Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

2

Comments

  • #32
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,625 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    There is already a *comprehensive* thread on Burkas. We don't need spillover here. New posts on that subject will be deleted/moved.


  • #33
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    o.k.



    it seems that both michael and b.b. are in dispute over freedom of conscience. both cite it in their arguments.

    can all parties here tell me what that phrase means to them personally.

    im all ears. i dont want to jump the gun.


  • #34
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    thx for ur reply mr. p.


  • #35
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It does but obviously wearing an burkha or any other item of clothing does not fall under

    "are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. "
    Responded in the "correct" thread.

    MrP


  • #36
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    thx for ur reply mr. p.
    You're welcome. Are you going to show me which of my corrections were incorrect?

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    mr.p.

    i can answer ur question. but, im not gonna make u a sacrificial lamb in this thread....or,let others hide behind ur shield of honesty.

    i asked you one question...you ansewered factually and honestly....much credit. it was an unfair burden i placed on you.

    if you have family or kids....i give you my word i wont offend their rights or freedoms or responsibilities.

    lets form a queue for replies to questions.

    and let all those who thanked mr.p. explain themselves.

    mr. p. deserves a little more defence than that.

    if they cannot explain themselves mr. p.....ill not leave this thread without answering your question.

    in the meantime...take a backseat...you deserve it. let others take the burden...ill have a reply for em.

    u have earnt my respect...right or wrong....none of us are infallable...


  • #38
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    mr.p.

    i can answer ur question. but, im not gonna make u a sacrificial lamb in this thread....or,let others hide behind ur shield of honesty.

    i asked you one question...you ansewered factually and honestly....much credit. it was an unfair burden i placed on you.

    if you have family or kids....i give you my word i wont offend their rights or freedoms or responsibilities.

    lets form a queue for replies to questions.

    and let all those who thanked mr.p. explain themselves.

    mr. p. deserves a little more defence than that.

    if they cannot explain themselves mr. p.....ill not leave this thread without answering your question.

    in the meantime...take a backseat...you deserve it. let others take the burden...ill have a reply for em.

    u have earnt my respect...right or wrong....none of us are infallible...
    Are you drunk? Seems like you have had a good night. Whilst your concern for my wellbeing is touching, it is somewhat misplaced. I am a big boy and I can look after myself.

    You said my posts were incorrect so it is up to you to explain what parts of my posts you think are incorrect and why. I will then likely respond. Nice and simple. My exams are over for the year so it is not really a burden. I am not sure I understand why people who thanked my posts have to explain themselves.

    MrP


  • #39
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    mr.p.

    what are you defending? ive already said earlier in this thread i trust my post versus yours.

    accussations of drunkeness... whilst the dear leader and followers put you up on the ramparts?

    im sure you are a big guy mr. p.....

    why not reread this thread...and figure out why the thanks are dropping off.

    if they pick up again i wont ask you to explain!

    ill ask michael.


  • #40
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    mr.p.

    what are you defending? ive already said earlier in this thread i trust my post versus yours.
    I am struggling to suck any meaning out of your posts, if think that by saying you trust your post over mine you are saying that you think my post is wrong in some way, which is where my earlier request came from, but I will get back to that...
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    accussations of drunkeness...
    If it walks like a duck...
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    whilst the dear leader and followers put you up on the ramparts?
    What? OD you think we have a rota or something? That it was my turn on the late shift to "protect" the forum from random drunken theists?
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    why not reread this thread...and figure out why the thanks are dropping off.

    if they pick up again i wont ask you to explain!

    ill ask michael.
    What does this even mean?

    Let me summarise things for you:

    You make a couple of inaccurate statements, for example:
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    we did not sign up to such an arrangement....at least i hope we did not.


    I responded with a couple of posts explaining how things actually work, as opposed to how you seem to think they works. You responded to this this meaningless garbage and went off on some stupid tangent about how Michael had not thanked my post.


    As a result, Michael thanked my post and posted this:

    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I'm afraid my thanking record is somewhat erratic.

    I've now thanked Mr P for correcting Lucy, and thanked Lucy for reminding me to do so.



    You then responded this this gem:

    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    the other thing was...im surprised you thanked mr.p for correcting me!

    i dont think he did. im quite happy for my post and mr.p,s correction to stand side by side.

    quite an incorrect correction, in my view...


    And this is the post that I am referring to when I ask you to point out the mistakes in my posts. Michael has said I corrected your posts, you have responded by saying I have not corrected your posts. The implication of this is, considering I made my posts with the intention of correcting yours, being that you consider my posts to be in some way incorrect. I would like you to tell me where my posts are incorrect.


    This has nothing to do with thanks dropping off; nothing to do with a burden I have to carry; nothing to do with some kind of imaginary rota that you seem to think operates in this forum and most certainly is not something that other people on this forum have to pick up.


    You have said that, compared to yours, my posts relating to Ireland's responsibilities in Europe relating to the treaties and agreements they have signed is incorrect. I want you to point out to me the bit that are incorrect. Very simple really. This isn't really the forum to declare someone's post incorrect but not actually say how or why.


    MrP


  • #41
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Michael Nugent,

    You've only given one non-commital response in 5 weeks. Any chance of a response...?

    I can't see how it is anything other than shilling for Atheist Ireland if you won't even discuss what you are promoting and advertising.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79239990&postcount=29


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Michael Nugent,

    You've only given one non-commital response in 5 weeks. Any chance of a response...?
    Sorry, I had forgotten about this. Thanks for reminding me.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I can't see how it is anything other than shilling for Atheist Ireland if you won't even discuss what you are promoting and advertising.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79239990&postcount=29
    Do you seriously believe I won’t discuss things? I’ll respond when I have time.


  • #43
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I can't see how it is anything other than shilling for Atheist Ireland if you won't even discuss what you are promoting and advertising.
    Brown, can you please try and be a bit more civil -- it should make people more likely to reply to your requests, as well as raising the forum tone.


  • #44
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    mr.p.

    what are you defending? ive already said earlier in this thread i trust my post versus yours.

    accussations of drunkeness... whilst the dear leader and followers put you up on the ramparts?

    im sure you are a big guy mr. p.....

    why not reread this thread...and figure out why the thanks are dropping off.

    if they pick up again i wont ask you to explain!

    ill ask michael.

    Mr Nugent's proposal are about making less than 10% of the population more important and better funded that the other 90%.

    Religious oaths.. Yes this should be changed. It should be an Oath to the state.

    Rights of the Child... I will agree with Him if the rights cover all the child's life and not just when its born.

    Secular schools.. Ok as long as the majority want them. Don't rail road everyone into your point of view unless you have consensus.

    And finally... We are a sovereign country.. And won't be bullied by anyone. Instead of running to the UN.. why not lobby Irish Politicians for your cause. Look for Consensus in Ireland. You have not learned much from history if you think the Irish are going to bow down in front of a foreign authority.

    your (Mr. Nugent) Atheist and secular views have a right to be respected... But in the same token my religious views and values should also be respected. My grandparents, Parents, myself and my children all went to a religious school. Why should over a centenary of tradition be extinguished because an atheist family arrives and does not like the ethos? Who want "Their" secular school? Do we not have a right to protect our culture, out tradition, our history? Why do we need to change?

    If you don't like the status Quo.. Change it with dialogue and consensus.


  • #45
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    I'm starting to think I should start a feedback thread to request that the words "culture" and "tradition" be blocked by the swear filter because I know I find the "f-word" and "c-word"s much less disgusting.


  • #46
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    And finally... We are a sovereign country.. And won't be bullied by anyone. Instead of running to the UN.. why not lobby Irish Politicians for your cause. Look for Consensus in Ireland..

    ....because they refuse to even obey the Irish supreme court.
    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    your (Mr. Nugent) Atheist and secular views have a right to be respected... But in the same token my religious views and values should also be respected. My grandparents, Parents, myself and my children all went to a religious school. Why should over a centenary of tradition be extinguished because an atheist family arrives and does not like the ethos? Who want "Their" secular school? Do we not have a right to protect our culture, out tradition, our history? Why do we need to change?

    .

    Atheist, agnostic, orthodox, protestant, jew and muslim. You seem to think these schools are your property. They aren't. The state funds them, we fund the state, and not all of us are catholic. If you want a "catholic" education, why should the state fund it to the detriment of others?


  • #47
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?


  • #48
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sarky wrote: »
    Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?

    Because the game is nearly up, and they know it.


  • #49
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    Sarky wrote: »
    Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Because the game is nearly up, and they know it.

    Thats telling em


  • #50
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    Thats telling em

    You've some point you wish to add?


  • #51
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Nodin wrote: »
    If you want a "catholic" education, why should the state fund it to the detriment of others?
    Sarky wrote: »
    Why do the only Catholics getting vocal about this have to sound so... well, spiteful?
    There's your answer.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Brown kBomber wrote: »
    Michael Nugent,

    You've only given one non-commital response in 5 weeks. Any chance of a response...?
    Sorry, I had forgotten about this. Thanks for reminding me.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I can't see how it is anything other than shilling for Atheist Ireland if you won't even discuss what you are promoting and advertising.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79239990&postcount=29
    Do you seriously believe I won’t discuss things? I’ll respond when I have time.
    I'm not asking for blood here. All I am asking is for you to clarify whether a. You fully advocate the conventions in their entirety which includes the individual's right to freedom to express their religion e.g. a Muslim woman's right to wear her Burks and it also grants the parents of a child to decide the child's religion.

    In which case your lobby group are USING the conventions to push your agenda.

    Or if it's. B. That you are not actually an advocate of the conventions but are
    Selectively extracting the sections that suit you and applying a narrow interpretation of them that are favourable to your lobby group.

    In which case you are ABUSING the conventions to push your agenda IMO.


  • #53
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    BB why can't you accept an answer from Mr P?

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Freedom of religion is covered by Article 9. Article 9, like several of the other rights, it is a qualified right.
    Section 2 is the interesting part and clearly allows for restrictions in this area.
    2.Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    MrP


  • #54
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    And the comprehensive answer Michael already gave you;
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Although, as it happens, I think such a ban is a crude mechanism for addressing the problem of women being forced to wear such garments, and I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions, it is not a natural extension of what you have quoted that we should oppose such a ban, either at all or in the strongest possible terms.

    If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.


    You're again creating 'natural extensions' where they don't exist. There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.


  • #55
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    recedite wrote: »
    BB why can't you accept an answer from Mr P?
    Because, and with respect it's nonsense.

    Let's take another look at it:
    Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    The burden of proof lies with whomever is claiming that wearing a burkha or a Christian cross or whatever else is a threat to public safety, public order, health, moral or the rights or freedoms of others.


  • #56
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    recedite wrote: »
    And the comprehensive answer Michael already gave you;

    It's not a "comprehensive answer". Here it is again:
    Originally Posted by Michael Nugent viewpost.gif
    Although, as it happens, I think such a ban is a crude mechanism for addressing the problem of women being forced to wear such garments, and I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions, it is not a natural extension of what you have quoted that we should oppose such a ban, either at all or in the strongest possible terms.

    If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.


    You're again creating 'natural extensions' where they don't exist. There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.
    Nothing "comprehensive" about it at all. He begins by talking about the issue of people being forced to wear particular items of clothing which has nothing to do with anything.

    And then avoiding the point I raised that the Covenants that Atheist Ireland are pushing to improve the lot of atheists also guarantee the freedom of expression for all - including Muslim women who choose to wear a burka.

    His other point again doesn't address my point. I never raised the covenant as a question of belief of the child but of belief of the parents/guradians.

    4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

    This section gives parents of children the right to select the religous affiliation of the children in their care and therefore the right to answer for them in the census.


  • #57
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Because, and with respect it's nonsense.

    Let's take another look at it:


    The burden of proof lies with whomever is claiming that wearing a burkha or a Christian cross or whatever else is a threat to public safety, public order, health, moral or the rights or freedoms of others.

    I would consider the subjugation of 50% of the population to be something that should be prevented, therefore, steps to prevent this subjugation would, for me, fall under the exception.

    MrP


  • #58
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I would consider the subjugation of 50% of the population to be something that should be prevented, therefore, steps to prevent this subjugation would, for me, fall under the exception.

    MrP
    Your hyperbole only fuels the negative stereotypes of Muslims which leads to further marginalisation of Muslim women. If your concern is genuine you should consider this in future.

    Your hyperbole aside what you are describing is a seperate issue, A family member forcing another to wear a particular garment is entirely seperate from a person choosing to excercise their rights of religious expression by choosing to wear a religious garment.


  • #59
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Your hyperbole only fuels the negative stereotypes of Muslims which leads to further marginalisation of Muslim women. If your concern is genuine you should consider this in future.

    Your hyperbole aside what you are describing is a seperate issue, A family member forcing another to wear a particular garment is entirely seperate from a person choosing to excercise their rights of religious expression by choosing to wear a religious garment.
    Which brings us full circle. I, and many other people, do not believe that any, or at least very, very few women, actually choose to wear it.

    It is a tool of subjugation, that is not hyperbole, and due to the manner in which those who "choose" to wear it are presented with the "choice" saying they have chosen to wear it is worthless. It puts Hobson's Choice to shame.

    MrP


  • #60
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The burden of proof lies with whomever is claiming that wearing a burkha or a Christian cross or whatever else is a threat to public safety.....
    No, any "burden of proof" is just on whether or not a person is complying with the law. Separately, any State law has to be in accordance with democratic principles and justified by the above possible threats to the public good.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Nothing "comprehensive" about it at all. He begins by talking about the issue of people being forced to wear particular items of clothing which has nothing to do with anything.
    Do they not have State laws in certain undemocratic Islamic States requiring women to dress in a certain way, and special "religious police" roaming the streets to enforce these laws?

    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ....And then avoiding the point I raised that the Covenants that Atheist Ireland are pushing to improve the lot of atheists also guarantee the freedom of expression for all - including Muslim women who choose to wear a burka.
    Again, such freedoms or rights are not guaranteed in an absolute way, as already discussed above. The same applies for atheists, muslims and everyone. Responsibilities come with rights.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This section gives parents of children the right to select the religous affiliation of the children in their care and therefore the right to answer for them in the census.
    Not sure what the census has to do with this but.......
    As far as I remember, only one person needs to fill out the census, someone commonly known as the "head of the household" or at least someone taking responsibility for the accuracy of the census form, and this person signs it. Other people can fill out their own sections if they like, but if they skip out bits or are absent on the night, the person signing the form must fill out those sections for them. Kids don't fill it out on their own.
    That is not to say this person can dictate the religion of everyone else in the house. They just ascertain the religion and tick the appropriate box.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Your hyperbole only fuels the negative stereotypes of Muslims which leads to further marginalisation of Muslim women.
    That's a bit like saying that noticing that cars sometimes knock down and kill pedestrians "fuels the negative stereotypes" about cars, and their sadly hurt feelings.

    You really will have to do better than that, in this forum at least.


Advertisement