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

Bill for secular marriages passes in Senead, but it needs to be amended

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    I'd have said that most of them are fear derived from subverting an established authority or tradition, in the sense of Jonathan Haidt's ideas on moral foundations.

    Does this disagree with what I said? If you see that established authority or tradition as being religion, then a general populaces fairly mindless adherence to doctrine they don't actually believe (as Irish so-called "catholics" are wont to do) would appear as uninformed (almost fearful) resistance to things like homosexuality. They are used to having such thinking done for them and will defend it right up until the point where it effects them personally, where they just ignore it (like condoms or sex before marriage or anything in the old testament).


  • Options
    #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm not that interested in what christians would say (christians aren't known for being vocally honest about their true opinions), I'm more interested in what their actions, and arguments, say about their true intentions.

    What do you mean by this?

    If you're implying that you don't believe that Christians are honest about what they believe, then I'd have to say this shows a fundamental problem in atheist / Christian dialogue until you make clear what you mean by this.

    Why don't you trust the sincerity of Christians when they speak about their beliefs in the way that they trust your sincerity when you speak about the underpinnings of your position?


  • Options
    #64
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    It was pretty damn obvious what he meant. Stop trying to pick a fight, does Christmas mean nothing to you?


  • Options
    #65
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    philologos wrote: »
    Why don't you trust the sincerity of Christians

    Because for the vast majority of them their beliefs are entirely half-baked and superficial, and after even a few seconds of questioning their position starts to fall apart, with rapid backtracking, equivocation and post-hoc rationalisation, and eventually many of them will be revealed to hold beliefs that are barely theistic let alone doctrinally conformist Christian, and in many cases their supposed beliefs are little more than a veneer for prejudice, hypocrisy and small-mindedness. Hope this helps.


  • Options
    #66
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    Because for the vast majority of them their beliefs are entirely half-baked and superficial, and after even a few seconds of questioning their position starts to fall apart, with rapid backtracking, equivocation and post-hoc rationalisation, and eventually many of them will be revealed to hold beliefs that are barely theistic let alone doctrinally conformist Christian, and in many cases their supposed beliefs are little more than a veneer for prejudice, hypocrisy and small-mindedness. Hope this helps.

    This is just slicing up a portion of my post. My question doesn't concern whether or not you believe that Christianity is wrong, but questioning the sincerity of Christians in respect to honestly saying what they believe. Ideally Mark Hamill will respond.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    philologos wrote: »
    This is just slicing up a portion of my post. My question doesn't concern whether or not you believe that Christianity is wrong, but questioning the sincerity of Christians in respect to honestly saying what they believe. Ideally Mark Hamill will respond.

    Ehh, I didn't say a single thing about whether the claims made by Christianity were true. I'm talking about how what a Christian claims to believe is very often shown to be very far from what they actually believe.


  • Options
    #68
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    Ehh, I didn't say a single thing about whether the claims made by Christianity were true. I'm talking about how what a Christian claims to believe is very often shown to be very far from what they actually believe.

    I think rarely if ever have my beliefs about God been anything less than theistic, and I'm not sure if Mark Hamill was referring specifically to only nominal forms of Christianity as you've implied.

    I think the grounds for claiming that Christian belief is a veneer for anything else is a separate argument. Claiming that Christianity is a veneer for anything implies that Christianity is essentially just a cover for non-religious beliefs about X, Y or Z. Something which I think is manifestly untrue on reasonable scrutiny in most Christians.

    I think Mark Hamill knows more about what he originally meant so I'll defer to his explanation when he can get round to it. I think the value in Christians or atheists discussing anything when the other claims that the other is not being sincere or forthright is detrimental to the actual point of discussing. Namely to understand something about the other. Claiming that one side has sinister motives is not helpful whatsoever in doing this. In fact it implies that the atheist side is no longer interested in listening to what Christians have to say about their faith any longer and instead are interested in erecting pop-psychology or conspiracy theory.

    If that's what atheism is interested in doing, then if anything atheism is small minded.


  • Options
    #69
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    You seem to think Christians are a lot more unified and coherent that they are in reality. Most Catholics that I know - actually, all Catholics that I know reject the notion that the Pope is to be obeyed and that the Vatican's rules are to be followed.

    I can't count the times that I've had someone claim to believe something for religious reasons, only to have that position crumple entirely under the slighest scrutiny, and for it to turn out that they're just expressing a secular prejudice (sexism/homophobia, for example) while attempting to make it seem more legitimate by claiming religious foundation.


  • Options
    #70
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    You seem to think Christians are a lot more unified and coherent that they are in reality. Most Catholics that I know - actually, all Catholics that I know reject the notion that the Pope is to be obeyed and that the Vatican's rules are to be followed.

    I can't count the times that I've had someone claim to believe something for religious reasons, only to have that position crumple entirely under the slighest scrutiny, and for it to turn out that they're just expressing a secular prejudice (sexism/homophobia, for example) while attempting to make it seem more legitimate by claiming religious foundation.

    I don't think you're responding to my question to Mark Hamill. It's not about whether or not you think that Christian beliefs crumple under scrutiny (highly questionable, and I could argue the same about atheistic assumptions). It was about the sincerity which Christians hold to their beliefs. I'm not getting into the nitty gritty of the Pope or anything else, because Mark's post didn't address that specifically.

    Moreover, my position on many issues has changed on account of the Gospel. It's not as if I had X, Y and Z belief already as an agnostic, and used Christianity as some kind of cover. That's an absurd explanation given my own experience of what becoming a Christian was actually like for me. Many of my own agnostic assumptions, and my clear apathy towards many things was deeply challenged by what I came to discover as a result of honestly reading the Scriptures.

    This is exactly why I think Mark should address his own claim.


  • Options
    #71
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not about whether or not you think that Christian beliefs crumple under scrutiny - It was about the sincerity which Christians hold to their beliefs.

    These two things can and usually are the same thing. A person says that they oppose gay marriage because the Church disapproves of it. I point out how they ignore most of what the Church says so therefore they couldn't care what the Church teaches. It turns out they just don't like gay people. This shows a lack of sincerity regarding their beliefs.
    This is exactly why I think Mark should address his own claim.

    He's slipped into a diabetic coma after Christmas dinner, he has assigned me to be his representative in this conversation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    These two things can and usually are the same thing. A person says that they oppose gay marriage because the Church disapproves of it. I point out how they ignore most of what the Church says so therefore they couldn't care what the Church teaches. It turns out they just don't like gay people. This shows a lack of sincerity regarding their beliefs.

    You're bringing up nominal Christianity rather than Christianity that is actually Biblically rooted. Again, I don't see much reason to think that was what Mark was referring to. He seems to be speaking about Christians as a whole.

    What I see from what Christians I know (who would be relatively active in church life, and who would genuinely seek to live and speak for Jesus in their daily lives in every respect in the knowledge that He is their Lord and their Saviour) looks different by the by. Most Christians from what I can tell genuinely believe that marriages should be between a man and a woman, not out of a dislike towards gay people. I have no animosity towards anyone in this respect, but rather because I believe as a Christian that God has given us standards and that genuinely God instituted marriage between a man and a woman in a Christian context because that is what He intended for us, that is what is best for us.

    Now, as far as I'm concerned the atheist and agnostic can formally disagree with my understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Moreover, my belief that marriage was intended in this way no more means that I despise anyone than holding any other position.
    Zillah wrote: »
    He's slipped into a diabetic coma after Christmas dinner, he has assigned me to be his representative in this conversation.

    Well hopefully it was enjoyed by all of us, and I hope to hear from him soon.


  • Options
    #73
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Zillah wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    This is exactly why I think Mark should address his own claim.
    He's slipped into a diabetic coma after Christmas dinner, he has assigned me to be his representative in this conversation.

    I would like to point out that Zilla has explained what I meant quite well (no doubt better then I would have done). Now, back to the coma :).


  • Options
    #74
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    So much for the coma...:rolleyes:. Oh well, no harm in a bit of exercise, I wonder how many calories posting burns?
    philologos wrote: »
    You're bringing up nominal Christianity rather than Christianity that is actually Biblically rooted. Again, I don't see much reason to think that was what Mark was referring to. He seems to be speaking about Christians as a whole.

    What I see from what Christians I know...

    So you contradict Zilla by saying he shouldn't be concentrating on a subset of christianity (when he talks about Catholics, the largest subset of christianity) and yet you use a tiny subset (the christians you personally know)?
    philologos wrote: »
    Most Christians from what I can tell genuinely believe that marriages ...

    No, you mean most christians you know personally believe such and such about marriage. AFAIR, you aren't a catholic right, you are a member of some sort of fairly small evangelical denomination of christianity? So the christians you personally aren't necessarily a good representation of all christians. How many christians do you personally know?
    philologos wrote: »
    I have no animosity towards anyone in this respect, but rather because I believe as a Christian that God has given us standards and that genuinely God instituted marriage between a man and a woman in a Christian context because that is what He intended for us, that is what is best for us.

    That would be in the chapter in the bible where he tells you to kill people who do homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13) or the chapter where it is explained that god makes people gay (Romans 1:26)?


  • Options
    #75
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Edit: Can I ask you to address the original question I put to you, claiming that Christians are insincere in their beliefs. This is going a bit off on a tangent. Why do you believe that? Do you think for example that I'm not straight with you about my Christianity?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you contradict Zilla by saying he shouldn't be concentrating on a subset of christianity (when he talks about Catholics, the largest subset of christianity) and yet you use a tiny subset (the christians you personally know)?

    No. I'm referring to Zillah focussing what seems to be exclusively on nominal Christians rather than practising ones.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, you mean most christians you know personally believe such and such about marriage. AFAIR, you aren't a catholic right, you are a member of some sort of fairly small evangelical denomination of christianity? So the christians you personally aren't necessarily a good representation of all christians. How many christians do you personally know?

    First and foremost, I describe myself as an evangelical Christian. I go to an evangelical Church of England church in central London at the moment. I know Christians right across the board in a number of different denominations both from when I was at university involved in the Christian Union movement on campus, and now when I meet with other Christians at the Christian fellowship we have at work, and of course those which I meet in church.

    How many Christians do I personally know, I'd say easily over a hundred from a number of different denominations.

    Denomination doesn't hinder Christian fellowship for me. All that matters is that we agree on the essentials in Scripture.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That would be in the chapter in the bible where he tells you to kill people who do homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13) or the chapter where it is explained that god makes people gay (Romans 1:26)?

    Romans 1:26 doesn't explain what you claim it does. What it does describe is God's attitude towards sin, and His impending wrath concerning it. Perhaps you should read Romans as a whole rather than isolating passages out of it?

    As for Leviticus, Christians do believe that sin warranted death prior to Christ. In fact if we look to your section in Romans 1:32 we see this. However, Christians believe that Jesus paid the full penalty for sin on the cross, He stood in our place and took God's wrath so that we could be forgiven (also explained in Romans right up to chapter 5). Therefore, if I have been forgiven by Jesus and His saving death on the cross, how can I expect to condemn someone else in turn? (Matthew 18 explains this perfectly).

    Christians have since the beginning of Christianity read the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus and what He did. So, essentially we read the Old Testament while considering what Jesus did for humanity. Christians believe that the Torah was fulfilled by Jesus, and Christians believe that the Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come in Jesus. So isolating passages again without this understanding is also disingenuous.


  • Options
    #76
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    </notamod>sounds like a great discussion for a thread title 'should atheists treat christian as being genuine', don't see what its got to with this thread</notamod>

    ah so it philogos who derails threads not Peregrinus sorry


  • Options
    #77
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    expectationlost wrote: »
    </notamod>sounds like a great discussion for a thread title 'should atheists treat christian as being genuine', don't see what its go to with this thread</notamod>

    ah so it philogos who derails threads not Peregrinus sorry

    The thread was already derailed by the time I got here by many of the atheist members of this forum.


  • Options
    #78
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And rather than trying to post on-topic, you threw yourself into making things worse. Go you.


