Secularism on RTE's "the Frontline" tomorrow

recedite · 21-03-2012 10:09PM

beerbuddy wrote: »

The main problem is to determine what is constitutional law and what is not.

No, they don't worry too much about that in the UK. Maybe its just you worrying?

They cannot repeal the act of succession as it will mean a total redefinition of the state

Incorrect, they repealed it last year to allow Kate (nee) Middleton's possible first born child to be eligible, even if a girl, over any later male siblings.
Presumably then, if that couple decided to raise their kids as catholic, and all the commonwealth heads supported them in that, in a vote, then the notorious religious discrimination in the Act of Succession could be repealed just as quickly. But all that monarchy stuff is archaic nonsense anyway. Power is in the parliament.

You still haven't showed me the anti-catholic religious laws relating to the PM

The fact is, if someone who happens to be a catholic rises to be a leader of a UK political party, and that party wins a majority in the next general election, then the next PM of the UK will be RC. Simple as.

jank · 22-03-2012 03:01AM

Cossax wrote: »

What referendum? You're just making assumptions now.

The RCC didn't want divorce to be legal in the Free State (which it was), so they got the government to make it illegal in the mid 20s and then enshrine its illegality in the 37 constitution.

I think you are the person making assumptions there, and why are you going on about Ireland in the 1920's? But if you must....

Again a very easy "assumption" to say that the RCC simply stood up, spoke up against divorce, thus all the people and politicians in the new Free-State quivered with fear and submitted to their will.
Makes great fiction but doesn't bear resemblance to reality. If the RCC was really that powerful surely we would have had a fully fledge theocracy, so i ask you why we didn't become one? Hmmm, maybe, just maybe the RCC were not as powerful as one might think. Powerful yes, but THAT powerful? No.

Take your head of out Irish history of the 1920's and look around the western world. There wasn't many places that were free and liberal in terms of 2012. It was illegal to marry an 1/8 native American in the USA, African American 1/4 I think. Do you want to talk about race relations in the US, or Europe? I suppose the RCC was responsible for that?
Of course you only have to look at what was to become of Europe and Russia in the coming 15 years. The world then was a pretty stuffy place where ever you went. There was no great Eden of liberalism back then.

I love that some people think that Ireland was some kind of oppressive Stalinist regime, where random people were swept of the street and sent to religious gulags on a daily basis and by the thousands. "Repent or Die!!!!!"

Ireland, although not the most liberal of places wasn't that bad a place to live in the terms of those times. It was only in the 1950's before Dev fecked off that it was clear that Ireland needed to liberalise itself. The reason why we didn't is because of external (some internal such as Dev) forces that kept us locked away for the best part of 20 years, namely the 2nd World War. With the 1970's and our entry into the EEC, Gareth Fitzgerald and various referendum there was a clear path to the social liberalisation of Ireland which by and large we have now achieved.

Ireland, is a pretty liberal place now, change can be slow but generally we are an accepting open minded bunch.

beerbuddy · 22-03-2012 10:11AM

recedite wrote: »

No, they don't worry too much about that in the UK. Maybe its just you worrying?

Incorrect, they repealed it last year to allow Kate (nee) Middleton's possible first born child to be eligible, even if a girl, over any later male siblings.
Presumably then, if that couple decided to raise their kids as catholic, and all the commonwealth heads supported them in that, in a vote, then the notorious religious discrimination in the Act of Succession could be repealed just as quickly. But all that monarchy stuff is archaic nonsense anyway. Power is in the parliament.

You still haven't showed me the anti-catholic religious laws relating to the PM

The fact is, if someone who happens to be a catholic rises to be a leader of a UK political party, and that party wins a majority in the next general election, then the next PM of the UK will be RC. Simple as.

Just for interest.

http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/chur…

Tony Blair stated that one of the reason's he delayed converting to the Catholic Church was that he as Prime Minister was responsible for ecclesiastical affairs in the Church of England.

Most Americans don't know it, but the Prime Minister does play a key role in the appointment of the highest office holder in the Church of England: the Archepiscopus Cantuar or the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the highest ranking bishop in England and serves as the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion.
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/12/role…

So how can a catholic do this.Can the Pope nominate a chief Rabbi dont think so.

Again i repeat tony blair

recedite · 22-03-2012 01:13PM

^^^ Your links are defective.

Cossax · 22-03-2012 02:44PM

jank wrote: »

I think you are the person making assumptions there, and why are you going on about Ireland in the 1920's? But if you must....

I reckon it might be because we were discussing the influence of the RCC since independence/throughout the history of independent Ireland. It was only one of several examples I used and it was one you picked out, which you made assumptions about.

jank wrote: »

Again a very easy "assumption" to say that the RCC simply stood up, spoke up against divorce, thus all the people and politicians in the new Free-State quivered with fear and submitted to their will.

That's pretty much what happened. The RCC wanted something that was legal made illegal and it was.

jank wrote: »

Makes great fiction but doesn't bear resemblance to reality. If the RCC was really that powerful surely we would have had a fully fledge theocracy, so i ask you why we didn't become one? Hmmm, maybe, just maybe the RCC were not as powerful as one might think. Powerful yes, but THAT powerful? No.

I don't get what you're aiming for here? Just because Ireland wasn't a theocracy doesn't mean the RCC had no power.

jank wrote: »

Take your head of out Irish history of the 1920's and look around the western world. There wasn't many places that were free and liberal in terms of 2012. It was illegal to marry an 1/8 native American in the USA, African American 1/4 I think. Do you want to talk about race relations in the US, or Europe? I suppose the RCC was responsible for that?
Of course you only have to look at what was to become of Europe and Russia in the coming 15 years. The world then was a pretty stuffy place where ever you went. There was no great Eden of liberalism back then.

I love that some people think that Ireland was some kind of oppressive Stalinist regime, where random people were swept of the street and sent to religious gulags on a daily basis and by the thousands. "Repent or Die!!!!!"

Ireland, although not the most liberal of places wasn't that bad a place to live in the terms of those times. It was only in the 1950's before Dev fecked off that it was clear that Ireland needed to liberalise itself. The reason why we didn't is because of external (some internal such as Dev) forces that kept us locked away for the best part of 20 years, namely the 2nd World War. With the 1970's and our entry into the EEC, Gareth Fitzgerald and various referendum there was a clear path to the social liberalisation of Ireland which by and large we have now achieved.

Ireland, is a pretty liberal place now, change can be slow but generally we are an accepting open minded bunch.

Strawmen, red herrings and other irrelevant points not related to my post, so I won't deal with them.

jank · 22-03-2012 03:28PM

Cossax wrote: »

I reckon it might be because we were discussing the influence of the RCC since independence/throughout the history of independent Ireland. It was only one of several examples I used and it was one you picked out, which you made assumptions about.

We were talking about divorce which has been legal due to a referendum. RCC campiagned against it but lost. RCC must not be all that powerful if it had to first campaign and then lose a referendum (all be it in 1995, much too late I agree!)

Cossax wrote: »

That's pretty much what happened. The RCC wanted something that was legal made illegal and it was.

OK, lets say for the sake of argument in that instance (divorce law 1920's) that did happen. Why then did Dev NOT make the RCC the official religion of Ireland. Surely if they were that powerful as you continually say, it would have been a piece of cake, right? Therefore by that fact alone your assertions that the RCC got all it wanted, whenever it wanted is wrong. To prove me wrong you have to prove that the RCC DID get 100% of its way as per your original and subsequent assertion. Go ahead.

(as an aside as I mentioned divorce was not necessarily common back in the 1920's around the world, a point totally ignored.)

Cossax wrote: »

I don't get what you're aiming for here? Just because Ireland wasn't a theocracy doesn't mean the RCC had no power.

Did I ever say they had no power, In fact I did say they did have power and were powerful (re read some of my posts). My entire argument is the amount of power they had and exerted. Some people like you say or think that they were ALL POWERFUL, I am just merely pointing out that they weren't (a fact which I have proved very simply). Again prove me wrong if you would like with any facts.

Cossax wrote: »

Strawmen, red herrings and other irrelevant points not related to my post, so I won't deal with them.

I was building a context and time stamp to the argument. Too often people apply morals and liberties of today to history and the past, which is ridiculous, unreasonable and factually lazy.

Cossax · 22-03-2012 07:01PM

jank wrote: »

We were talking about divorce which has been legal due to a referendum. RCC campiagned against it but lost. RCC must not be all that powerful if it had to first campaign and then lose a referendum (all be it in 1995, much too late I agree!)

Since when are we talking about more recent divorce?

jank wrote: »

OK, lets say for the sake of argument in that instance (divorce law 1920's) that did happen. Why then did Dev NOT make the RCC the official religion of Ireland. Surely if they were that powerful as you continually say, it would have been a piece of cake, right? Therefore by that fact alone your assertions that the RCC got all it wanted, whenever it wanted is wrong. To prove me wrong you have to prove that the RCC DID get 100% of its way as per your original and subsequent assertion. Go ahead.

(as an aside as I mentioned divorce was not necessarily common back in the 1920's around the world, a point totally ignored.)

Why does that last line matter? It was LEGAL in Ireland after independence until the RCC got it make illegal.

jank wrote: »

Did I ever say they had no power, In fact I did say they did have power and were powerful (re read some of my posts). My entire argument is the amount of power they had and exerted. Some people like you say or think that they were ALL POWERFUL, I am just merely pointing out that they weren't (a fact which I have proved very simply). Again prove me wrong if you would like with any facts.

I was building a context and time stamp to the argument. Too often people apply morals and liberties of today to history and the past, which is ridiculous, unreasonable and factually lazy.

Irrelevant when we're discussing something that, as I pointed out, was already legal.

I have already provided you with evidence of the RCC's power in Ireland. You're trying to minimise their role but this is an organisation that managed to topple an Irish government and got its way on 90% of the issues it wanted until more recent decades.
You seem to be arguing that because this wasn't a theocracy (those damn Republicans who, you know, won the War of Independence getting in the way) with a state religion (just a special constitutional recognition instead, boohoo) that somehow they weren't all that powerful when they quite demonstrably were.

I wonder why someone would argue that.

jank · 23-03-2012 03:32AM

Now

Cossax wrote: »

I have already provided you with evidence of the RCC's power in Ireland. You're trying to minimise their role but this is an organisation that managed to topple an Irish government and got its way on 90% of the issues it wanted until more recent decades..

Before

Cossax wrote: »

Nope, the State was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told...

I am happy you have conceded the point.

Cossax wrote: »

You seem to be arguing that because this wasn't a theocracy (those damn Republicans who, you know, won the War of Independence getting in the way) with a state religion (just a special constitutional recognition instead, boohoo) that somehow they weren't all that powerful when they quite demonstrably were.

I wonder why someone would argue that.

I never argued that they werent powerful, indeed I said that about 2 or 3 times in this thread alone that they were. I argued that they were ALL powerful, that there was some checks and balances against them.
That is all I am saying.

Now if you want to discuss the degree of power the RCC had then that is a new topic again......

Cossax · 23-03-2012 12:13PM

jank wrote: »

I am happy you have conceded the point.

No, your comprehension has failed

Here's the post I was replying to with your 'before' quote, maybe I should have highlighted the specific sentence but I presumed it was obvious what I was replying to - it could only really be that given the context of your post.

jank wrote: »

That is a very convenient catch all theory but really doesn't bare resemblance to the pragmatism of the state. The state simply wanted to "hide" or at least ignore the problem of young unmarried girls who are pregnant out of wedlock. Blame the state as much if not more than blaming religion. This happened in other countries other than Ireland as well, so you cant blame it all on the RCC.

Some religious orders were of tremendous help to these types of girls who were abandoned by the state but that disappears from view and the narrative.

*awaits knuckle cracking and furious retorts to my last point*

So you're trying to take my meaning from one sentence which was in reply to a specific point and expand it to say that I said the RCC was all powerful and ran the place like a theocracy rather than 'just' being an incredibly powerful influence on the state which could topple governments and reverse government policy.

jank · 23-03-2012 02:36PM

Cossax wrote: »

No, your comprehension has failed

Here's the post I was replying to with your 'before' quote, maybe I should have highlighted the specific sentence but I presumed it was obvious what I was replying to - it could only really be that given the context of your post.

Here is your first reply to this issue.

Cossax wrote: »

Nope, the State was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told.

What religious orders were particularly helpful, seeing as you brought it up?

Please note the bolded statement

Does "happy to do whatever they were told" = "got its way on 90% of the issues" as you said in previously
Eh, no it doesn't, Just admit you were wrong and I will leave it at that.

Cossax wrote: »

So you're trying to take my meaning from one sentence which was in reply to a specific point and expand it to say that I said the RCC was all powerful and ran the place like a theocracy rather than 'just' being an incredibly powerful influence on the state which could topple governments and reverse government policy.

I take my meaning from words you write which I have mentioned now about 3 times, if you confuse yourself and roll back on what you actually meant then that cannot be my fault.

Also tell me what Irish governments the RCC toppled and how?

Cossax · 23-03-2012 06:26PM

Well done, you don't know what context is, even after I explained it to you. :rolleyes:

One last time, I quoted a post of yours (referring to laundries and such) and I said the State were in thrall to the RCC and were happy to do what they were told (banging unmarried mothers in there). You've since expanded my meaning into me arguing that the RCC ran the place/their word was law which you proceeded to 'disprove'. That's called a strawman, something you appear to be quite familiar with having read the other thread.

Now, maybe the error was mine for not being more clear to someone who appears to be very fond of constructing strawmen.

As far as I recall, they only toppled the one government so I'll give you that I should have said "and managed to topple a government" (I specifically used the singular in a previous post) instead of using the plural (which I mistakenly used the second time). Well done you!

jank · 24-03-2012 03:20AM

Cossax wrote: »

Well done, you don't know what context is, even after I explained it to you. :rolleyes:

The context is that you said something absolute and all encompassing in relation to the RCC, if you said "Nope, the State was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told" and added "in this particular instance" I wouldn't have said anything. Maybe you need to explain yourself better, not my fault if you got caught out and attempt stuttering, spluttering turn around.

Cossax wrote: »

One last time, I quoted a post of yours (referring to laundries and such) and I said the State were in thrall to the RCC and were happy to do what they were told (banging unmarried mothers in there). You've since expanded my meaning into me arguing that the RCC ran the place/their word was law which you proceeded to 'disprove'. That's called a strawman, something you appear to be quite familiar with having read the other thread.

Again you saying something different to what you said initially.
Do what you are told, is singular, do whatever you are told is finite, definate and all encompassing. Surely you know the difference?

I expanded the argument because your initial choice of words were poor and you know that know, as you have rolled back on your position.

Lucy8080 · 24-03-2012 03:57AM

I watched this programme a little bit after it was initially aired.

I sometimes think we are told what groups we are supposed to belong to.

For me , the athiest ,catholic,muslim,and evangelical voices on this programme represented their own interests versus the interests of each other.

The priest actually came across well and balanced.

I think its in all parents interest to have a curriculum they welcome as in the interests of their children.

The inclusion/exclusion of personal religious leanings can be accomodated outside the agreed basics of education.

We can easily accomodate everyones educational needs....religion ,table tennis and athiesm...can be played at a lunchtime club or after school.

Cossax · 24-03-2012 04:38AM

jank wrote: »

The context is that you said something absolute and all encompassing in relation to the RCC, if you said "Nope, the State was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told" and added "in this particular instance" I wouldn't have said anything. Maybe you need to explain yourself better, not my fault if you got caught out and attempt stuttering, spluttering turn around.

Again you saying something different to what you said initially.
Do what you are told, is singular, do whatever you are told is finite, definate and all encompassing. Surely you know the difference?

I expanded the argument because your initial choice of words were poor and you know that know, as you have rolled back on your position.

This will be my final post engaging with you.

You read what you wanted in my post and assigned your own meaning to it. I've explained my meaning and you're still trying to argue what I meant in it.
In between you've been busy constructing strawmen.

To be perfectly and abundantly clear:
I never said the State did every single thing the RCC said, that'd be a silly position to hold and an impossible one to back up.
I quoted a post with a specific inference when I referred to the State and the RCC.
You haven't accepted that and now you're trying to argue over my use of 'whatever' and 'what'. :rolleyes:

jank · 24-03-2012 10:26AM

Cossax wrote: »

I never said the State did every single thing the RCC said, that'd be a silly position to hold and an impossible one to back up.

