as you know, religious freedom doesn't necessarily cover me
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
</font>
>>2 lets us feel secure in the fact that the state will never in the future adopt a particular creed.
Endow in this context refers to providing with money or land... not a guarantee as such.
>>3 gives us a practical freedom to believe as we see fit.
...provided you're religious ;-)
>>These 3 clauses allow us freedom within all reasonable bounds to practice whatever we like, be it Christianity, Catholicism, or Wicca.
I'm not too well read up on Wicca - is it a monotheistic religion?
>>I would take out blasphemous. For sure.
I think there was a move to have it removed, but it would have cost money and people, to use a colloquialism, "couldn't be @rsed". Perhaps I take these things too seriously...
>>"The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God."
>>The 3 afformentioned clauses protect the individual's interpretation or lack thereof of Supernaturalism.
If so, then I don't think they mesh together particularly well... the only one that in any way applies to me is 1), the freedom of conscience.
>>"Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens."
>>Not even de Valera (turbo-Catholic that he was) could have claimed that such responibilities also required faith in his God, or any for that matter.
It's an attitude I've been met with from some...
"Your forefathers died for your freedom. Now blindly accept their beliefs as your own or else!" ;-)
>>Geoff says:
>>"some sort of religious nut in power they would theoretically have a constitutional mandate for publicly enforced religion, but hey, that's highly unlikely."
>>He wouldn't have that mandate at all. Our freedoms are protected.
He? I've always suspected Dana as being a bit of a religious nut.. ;-)
What about Jesse Helms? someone like him might get in - unlikely though.
And I'm still not convinced that our constitution represents the non-religious or non-monotheistic religious.
>>"why not the same for God?"
Well, I wouldn't mind if it was removed. State and faith should not be mixed.
But then again, NekkidBibleMan did say, "While the mention of God in the constitution doesn't affect our rights as such". If its not broke... or rather more rigourously, if you don't feel the impact of any breakage it as if it has not broken.
I agree I suppose - I don't think it's worth the money to have a separate referendum on it. Plus I don't think it'd go through... ah well
>>"The State acknowledges that heterosexuality is the only valid sexual practice."
Can I get a link to that.
I think you've misread my original post - I meant it as an analogy - heterosexuality representing monotheism.
>>Overall I think the changes will come but we should be thankful we live in a country that is so far removed from theocracy (not so much in the past) and that allows such clearly defined freedom to believe.
...subject to morality, as long as we're worshipping almighty God... I'm not saying this country follows the above line, but that's what the constitution says.
Did you know that all Polling station tables must have a copy of the New Testament on them at all times?
0 -
You are kidding?!?
That is lunacy. I understand that you see the God mentioning as discordant with the 3 clauses on religious tolerance, I would be happy to see them go.
But Geoff you are an atheist. You have a belief in non-belief and I guess by that standard you are covered Bunreacht na hEireann.
Dana is an MP, her and her nutty cronies are not in power. Jesse Helms is the equivalent of an MP in a DIFFERENT CONTINENT. There is no point using him as an example of what could happen here.
By the way, Ian and I have your pants.
Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=0 -
Ok, most people that replied to this thread have an objection to Religious references in our constitution. That's their legitimate opinion. My gripe is the rather more general, to Politics in the constitution. I admit I've only read some snippets of the document but the gist of it seems to support a democratic form of government. It should mean rulers elected by the people, this should mean the electorate would be assumed to have a minimum competence. Yet repeatedly the practice of democracy sees the party in government treat the electorate as a stupid flock.
i.e.
- The French government mounted a campaign to tell people to be polite to tourists.
- The US government mounted a campaign as to which food and drinks to consume
- The UK government making DNA records permanent from random police scans on the premise that only the criminals need be worried.
And finally, our own government. There was an referendum recently, the people voted No. This by our own government was not the required result so we get to do again & no douth again till the people get it right. Baa.
In conclusion, In God we trust in our constitution, for make-believe deity or not it's the only honest part of it.
(PS God Save Dev )
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Belief in a non-belief? that's going to melt my brain...
I'm an agnostic athiest, that's a lack of belief in god(s).
A gnostic athiest would take the standpoint that "there are no gods" - which I find slightly illogical, considering how many gods are described by various people. Take pantheism for instance - a gnostic athiest in respect to pantheism would have to believe that nature doesn't exist... confusing.
Anyway, I'll live with the constitution for the moment, until I wrestle power from the complacent elite
On another note, why does Andy insist on moving my pants around your native locale?
It's been the guts of a year now
Regards to Ian 0 -
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Excelsior:
Scutchy, we were terrified that you were so evil and all atheistic so we have set up a special religion that even you can endorse. We call it Lillithism. And the pants are our chief relic.
</font>
I'm already co-founder of the church of the palmtop warriors, a certified Reverend with the universal life church, (I can marry people ) and I think I signed up as a satanist at some point.
(Never mix drink and religion ) 0 -
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
I'm an agnostic athiest, that's a lack of belief in god(s).
A gnostic athiest would take the standpoint that "there are no gods" - which I find slightly illogical, considering how many gods are described by various people. Take pantheism for instance - a gnostic athiest in respect to pantheism would have to believe that nature doesn't exist... confusing.
</font>
That would be true if you're operating under the mistaken belief that an atheist exists only to oppose religious belief (of whatever kind). You've pretty much said the same as the original quote you were trying to challenge.
And what is the difference between a lack of belief, and believeing there are no gods of any kind (my personal belief)? A level of commitment maybe?...
Atheists do not believe in 'nothing'. It's pretty ignorant to think that just because we don't believe in 'higher powers' that we have no beliefs in the nature of existence. To you god and a logical explanation and understanding of the universe may be 2 different topics, to me they're not - you're explanation is just different to mine.....
Now agnostics, they're just lazy ****s...
0 -
That would be true if you're operating under the mistaken belief that an atheist exists only to oppose religious belief (of whatever kind). You've pretty much said the same as the original quote you were trying to challenge.
(1) that would be an antitheist.
(2) strong atheism affirms (in my widely shared opinion) that their is no god. weak atheism is an absence of belief in gods. I've never said anything to the contrary.
(3) opposing religious beliefs and not sharing them are different.
>>And what is the difference between a lack of belief, and believeing there are no gods of any kind (my personal belief)? A level of commitment maybe?... - The affirmation. I do not believe that the earth was farted from the rectum of a giant space elephant; but I can't prove that it wasn't - so I must remain agnostic on that position.
Then there's Christianity - they have an angry and jealous and loving and kind god, who'll let James Kelly into hell but won't let his victims... I'm a gnostic atheist in this respect.
>>Atheists do not believe in 'nothing'.
Be wary of group statements like that. All you can say about atheists as a group is that they lack belief in god(s).
>>It's pretty ignorant to think that just because we don't believe in 'higher powers' that we have no beliefs in the nature of existence.
No it isn't - I'm an atheist and I have no beliefs in the nature of existence. Many atheists do. Many don't.
>>To you god and a logical explanation and understanding of the universe may be 2 different topics, to me they're not - you're explanation is just different to mine.....
I'm sorry, you just used 'god' and 'logical' in the same sentence - are you even a member of the evil atheist conspiracy?
I'll agree that we're both atheists and share different views. (The chances of two atheists sharing the same views on many matters is fairly small )
>>Now agnostics, they're just lazy ****s...
Some of them ;-) It makes sense in a way though - how is it possible to be certain about things that exist outside space?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement