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
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    sligojoek
    Registered Users Posts: 25,420 ✭✭✭✭sligojoek


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Oldtree wrote: »
    Maby a community building built by the community might be a better option.

    Something like the GAA Club hall that exists in every townland in the country?
    Yeah, but then the soccer an rugby crowds will be offended by hurling and Gaelic iconography.


  • Options
    #123
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    splinter65 wrote: »
    If your club has voted to remove religious iconography from its premises then that was a democratic vote by the members, but I can’t see how you would be interested or concerned about what other clubs do?

    I'm not.


  • Options
    #124
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    vicwatson wrote: »
    And that closing schools for the day mularkey needs to stop too, just have voting on a Saturday. End of.

    as a teacher whose school would close, even I agree with this


  • Options
    #125
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Absolutely.

    It still won't stop the likes of Nugent pontificating from the moral high ground.

    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.


  • Options
    #126
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    sligojoek wrote: »
    Yeah, but then the soccer an rugby crowds will be offended by hurling and Gaelic iconography.

    The local feminists/ICA don’t like any of these bastions of masculinity and you definitley don’t want to get on the wrong side of that bunch.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Oldtree is terribly concerned about citizens not as “strong minded” as he and the other atheists being in danger of being “influenced” by scapulars and crucifixes and the like.
    Another poster is afraid that the parish secretary has X-ray vision and will punish him if he votes in favor of appeal.
    Yet another poster feels brave for having voted against the church in another referendum despite the terror of the Cotpus Christi procession taking place just as he entered the polling booth.
    Is it any wonder people laugh at us?

    Did you read the link to the study in the OP?

    Again I am not an atheist, I am just simply not superstitious.

    The point of the thread was about religious iconography and paraphernalia being present in a polling station, not in the wider society, and the separation of the church from our state where it has been deeply embedded in the past and needs to be removed.


  • Options
    #128
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Michael Nugent doesn't care what GAA clubs are called. He does care about where the polling stations are because it impacts the integrity of our democratic process.

    How? It’s just a name at the end of the day.

    If he truly believes religion is nonsense then surely it shouldn’t make one iota of difference to him whether someone or something is given a religious name.


  • Options
    #129
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Oldtree wrote: »
    I'm not.

    But you’ve said that they will soon be removing their religious iconography oldtree.


  • Options
    #130
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Did you read the link to the study in the OP?

    Again I am not an atheist, I am just simply not superstitious.

    The point of the thread was about religious iconography and paraphernalia being present in a polling station, not in the wider society, and the separation of the church from our state where it has been deeply embedded in the past and needs to be removed.

    I’m not superstitious either oldtree but I am religious.


  • Options
    #131
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Michael Nugent doesn't care what GAA clubs are called. He does care about where the polling stations are because it impacts the integrity of our democratic process.


    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.

    It's like people who assume other people will be triggered by something which they assume other people should be triggered by, so they issue "trigger warnings". It's infantilising people and encouraging avoidance thought patterns and behaviours.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    splinter65 wrote: »
    But you’ve said that they will soon be removing their religious iconography oldtree.

    In response to you saying that they will not be removing the iconography. But I'll clarify, Irish society is moving away from Catholicism and it is inevitable that the iconography goes with it. Qed.


  • Options
    #133
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    splinter65 wrote: »
    I’m not superstitious either oldtree but I am religious.

    I'm not sure how you can seperate superstition and religion. From my point of view, I cannot.


  • Options
    #134
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    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.

    It's like people who assume other people will be triggered by something which they assume other people should be triggered by, so they issue "trigger warnings". It's infantilising people and encouraging avoidance thought patterns and behaviours.

    This thread is an excellent example of that.
    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.
    It’s nauseating but it’s the rock that AI will perish on, arrogance and a complete detachment from reality .


  • Options
    #135
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Oldtree wrote: »
    I'm not sure how you can seperate superstition and religion. From my point of view, I cannot.

    And from my point of view I can, but at least your being honest now.
    You could have said many posts ago that you think religion is nothing by superstition.
    It’s been said many times before.
    And nobody died.


  • Options
    #136
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    splinter65 wrote: »
    This thread is an excellent example of that.
    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.
    It’s nauseating but it’s the rock that AI will perish on, arrogance and a complete detachment from reality .

    Given the way we allowed ourselves to be ruled from Rome in the past is it any wonder that there are such reactions. I do not consider Irish citizens weak to have cast off the shackles of the past.


  • Options
    #137
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Given the way we allowed ourselves to be ruled from Rome in the past is it any wonder that there are such reactions. I do not consider Irish citizens weak to have cast off the shackles of the past.

    But you consider them to be so weak as to be incapable of glimpsing a scapula or a crucifix without caving in and voting no in the referendum.
    So weak that even religious iconography worn as personal adornment needs to be banned from polling stations.
    And it’s only religious iconography your concerned about.
    Poppycock.


  • Options
    #138
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Never thought about it, nor bothered me before, but with the upcoming sensitive referendum, it seems to me to be prudent to remove, not just bibles and crosses, but everything, turning all the polling stations into uniform blank office like areas.

    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.


  • Options
    #139
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    splinter65 wrote: »
    And from my point of view I can, but at least your being honest now.
    You could have said many posts ago that you think religion is nothing by superstition.
    It’s been said many times before.
    And nobody died.

    I have always been honest. I see no difference so why would I need to clarify? I see now that you see it as different and that is fine.

    I would not take anyone's freedom to believe off them, or seek to dissuade them of their belief either. I do seek separation of church and state in all forms.


