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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Religious Threads in After Hours

1235

Comments

  • #202
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Wibbs wrote: »
    If you're attempting to equate any of those guys with the usual inane and yep often adolescent type mocking on the site, at Catholics in particular, I really think we've jumped the shark here.

    I'd agree with this. I tend to believe that if I'm laughing at something, then it can't really be offending me. There's no reason why religion shouldn't be subject to humour just like other aspects of life. The Life of Brian (already mentioned here) is one of my all time favourite movies. Bill Hicks, George Carlin and others might make some feel uncomfortable, but I can't say that I find them offensive because they are funny, their targets often deserve it, and they don't go for a cheap laugh. Dara O'Briain skewers Irish Catholicism as only an Irish person could, but there isn't anything cruel about it, and whatever his views, I've always found Stephen Fry to be fair-minded when it comes to dealing with people with different beliefs. Bill Maher and Jimmy Carr also mock religion - but they aren't funny, they go for cheap shots, and yes, I find them offensive. All of this is IMHO of course but I don't think anyone could argue that what we are talking about here is subtle wit.

    I think this has been an interesting discussion. The AH mods have a difficult job, they know the forum better than anyone, and I'm not inclined to tell them how to do their job, particularly given the overall decline in muppetry on the forum over the last year or so. For my part, if I see something that I feel crosses that often hard to define line, I'll report it.


  • #203
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    Its usually the best way of highlighting the illogic and nonsense of things, which is why its a truism that various kinds of regime dread laughter, as it destroys their credibility.


    Is it though Nodin? Or is it more a truism to say that among the non-believers against a regime, derision of the majority is the only way they have to feel better about their minority position?

    The Life of Brian is a classic comedy satire, it didn't highlight any illogical nonsense though, as the film was almost a parody of itself, in the same way as FSM is a parody of itself. Neither would make me question my faith, but like Father Ted, I take them in the spirit they're meant- a humorous parody. They parodied religion in a way that wasn't malicious.

    I don't know if you're old enough to remember Madonna's "Like a Prayer", and the shìtstorm that kicked up around the world. She was able to use the medium of music to portray social injustice while shining the spotlight on the catholic church. She wasn't making a mockery of the church then either, but she sent waves of dissent throughout the world- the message that it was ok to be critical of the corruption of something you felt passionately about.

    Three years later nobody would have thought Ireland would see Cardinal Cahal Daly getting shredded on The Late Late Show (I couldn't find a YouTube clip but for anyone that remembers it, for the Irish it was like our own version of "Where were you when JFK was shot?". Where were you when Cardinal Cahal Daly got roasted by Gay Byrne and the Irish People on The Late Late Show?). One of the defining moments in Irish television. No mockery going on there, and the message was certainly heard by Irish society- the hissing bishop as clever as he thought he was, couldn't hold back the tide of change in the Irish psyche. The Catholic Hierarchy had lost it's iron fisted grip on Irish Society.

    Beruthiel mentioned a couple of comedians there earlier on, the only two names I would be familiar with were Dara O Brian and Stephen Fry. Both of these comedians while they wouldn't be my particular brand of humor, I would have no issue with their material.

    Tommy Tiernan on the other hand, is an obnoxious cock. He goes out of his way to make a mockery of religion. His material is thirty years out of date. I went to see one of his shows a few years back with a friend. She spent the evening laughing at his idiot ranting behaviour, I couldn't take any more of his screaming and walked out at the interval and demanded my money back. It wasn't because I was offended by his mockery of religion, it was because I couldn't understand a word he was screaming. His message was lost on me.


  • #204
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Is it though Nodin? .

    Yes it is.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The Life of Brian is a classic comedy satire, it didn't highlight any illogical nonsense though,..

    I'd suggest watching it again.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I don't know if you're old enough to remember Madonna's "Like a Prayer", ,..

    Yes. I'm also old enough to remember "life of Brian" and "the meaning of life" being banned.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Tommy Tiernan on the other hand, is an obnoxious cock..

    A matter of opinion. In a shared space, the choices are to put up with what doesn't suit you, or reduce the place to such white-bread blandness that no-one is offended and nothing really takes place. Or go somewhere that suits you.


  • #205
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Nodin wrote: »
    ... In a shared space, the choices are to put up with what doesn't suit you, or reduce the place to such white-bread blandness that no-one is offended and nothing really takes place. Or go somewhere that suits you.
    That's redolent of the "America: love it or leave it" school of discourse.

    The purpose of this forum is to address things about Boards that bother people, and there is the implied prospect that things might be changed if a sufficiently strong case is made.


  • #206
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes it is.
    I'd suggest watching it again.


    What I meant Nodin is that none of the Python movies are done with malice in mind.
    Yes. I'm also old enough to remember "life of Brian" and "the meaning of life" being banned.


    Yes, and why were they banned? Because the Hierarchy at the time had an overbearing influence on Irish Society. The only people that can be blamed for their influence on Irish Society today is Irish Society itself. This is how the RCC are able to get away with saying that any RCC politician who would vote pro-abortion shall be threatened with excommunication. I have no sympathy for them, because Michael Noonan was able to make similarly thinly veiled threats about the then upcoming budget if the Irish diem't ratify the Lisbon Treaty. People crumbled. Will politicians crumble? You're damn right they will, because they fear they won't be re-elected come the next general election if they openly defy the Hierarchy of the RCC.

    Enda was A-OK giving it socks from the Dail when he told the RCC Hierarchy where to go in front of the Irish public, then shed a few crocodile tears for the States collusion in the Magdelene Laundries, but when he's actually backed into a corner- not so much as a whimper out of him. Now tell me who's to actually blame for the influence of the RCC again?

    A matter of opinion. In a shared space, the choices are to put up with what doesn't suit you, or reduce the place to such white-bread blandness that no-one is offended and nothing really takes place. Or go somewhere that suits you.


    Everything is only a matter of opinion Nodin. That's the second time you've mentioned the shared space analogy. If we were to apply that same logic to Irish Society, we would never have seen the changes we see taking place now and the RCC Hierarchy would still have the iron fisted grip they had decades ago and would continue to abuse their position of influence. Would YOU accept being told if you don't like it, go somewhere else?

    You don't make progress by offending people, you make progress by understanding them, then working together towards a cohesive society with respect for your fellow human beings at it's core.


  • #207
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Is it though Nodin? Or is it more a truism to say that among the non-believers against a regime, derision of the majority is the only way they have to feel better about their minority position?

    The Life of Brian is a classic comedy satire, it didn't highlight any illogical nonsense though, as the film was almost a parody of itself, in the same way as FSM is a parody of itself. Neither would make me question my faith, but like Father Ted, I take them in the spirit they're meant- a humorous parody. They parodied religion in a way that wasn't malicious.

    You missed the part about Father Ted upsetting the catholic church in Ireland, it happened and they bitched and moaned about it big time on the late late.

    So whilst you may not have found it offensive, they did at the time. This brings us back to how different people can find different stuff offensive. ;)
    You don't make progress by offending people, you make progress by understanding them, then working together towards a cohesive society with respect for your fellow human beings at it's core.

    True, in theory and it can be done country v country, and people v people.

    Its however another story with a religious ideology, its hard to respect and work with an organisation who refuse to even consider that there is a better way.

    - How can you respect a organisation that in this modern day still see's women as second class in its own organisation and refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that see's fellow human beings as abominations and refuses to change their view on them?
    - How can you respect an organisation who's stance on sexual health has meant the death sentences of millions throughout the developing world and again refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that demands that rape or incest victims must give birth to baby's if they become pregnant as part of a rape?

    You can't work with an organisation who change at the pace of an ice age and who claim to cherish life but at the same time don't take steps to respect people that are alive, even governments for all their failings change their views faster then the RCC.

    And again with a government, atleast if you don't like them you can take them out of power.


  • #208
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Cabaal wrote: »
    You missed the part about Father Ted upsetting the catholic church in Ireland, it happened and they bitched and moaned about it big time on the late late.

    So whilst you may not have found it offensive, they did at the time. This brings us back to how different people can find different stuff offensive. ;)


    The Hierarchy though Cabaal were always going to find anything that'd shine a beam in their eye offensive. Ordinary Joe Catholics though were able to enjoy the show for what it was. In reality it was the Hierarchy who ended up with egg on their faces when they desperately tried to enforce their will on their followers. People couldn't take a Hierarchy seriously when they were dismissing a program like Father Ted while at the same time trying to defend their covering up of the various scandals at the time. This is the corruption of influence and authority I was talking about earlier and why I have no sympathy for the likes of Cahal Daly and the current incompetent Sean Brady.

    As a member of the RC, I despair that the Hierarchy is represented by these individuals, but that doesn't mean that when I go to mass on a Sunday I cannot worship God with the rest of the congregation. It just means I know corruption and frustration at the loss of influence when I see it. These individuals in my mind do not represent the views of the RCC. How can they when they are corrupt as fùck? Talk to the ordinary members of the congregation and I assure you they share the same contempt for anyone who colludes to shield child abusers from prosecution.

    True, in theory and it can be done country v country, and people v people.

    Its however another story with a religious ideology, its hard to respect and work with an organisation who refuse to even consider that there is a better way.

    - How can you respect a organisation that in this modern day still see's women as second class in its own organisation and refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that see's fellow human beings as abominations and refuses to change their view on them?
    - How can you respect an organisation who's stance on sexual health has meant the death sentences of millions throughout the developing world and again refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that demands that rape or incest victims must give birth to baby's if they become pregnant as part of a rape?

    You can't work with an organisation who change at the pace of an ice age and who claim to cherish life but at the same time don't take steps to respect people that are alive, even governments for all their failings change their views faster then the RCC.


    All of the above are issues that as an RC I struggle to square with my compassion for humanity on a daily basis. Of course it's not easy, but it's not made any easier by a Hierarchy that goes against it's own teachings. The only solace I have is that there is far more good being done by on the ground so to speak by ordinary members of the faith who are raising the future generations of the RCC.

    You'll never make changes within an established Hierarchy by starting at the top down. You have to work from the ground up. It's the same way you have to tackle the problems with the powers that be in Government, because they are just as resistant to a change in the status quo as the hierarchy within the RCC. They've dragged their heels over as many issues in the last 20 years as the RCC.

    And again with a government, atleast if you don't like them you can take them out of power.


    And with the RCC, as I've stated time and again, Society is the only reason they had any power in the first place. The only difference with the RCC Hierarchy is that people have become intolerant of their corruption, whereas people still put up with and re-elect a bastard like Michael Noonan after the Hepatitis C scandal when he bullied Bridget Cole and her mother until she died, and only then after a lengthy tribunal did he issue a snivelling "apology".


  • #209
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    What I meant Nodin is that none of the Python movies are done with malice in mind..

    I bow to your mind-reading abilities.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Yes, and why were they banned?..

    I'm fully aware of why they were banned, thanks.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Everything is only a matter of opinion Nodin. That's the second time you've mentioned the shared space analogy. If we were to apply that same logic to Irish Society, we would never have seen the changes we see taking place now and the RCC Hierarchy would still have the iron fisted grip they had decades ago and would continue to abuse their position of influence...

    You don't seem to get the analogy. I advocate the freedom to speak, you want freedom from being "offended". The former is far more liberal and inclusive than the latter.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You don't (......)it's core.

    Your opinion, for whats its worth, is noted.


  • #210
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    I bow to your mind-reading abilities.


    Come on Nodin, of course I'm not a mind reader, so it'd help if you explain the above in relation to my opinion that the Python movies were made with no malice intended. The above comment comes off like you found something to be offended about?

    You don't seem to get the analogy. I advocate the freedom to speak, you want freedom from being "offended". The former is far more liberal and inclusive than the latter.


    How many times have I seen it explained to posters that there is no such thing as free speech on a privately owned website? The one defining rule of Boards that over-rides all others is- Don't be a dick. There's a way to express yourself in a respectful and mature manner and it doesn't take much effort to do that. Why should anyone entertain a person who seems hell bent on being contentious and sets out to offend people? What does anyone expect to gain from being knowingly and deliberately offensive?


    The right to offend people might be a more liberating stance, but it certainly isn't an inclusive one, in fact it's quite the opposite.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Dav wrote: »
    No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway

    Because the alternative is quite frightening?


  • #212
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Come on Nodin, of course I'm not a mind reader, so it'd help if you explain the above in relation to my opinion that the Python movies were made with no malice intended. The above comment comes off like you found something to be offended about?.

    They were made to satirise religion - mock it, make a mockery of it. There are a few here who state that implies malice in its essence.

    Czarcasm wrote: »
    How many times (..............) opposite.


    You repeat that as if theres a given way of to" express yourself in a respectful and mature manner ", that you know what it is, and that its the right way to do things. I'd beg to differ on all three counts.

    It would also be helpful if you referred to the subject at hand specifically, rather than fly off into such generalities.


  • #213
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Why should anyone entertain a person who seems hell bent on being contentious and sets out to offend people?
    Because some people take offence in such a way as to shut down debate -- that's how christianity operated for a long time, and other religions still do.

    As above, if everybody sticks to the rule that ideas are open to free criticism and free mocking, but people are to be treated with respect, most if not all of the problems go away.


  • #214
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    It should not be or is not free day on Catholics......
    Live and let live. The normal Irish Catholic has nothing to do with past crimes.

    Where I differ from this viewpoint is the in notion that the ordinary RCC worshiper, while not to be held accountable for past crimes committed by a significant percent of the heirarchy, seem to think that they should not be called out on where their church continues to purport beliefs that don't even sit well with the ordinary congregation. If those beliefs are hurting people in this country, then surely the supporters of those beliefs should be called on to bring about change within that institution? What other recourse do we (people who object to the demeaning and moralistic dogma of the RCC that continues to affect us in Ireland) have than to lobby government AND those who support the institution who's morals are so lacking in our view?
    Cabaal wrote: »
    You can't work with an organisation who change at the pace of an ice age and who claim to cherish life but at the same time don't take steps to respect people that are alive, even governments for all their failings change their views faster then the RCC.

    And again with a government, atleast if you don't like them you can take them out of power.

    Exactly. So I object to the notion that the people who attend the RCC and who have belief in a god precludes them from taking some moral responsibility towards encouraging change in that organisation. Of course, I can manage to challenge people on their continued support for certain aspects of their belief without mocking them. That does not mean they will not be offended however.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    As a member of the RC, I despair that the Hierarchy is represented by these individuals, but that doesn't mean that when I go to mass on a Sunday I cannot worship God with the rest of the congregation.

    Of course not, but surely you can accept that on the one hand, attending church and worshiping in the RCC, and on the other, deploring many elements of the church's more damaging teachings, could rightfully leave me with a question as to whether this is double standards?
    You'll never make changes within an established Hierarchy by starting at the top down. You have to work from the ground up. It's the same way you have to tackle the problems with the powers that be in Government, because they are just as resistant to a change in the status quo as the hierarchy within the RCC. They've dragged their heels over as many issues in the last 20 years as the RCC.

    I feel the same way. Which is exactly why I have no compunction about calling out people who attend the RCC on why they don't challenge their own organisation? This same organisation attempts to impose (and can be seen to have done so, still in affect in our constitution) a belief system on the whole country, not just on it's congregation. I would be totally fine with the RCC confining itself to moralising for it's own followers. Beyond that, I can and will question those followers for their lack of confrontation towards the RCC on issues that so concern the people of different/no faith in Ireland.


  • #215
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    They were made to satirise religion - mock it, make a mockery of it. There are a few here who state that implies malice in its essence.

    So now you're expecting me to take offence on behalf of others? That would indeed require me to be a mind reader. Or are you playing Devil's Advocate and taking offence on their behalf? Part of me says Nodin that you just like to argue for the sake of argument and couldn't care less about what others think besides yourself.
    You repeat that as if theres a given way of to" express yourself in a respectful and mature manner ", that you know what it is, and that its the right way to do things. I'd beg to differ on all three counts.

    It would also be helpful if you referred to the subject at hand specifically, rather than fly off into such generalities.

    If you beg to differ, then Nodin SAY why you beg to differ. I'm not a mind reader! I haven't strayed from the topic at hand either, it was you who went down the whole freedom of speech route, even though you knew well there is no such thing as freedom of speech on a privately owned and run website.

    robindch wrote: »
    Because some people take offence in such a way as to shut down debate -- that's how christianity operated for a long time, and other religions still do.

    In fairness robindch Islam is more complicated than being just considered a religion. It's a way of life (By way of disclosure- My sister converted to Islam some years ago and was married to a westernised Muslim whom she is now divorced from). In the case above, Raif Badawi knew he could be charged for his crime. He was not attempting discussion. What Amnesty International are trying to do is judge Islamic teachings by their standards without showing any understanding of Islam.

    As above, if everybody sticks to the rule that ideas are open to free criticism and free mocking, but people are to be treated with respect, most if not all of the problems go away.


    The problems won't go away though, because most people do tend to take it personally when you criticise their ideology by mocking it. By mocking it you are showing disdain and a lack of understanding of what their ideology means to them. If you treat their ideology with the same respect they do, then it's much easier to stimulate debate and discussion and people are more receptive to your ideas rather than you having wasted your time and energy mocking them, which closes them off to being informed and educated. The fault then in that case isn't theirs, it's yours*, and all because you were more concerned about defending your right to be deliberately and knowingly offensive.


    *not you personally robindch, but speaking in the more general sense.


  • #216
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    robindch wrote: »
    ...
    As above, if everybody sticks to the rule that ideas are open to free criticism and free mocking, but people are to be treated with respect, most if not all of the problems go away.
    It's not as clearcut as that. When it comes to religious convictions, people internalise some beliefs; they become part of the persona. So in mocking their beliefs, they may feel that you are mocking them.

    I do not suggest a draconian policy here that prohibits the mocking of religious beliefs. It comes down to relevance, tone, and intent. It looks to me as if many of the attacks on the RC church are little more than low-grade trolling: posts made simply to annoy adherents of the church. Such posts should be dealt with in the same way as any other trolling is handled.

    We have had mods and cmods posting in this discussion. I come away with the impression that those charged with maintaining the standards of discourse are, for the most part anyway, unsympathetic to the RC church. That's okay (I'm not an adherent either). But I have a sense that in judging that criticism of the church is acceptable in AH, their position might not be sufficiently nuanced: not all criticism need be deemed acceptable. And mockery should not be accorded the same tolerance as reasoned argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I cannot help but think there is something of a double standard being advocated by those who claim religious beliefs should not be mocked/criticised.

    My experience on boards as a very out lesbian who is also a mother is that it is perfectly acceptable for religious people to call my life with the woman I love a 'lifestyle choice', to style me as an abomination and threat to humanity, to insist I should not have equal rights, to speculate openly about how I conceived my child (and accuse me of stealing some poor man's sperm and deny him 'his' child!), to equate me with pedophiles and call my family structure inferior.

    Are the 'mocking' me? No.
    Are they insulting me? Absolutely.

    Are they directly, personally, insulting me? Ahhh - therein lies the crux of the issue.

    Often their condemnation is crouched in 'My religion teaches...', 'According to the Bible...' 'I have no problem with the individual but...' all of this while writing the most vile things about 'gays' - well as a 'gay' reading this ****e I do take it personally.
    How can I not - they are talking about me. Perhaps not specifically, but certainly generally.

    Can I report them? On what grounds?

    Have they breached the various charters? Usually not.



    Why should I sit here and read about what a terrible immoral unethical person I am, how by virtue of my sexual orientation I am lesser, speculation as to the 'damage' I have done to my son and have to endure this as it is a persons religious belief?

    Yet, I do.


    What I also do is reserve the right of response. The right to challenge such statements and yes - at times to highlight the absurdity of many of the comments made.

    Am I 'mocking' - that is in the eye of the beholder.

    I am sure some of those whom I have challenged believe I am, they also seem to believe that because their opinion is based on what it says in a particular book this give them carte blanc to insult, judge, condemn and unfavourably compare my life and my family based on some biblical 'ideal' which ignores a lot of what it actually says in the Bible. They deserve to be called out and have their pronouncements challenged. If they don't like it - well, I don't like being told my sex life is an abomination or have it implied that I should not be allowed near children but they seem to feel they have the right to do this because it's their religious belief and therefore must not be criticised.

    Christianity makes a big deal about 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' yet, there have been comments made by Christians across various fora that leave me in no doubt that they wouldn't be too upset if I and other homosexuals were taken outside the city walls and stoned to death as we are so vile. They are 'allowed' to do so as it is their religious belief. I find it a bit rich when there are calls are made that one should be castigated for flinging the odd stone back at them.


  • #218
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The problems won't go away though, because most people do tend to take it personally when you criticise their ideology by mocking it. By mocking it you are showing disdain and a lack of understanding of what their ideology means to them. If you treat their ideology with the same respect they do, then it's much easier to stimulate debate and discussion and people are more receptive to your ideas rather than you having wasted your time and energy mocking them, which closes them off to being informed and educated. The fault then in that case isn't theirs, it's yours*, and all because you were more concerned about defending your right to be deliberately and knowingly offensive.


    *not you personally robindch, but speaking in the more general sense.

    I have noticed that a lot of the time, a religious person's actual ideology differs so significantly to their church's ideology, they even become offended by the suggestion that they should either be fully behind their church's ideology (eg. seeing gay people as an abomination), or stop supporting this ideology by either leaving the church or trying to change it in a proactive way.

    It is impossible to treat "their ideology" with respect if it is in fact the same as the ideology of the church that they worship in, and we object to that ideology being imposed on us, and preached to us, even though we do not belong to that church. If their ideology differs to that of their church, then holding up a mirror (often in the form of satire) is a challenge that they themselves have to face in terms of how they differ to their church and how significant their support of their church's ideology is to others.

    Tough, in other words. A case of sh*t or get off the pot, even.


  • #219
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Obliq wrote: »
    Where I differ from this viewpoint is the in notion that the ordinary RCC worshiper, while not to be held accountable for past crimes committed by a significant percent of the heirarchy, seem to think that they should not be called out on where their church continues to purport beliefs that don't even sit well with the ordinary congregation.

    Aside from the interesting turn of phrase there (a significant percent? pedophiles and perverts are very much in the minority in the RCC as a whole), you'll have to go a bit higher than the ordinary RCC worshipper and ask the perverts and pedophiles and those that protected them why they chose to do so, because such corruption and abuse goes against the teachings of the RCC. I can only answer for myself, and it wouldn't cost me a thought to report a child abuser to the Gardai, whether they be a priest or not, because they were an pedophile or a pervert before they ever became a member of the clergy. There is a clear distinction between the RCC as a whole, and the minority of perverts that used the Hierarchy and the authority bestowed upon them to abuse their position.

    I have no objection to being asked why I go against the beliefs of the RCC, but if I feel that the person is only interested in mocking me for holding the beliefs I do, then I'm not going to bother explaining myself, those kind of closed minded people are going to think what they think regardless. My wife is an atheist and she can wrap her head around the concept that my beliefs are separate from my humanity. I was a human being before I was ever a catholic, so for me Humanity trumps Religion every time. Does that make me in some people's eyes an a-la-carte catholic? It can make me what they like in their eyes, I don't have to answer to them, my religious beliefs are my own business and I've never sought to impose them on anybody.

    If those beliefs are hurting people in this country, then surely the supporters of those beliefs should be called on to bring about change within that institution? What other recourse do we (people who object to the demeaning and moralistic dogma of the RCC that continues to affect us in Ireland) have than to lobby government AND those who support the institution who's morals are so lacking in our view?

    It's not the beliefs are hurting the people of this country, it's the people that use those beliefs as an excuse to hurt the people of this country are the problem. I have my own issues with the Hierarchy of the RCC, but I can only effect change from the next generation on, the current generation are too entrenched in their authoritarianism to acknowledge that the RCC Hierarchy needs to change to bring them in line with a modern society. The Hierarchy needs to show leadership before they can expect people to follow, and right now the RCC Hierarchy is doing a bang up job of disappearing up it's own árse hole and ignoring that there are problems, that people are questioning and they want answers and leadership.