Sigh: clearly you did

Nope, the State was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told.

I will let others be the judge of that.

'You haven't accepted that and now you're trying to argue over my use of 'whatever' and 'what'.

Oxford definition of whatever

relative pronoun & determiner
used to emphasize a lack of restriction in referring to any thing or amount, no matter what:
[as pronoun]:
do whatever you like
[as determiner]:
take whatever action is needed

I would suggest in future before posting such absolutes to check if its true or not. That is all.

Sarky · 24-03-2012 11:33AM

I'm "others" and I think you're being ridiculously pedantic.

MrPudding · 24-03-2012 11:59AM

Sarky wrote: »

I'm "others" and I think you're being ridiculously pedantic.

As do I.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato · 24-03-2012 12:05PM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I think its in all parents interest to have a curriculum they welcome as in the interests of their children.

The inclusion/exclusion of personal religious leanings can be accomodated outside the agreed basics of education.

That is exactly what the National School system was established in the 19th century to do.. but it was hijacked by the various churches. It is what ET does today, but few parents have the choice of an ET school.

We can easily accomodate everyones educational needs....religion ,table tennis and athiesm...can be played at a lunchtime club or after school.

So I should send my kids to atheism classes?? :P Here we go again, so many theists think that atheism is a belief system (or, in effect, just another religion) and must therefore have dogmas, sacred texts etc. just like a religion does.

jank · 24-03-2012 01:52PM

Sarky wrote: »

I'm "others" and I think you're being ridiculously pedantic.

While also not challenging what I am saying because its true and reasonable.

Atheist love to preach about being logical, rational and true etc. Maybe one should be so all the time especially when it doesn't suit their argument.

Doc_Savage · 24-03-2012 02:06PM

jank wrote: »

While also not challenging what I am saying because its true and reasonable.

Atheist love to preach about being logical, rational and true etc. Maybe one should be so all the time especially when it doesn't suit their argument.

it's like you think the lads claim to be infallible... none of them made that claim and i think they're right to call you pedantic, you're twisting their words and when they address it you're derailing the conversation. Straw-manning as it were!

robindch · 24-03-2012 11:41PM

jank wrote: »

Atheist love to preach about being logical, rational and true etc.

You got that the wrong way round. Atheists put a lot of store by being logical, rational and accurate. It's the religious who preach and who think, by never bothering to try anything else lest it punctures their worldview, think that everybody else does too.

Nailz · 25-03-2012 03:20AM

Sat down to watch that it on RTÉ Player on the PS3 last night — this rage face describes it...

jank · 25-03-2012 01:42PM

Doc_Savage wrote: »

it's like you think the lads claim to be infallible... none of them made that claim and i think they're right to call you pedantic, you're twisting their words and when they address it you're derailing the conversation. Straw-manning as it were!

You mean atheists are humans too!

I kid, I kid!

jank · 25-03-2012 01:45PM

robindch wrote: »

You got that the wrong way round. Atheists put a lot of store by being logical, rational and accurate. It's the religious who preach and who think, by never bothering to try anything else lest it punctures their worldview, think that everybody else does too.

Thats exactly it Robin! You have 90% of the world down to a tee! You should write a book based on your insight. Might change the world!

robindch · 25-03-2012 03:06PM

jank wrote: »

You have 90% of the world down to a tee!

Why, thanks!

jank wrote: »

You should write a book based on your insight.

It would be true, so it wouldn't be a big seller amongst the religious unfortunately

jank · 26-03-2012 02:34AM

May I suggest a title. How about "Athesits are just better!" or "How to have an ego like an Athesit"

Sarky · 26-03-2012 12:31PM

Do athesits not believe in chairs?

Galvasean · 26-03-2012 12:34PM

I'd buy Robin's book..... Only if there's pictures.... And he draws them himself.

Sarky · 26-03-2012 12:37PM

In crayons.

Galvasean · 26-03-2012 12:40PM

And no cheating, ie: letting hi kid do it for him.

Secularism on RTE's "the Frontline" tomorrow

Comments