  • Options
    #79
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Sarky wrote: »
    And rather than trying to post on-topic, you threw yourself into making things worse. Go you.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82374705&postcount=61


  • Options
    #80
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Two more thoughts on this Bill...

    On Christmas Day, Cardinal Brady launched an overtly political campaign of lobbying politicians against abortion, just days after this Bill forbids secular bodies from promoting political causes if they want to legally solemnise marriages.

    Also, the Humanist Association now faces a major dilemma in how it responds to the Bill: does it stop promoting the political cause of separation of church and state in order to be able to legally solemnise marriages, or does it forego the legal solemnising of marriages until the law is changed to provide equality for all without discrimination on the ground of religion?


  • Options
    #81
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    i would be interested Michael on why you think that non-philisophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solemnise weddings, to argue it here might allow you to convince the authorities another time


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    expectationlost wrote: »
    i would be interested Michael on why you think that non-philisophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solmenise weddings, to argue it here might allow you to convince the authorities another time
    I don't believe that non-philosophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solemnise marriages.

    I've an open mind as to who should be allowed solemnise marriages, although my personal preference would probably be that it be either state employees or individuals who meet certain criteria, with no nominating bodies involved, and no discrimination on the grounds of religion or philosophical belief.

    The point I am making above is that the law as passed prevents the HAI from nominating solemnisers, because the law as passed forbids secular (but not religious) nominating bodies from promoting a political cause, and the HAI does promote a political cause.


  • Options
    #83
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I don't believe that non-philosophical bodies shouldn't be allowed to solemnise marriages.

    I've an open mind as to who should be allowed solemnise marriages, although my personal preference would probably be that it be either state employees or individuals who meet certain criteria, with no nominating bodies involved, and no discrimination on the grounds of religion or philosophical belief.

    The point I am making above is that the law as passed prevents the HAI from nominating solemnisers, because the law as passed forbids secular (but not religious) nominating bodies from promoting a political cause, and the HAI does promote a political cause.

    well i was reacting to your previous posts and the dail debate and your response to that not your latest post, you seemed eager to be seen as a philosophical body and not to be seen argueing for non-philosophical (and possibly commercial) bodies being allowed, was it just for this bill, at this time ).


  • Options
    #84
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I made a new thread for the off topic stuff between Philologos and I.


  • Options
    #85
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    The point I am making above is that the law as passed prevents the HAI from nominating solemnisers, because the law as passed forbids secular (but not religious) nominating bodies from promoting a political cause, and the HAI does promote a political cause.
    I do see your point, and it seems technically correct to me, but I don't think those in the Dail would consider "campaigning for yourself" to be adopting "a political cause". They would see it merely as a natural selfish behaviour. Adopting "a cause" and campaigning for that would be something different.
    In other words, if a religion campaigns for more privileges for itself, is that "a political cause"? If the secular body (selected precisely because it is seen as secular) promotes secularism, is that to be regarded as a political cause? I suppose it comes down to the energy and strength put into any campaigning. Being in favour of secularism is one thing, intensive political lobbying is another.


  • Options
    #86
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    recedite wrote: »
    I do see your point, and it seems technically correct to me, but I don't think those in the Dail would consider "campaigning for yourself" to be adopting "a political cause". They would see it merely as a natural selfish behaviour. Adopting "a cause" and campaigning for that would be something different.
    In other words, if a religion campaigns for more privileges for itself, is that "a political cause"? If the secular body (selected precisely because it is seen as secular) promotes secularism, is that to be regarded as a political cause? I suppose it comes down to the energy and strength put into any campaigning. Being in favour of secularism is one thing, intensive political lobbying is another.

    but this option has been deliberatly removed from the text they based that part of the bill on as he says
    2.5 Only nonreligious bodies have exclusions such as political causes

    The Bill requires, among various rules for exclusion, that nonreligious nominating bodies can not promote a political cause. But neither this Bill nor the Principal Act applies any of these rules for exclusion to religious nominating bodies. And it would be extraordinary to find a nonreligious body that wanted to take part with equality in the conduct of marriage ceremonies, and that did not also promote the political cause of secularism through separation of church and state.

