I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
Should be in getting the treatment she needs somewhere but "you can't do that any more" so lack-of-care-in-the-community it is.
Don't they still have bishops sitting in the Lords? I don't think prayer has a place in any legislature but surely giving seats ex officio to religious office holders is much worse.
Would have been the norm in Ireland to say a prayer before conducting the business of the day, even when we were in school each period was begun and ended with prayer so it's not unusual in a traditional sense.
Yes and that school had the explicit purpose of promoting a particular religion, of which those prayers were one part.
The council and indeed our Oireachtas were never supposed to have promoting a religion as part of their functions…
I don't agree with the "make it all inclusive" idea either. (a) that just makes it an even bigger waste of time (b) the State should not be pandering to or endorsing any religion in any form.
I have had the misfortune to serve on two juries and affirmed both times. On each occasion it was notable that nobody before me chose to affirm but several jurors after me did. The bible was just presented as the default and it seems most people don't know it's not compulsory.
Disgraceful that our system of justice operates in this fashion and potentially very biased against non-christian defendants. Nobody should have to stand up in court and declare what their religious belief is or is not.
Yes, bulk of the CoE bishops are Lords by default.
Why the Church of England ?
Wonder what the context was.
It's the state religion there? The head of state is also head of church.
I wonder did the Burke's specify that it's only the Old Testament part that they are swearing on when they are in court 🤔.
So when the inevitable reality show arrives, what do we think it's going to be named? Banging On with The Burkes?
The Only Way Is Burke TOWIB.
Just replace up with Burke and its a perfect fit!
The context was an interview with the Evening Standard during the party leadership election in 2022. They interviewed all the candidates and put the same questions to them; one of the questions was "are you a person of faith?"
As for why Church of England, the parsimonious explanation is, because she's CofE; it's the tradition in which she was raised and, while she's not regularly practising, she has never left it.
Do CofE-ers have the option of filling in a form, I wonder…
What an idiotic question to be asking a politician in the first place.
Genuine question: do you think a politician's beliefs on religious matters should never be discussed, or are you just saying that the question should have been differently phrased?
a politicians religious beliefs (or any lack thereof) are of no bearing imo anyway.
is it just me or is anyone else slightly freaked out at a quick glance of todays google doodle and a resemblance to Enoch minus the glasses?
Generally speaking I'd agree , on the assumption however that their religious beliefs do not have an undue impact on their ability to serve ALL the people they represent.
I don't care who you pray to in church or in your home . but if you bring it to the committee room and attempt to apply your religious views to everyones rights , then yes.. it matters.
Politics and political decisions should always be agnostic.
Agree with your summation there.
I normally would have agreed too, but when I think about it, I would want to know if the candidate I am being asked to vote for, has the kind of beliefs that Enoch has.
I would not want them as my public representative.
I think you’d find the answer to that based on the party they aligned with to be fair 🤣
Unless they're standing as an Independant.
But you're right too, in relation to parties - for instance, Aontú. They would never get a vote from me based on their party policies.
What should only ever be a personal matter is dragged up in such a way as to elevate personal faith into a positive quality - honestly answering No is not going to look good alongside your opponents coming out with the usual vague blather.
You'd have heard of anyone like Enoch long before you met them or stood for a seat. They couldn't help but be known.
Not necessarily, not everyone who shares Enoch's beliefs is as overt as Enoch or anywhere near it. The Burkes are in a class of their own.
Maybe but personally I have never seen or met an introvert preacher.
Banging with the Burkes?
A tour of Ireland's top meat-market nightclubs.
Burke by name, Berk by nature.
(As in Berkeley Hunt)
Anyone here have an idea of what 6 figure sum Enoch has just added to his bill (that he’ll never pay anyway)? https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/07/18/enoch-burke-must-pay-newspapers-costs-of-successfully-defending-his-defamation-claim/
One advantage (for everyone else, not the debtor) of having a pile of unpaid court debt is that someone you attempt to sue in future can ask the judge for surety against costs; and on failing to get it, have the case kicked out.
Well, he'll just appeal the amount, whatever it is,and on we go again.
So when he is dismissed eventually and inevitably appeals that decision to Court, the Department or Wilson’s can ask for surety and very possibly end this farce? Nice.
https://www.thejournal.ie/devoid-of-merit-enoch-burke-loses-high-court-order-against-order-to-stay-away-from-school-6441570-Jul2024/
Nicely summed up
“As it happened, I released Mr Burke from prison on 28 June 2024 notwithstanding that he had continued to refuse to purge his contempt. I reminded him that the order of Owens J remains valid, and that he must comply with it.“He has been imprisoned because he chooses not to obey the order of the court – the very same court which he now expects to come to his aid and uphold his allegations of breach of his constitutional rights, notwithstanding his refusal to contest the original trial or to appeal the judgment of the court.”
“As it happened, I released Mr Burke from prison on 28 June 2024 notwithstanding that he had continued to refuse to purge his contempt. I reminded him that the order of Owens J remains valid, and that he must comply with it.
“He has been imprisoned because he chooses not to obey the order of the court – the very same court which he now expects to come to his aid and uphold his allegations of breach of his constitutional rights, notwithstanding his refusal to contest the original trial or to appeal the judgment of the court.”
He's not having a good week, is he?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/40cb32a3ba6db9b489172ed5b19906a0.svg)