  • Options
    #140
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    splinter65 wrote: »
    But you consider them to be so weak as to be incapable of glimpsing a scapula or a crucifix without caving in and voting no in the referendum.
    So weak that even religious iconography worn as personal adornment needs to be banned from polling stations.
    And it’s only religious iconography your concerned about.
    Poppycock.

    Again no. Personal adornment is fine if you read my post correctly. But I have to say I have seen no-one wearing religious iconography for personal adornment at my local polling station or it has to be said in public for a long time.


  • Options
    #141
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    [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.

    Or simply the schools can be handed over to pay towards redress.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,543 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Oldtree wrote: »
    They may well be, and yes some people may be influenced by this. But they are entitled to do so on voting day, or any other day, so long as it is not outside the polling station. Election posters are not allowed within 100m of a polling station afaik, I think the same goes for referenda.

    This bit I think:
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/23/section/147/enacted/en/Html

    Yep, I know it's perfectly legal and I wasn't suggesting they were doing anything illegal - but it's not a desirable situation.
    splinter65 wrote: »
    Also, the GAA is a private clubhouse, paid for privately, how would they be compelled to accommodate a public vote in anything , also, what makes you think that there is no religious iconography in GAA clubhouses?
    You know that the vast majority of schools are privately owned, right? Mostly by the local Catholic bishop - privately owned and managed - but the Dept seem to be able to come to a deal to shut down their operations for a day.

    I've never seen any religious iconography in any of the many GAA clubs that I've been in. I did hear stories of committee meetings being starter with a prayer bizarrely, though that's not really relevant for this issue.
    splinter65 wrote: »
    Would you not lobby your TD to ensure that referenda are not held around important religious dates? Because I know for sure your not suggesting that religious bodies should be forced to move these dates around to accommodate referenda , which let’s face it, can really be held anytime?
    Nothing to do with dates really, despite your dramatics - it's all about location, location, location.
    splinter65 wrote: »
    What would be better is if there was an airport style body search outside the polling station.
    For fear of causing offense or undue influence, anyone wearing a crucifix or scapula or carrying rosary beads etc will have to surrender it outside and can pick it back up again when they leave.
    (I’m unsure as to wether you extend this to the iconography of other religions or if it’s just Christianity you find offensive or if you’ve ever even been exposed to any other cultures religion, you don’t say).
    Nice strawmanning.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    No of course not - what actual differenc does the presence of a religious item have on your vote? If you’re goung to allow something as simple as say a crucifix hanging on the wall to bother you that much you really have little to worry about.
    So presumably you have no objection to the removal of the crucifix then?
    splinter65 wrote: »
    It really is. The Church stepped in to replace the English when they left.
    Now Nugent as Dev is waiting to replace the church with Atheism.
    Pardon the pun, but may God have mercy on all our souls.

    Nope, that's the difference - Atheism doesn't replace the Church. When you remove the Church from state business, you give people the option to choose what (if anything) they want to replace it, in their own time and their own place. That's the difference with atheism - it's not a power grab.


  • Options
    #143
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Well they shouldn't be there in the first place (they really only serve as an advertisement for human stupidity) but I don't see the value in removing just for a day.

    I've only voted a few times and I never even noticed the silly little religious signs and symbols.


  • Options
    #144
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Yep, I know it's perfectly legal and I wasn't suggesting they were doing anything illegal - but it's not a desirable situation.

    I didn't take it that you did. I was just making a parallel to election posters and that they legally must be a distance away from the polling station on the day, as should all "persuaders".

    It's not desirable imo either as the voting day and the day before, should be a day for reflection.


  • Options
    #145
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »

    So presumably you have no objection to the removal of the crucifix then?

    I do simply because removing religious iconography in public places plays right into the hands of the more militant atheists like Michael Nugent.

    If I thought there was a legitimate reason for it's removal, say if it had been hung by a priest later convicted of child abuse, then I'd have no problem.

    But removing simply because it's religious is just silly.


  • Options
    #146
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I do simply because removing religious iconography in public places plays right into the hands of the more militant atheists like Michael Nugent.

    I dont know who Michael Nugent is or what his agenda is either. What people choose to do on the publicly viewable side of there personal space/land/etc is up to them. A state owned public space/area is different and the seperation of church and state must be visible, or invisible in the case of the removal of religious iconography.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If I thought there was a legitimate reason for it's removal, say if it had been hung by a priest later convicted of child abuse, then I'd have no problem.

    Would you include those who were complicit?
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    But removing simply because it's religious is just silly.

    I dont think so, as it forms part of a hangover propaganda message from the past.


  • Options
    #147
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,543 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I do simply because removing religious iconography in public places plays right into the hands of the more militant atheists like Michael Nugent.

    If I thought there was a legitimate reason for it's removal, say if it had been hung by a priest later convicted of child abuse, then I'd have no problem.

    But removing simply because it's religious is just silly.

    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.


  • Options
    #148
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Oldtree wrote: »
    Or simply the schools can be handed over to pay towards redress.

    And then what?


  • Options
    #149
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #150
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,554 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    No they should not be removed and it does not bother me in the slightest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,263 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    splinter65 wrote: »
    This thread is an excellent example of that.
    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.
    It’s nauseating but it’s the rock that AI will perish on, arrogance and a complete detachment from reality .

    This thread is a perfect example of people who are prepared to make snap judgements without understanding the point the other person is making. Did you read the studies, do you understand Heuristics well enough to dismiss them?

    You and a few others on this thread seem to think smug scoffing is the same as intelligent arguments


Advertisement