    Furthermore, this particular exclusion seems to be a deliberate choice. The entire wording of the section on exclusions is transcribed, word for word, from the definition of “excluded body” in the Charities Act 2009, with just one difference. The Charities Act qualifies “(b) a body that promotes a political cause,” by saying “(b) a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.” There is no reason why this Bill should remove that qualification from the definitions that it has transcribed from the Charities Act.

    http://www.atheist.ie/2012/12/legislating-for-equality-in-marriage-registration-atheist-ireland-briefing-document-for-tds-for-debate-this-thursday/


  • Options
    #87
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Yes, an adaptation of part (b) there would have provided the necessary clarification. Whether they left it out for some devious reason, or just out of stupidity, is another matter.


  • Options
    #88
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, an adaptation of part (b) there would have provided the necessary clarification. Whether they left it out for some devious reason, or just out of stupidity, is another matter.
    deliberatly


  • Options
    #89
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    expectationlost wrote: »
    well i was reacting to your previous posts and the dail debate and your response to that not your latest post, you seemed eager to be seen as a philosophical body and not to be seen argueing for non-philosophical (and possibly commercial) bodies being allowed, was it just for this bill, at this time ).
    We want to focus primarily on the fact that the Government is discriminating on the ground of religion or belief. If we get too much into the argument of how marriages should be solemnised, that distracts from this central point. So we are arguing that, whatever criteria the Government uses, it should apply those criteria evenly.

    While I personally would have no problem with a liberal approach to allowing people to solemnise marriages, I think it is a legitimate aim for a Government to say that it wants to protect the institution of marriage by using more rigorous criteria than my personal preferences.

    On that basis, we are arguing that there is not a proportionate relationship between the aim that the Government describes (protecting the institution of marriage) and the means it is employing to pursue that aim (discriminating against nonreligious citizens).

    The reason for using the 'philosophical and non-confessional body' description is that this is already enshrined in EU law as a parallel to religious bodies. It is meant to encompass bodies that are formed around a shared world view that is of significance and coherence, but that is not religious in nature.

    Also, Atheist Ireland has already met with the Presidents of the European Union, Parliament and Council under this description, because the EU institutions are obliged to treat religious and philosophical non-confessional bodies equally.

    So in effect what we are saying to the Government is, if you are using criteria that encompass bodies that are formed around a shared world view, then you should at a minimum include all bodies that are formed around a shared world view, whether the shared world views are religious or secular.
    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, an adaptation of part (b) there would have provided the necessary clarification. Whether they left it out for some devious reason, or just out of stupidity, is another matter.
    Whatever the motivation, it is definitely deliberate. An entire section was copied from one act to another, with just one sub-clause deleted. Atheist Ireland raised it with all TDs, it was raised in the Dail debate, and it was not amended.

    .


  • Options
    #90
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    I've done an analysis of some of the people who can legally solemnise marriages in Ireland under the existing law.

    You can legally solemnise marriages if you are a psychic medium, tarot card reader, public entertainer, ghost whisperer or ghost buster (Ministers of the Spiritualist Union of Ireland); or if you oversee a culture of covering up child sex abuse, or lie to and positively mislead a state inquiry into child sex abuse, or swear victims of child sex abuse to silence (Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church); or if you default on six-figure debts, or fail to file income tax returns (Pastors of the Abundant Life Christian Centre and Victory Christian Church).

    More details here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    I've done an analysis of some of the people who can legally solemnise marriages in Ireland under the existing law.

    You can legally solemnise marriages if you are a psychic medium, tarot card reader, public entertainer, ghost whisperer or ghost buster (Ministers of the Spiritualist Union of Ireland); or if you oversee a culture of covering up child sex abuse, or lie to and positively mislead a state inquiry into child sex abuse, or swear victims of child sex abuse to silence (Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church); or if you default on six-figure debts, or fail to file income tax returns (Pastors of the Abundant Life Christian Centre and Victory Christian Church).

    More details here.

    But not if you just believe marriage is a good thing and want to help a mate out who can't get a HSE solemniser or doesn't want a church wedding. Ireland, where superstition reigns supreme over marriage.


Advertisement