    Exactly. So I object to the notion that the people who attend the RCC and who have belief in a god precludes them from taking some moral responsibility towards encouraging change in that organisation. Of course, I can manage to challenge people on their continued support for certain aspects of their belief without mocking them. That does not mean they will not be offended however.


    I don't mind anyone who unwittingly causes offence, what I object to, and this goes beyond religion, is mocking anyone for their ideology while making no attempt to understand why they hold such an ideology. I have often caused offence myself, unwittingly so, and when the person has explained WHY they found something I have said or done offensive, it gives me a better understanding of them as a person.
    Of course not, but surely you can accept that on the one hand, attending church and worshiping in the RCC, and on the other, deploring many elements of the church's more damaging teachings, could rightfully leave me with a question as to whether this is double standards?

    You're absolutely right Obliq, it IS a double standard, but as I've said time and again, my humanity will trump my religion every time. That's only my own personal stance, not everyone thinks like me but I can only answer for myself. What I object to though is not people's double standards, but the fact that they use religion as a tool to further their own inherent prejudices.
    I feel the same way. Which is exactly why I have no compunction about calling out people who attend the RCC on why they don't challenge their own organisation? This same organisation attempts to impose (and can be seen to have done so, still in affect in our constitution) a belief system on the whole country, not just on it's congregation. I would be totally fine with the RCC confining itself to moralising for it's own followers. Beyond that, I can and will question those followers for their lack of confrontation towards the RCC on issues that so concern the people of different/no faith in Ireland.

    I actually DO actively challenge those within the RCC who would seek to use religion to further their own prejudices. Your issue though as I've already said to Cabaal is directed at the wrong people. The RCC Hierarchy can moralise all it likes, but it has no actual power. The people with the power to effect change in the constitution are the People of Ireland and the people they elect to represent them- politicians.

    Why would you not question the people who are actually responsible for, and have the capability and the means to actually change the Constitution and effect legislation in this country? If those politicians are held responsible by the people for bowing to the RCC, then you can choose not to elect them, or elect somebody else in their place who agrees with your stance on whatever your issues are with the Constitution.

    Me personally- I don't vote because I've yet to meet a politician with a pair of balls who isn't only interested in feathering their own nest.


  • #220
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Obliq wrote: »
    I have noticed that a lot of the time, a religious person's actual ideology differs so significantly to their church's ideology, they even become offended by the suggestion that they should either be fully behind their church's ideology (eg. seeing gay people as an abomination), or stop supporting this ideology by either leaving the church or trying to change it in a proactive way.

    With all due respect though Obliq, who are you to tell someone what they should and shouldn't do based on YOUR standards? Is that not the very essence of what you object to the RCC Hierarchy doing?

    I've already stated that I try to change the image of the RCC in a proactive way, we're not all bible bashing, god fearing hate mongers, but those that use religion as an excuse for their hate mongering, that's the real issue when you dig a little deeper beneath the surface. You can only do that if you resist the urge to mock them. Self control isn't just a religious concept.

    It is impossible to treat "their ideology" with respect if it is in fact the same as the ideology of the church that they worship in, and we object to that ideology being imposed on us, and preached to us, even though we do not belong to that church. If their ideology differs to that of their church, then holding up a mirror (often in the form of satire) is a challenge that they themselves have to face in terms of how they differ to their church and how significant their support of their church's ideology is to others.

    It's really not that impossible if you actually were willing to try. I have no issue with anyone objecting to an ideology being imposed upon them, I'd object to such practices myself. But you're not forced to subscribe to that ideology, and the people that make the the law are not forced to subscribe to that ideology, no matter how much pressure is put on them by the RCC. They accomodate the church because they want to, not because they have to.
    Tough, in other words. A case of sh*t or get off the pot, even.

    Indeed-
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    That's right- The politicians with no balls, pressured by the influence of the RCC, and politicians will continue to play political football with the issue of reproductive rights while the people are too lackadasical to tell them to either shít or get off the potty, and tell the RCC to back off from the decisions affecting affairs of The State.


  • #221
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    With all due respect though Obliq, who are you to tell someone what they should and shouldn't do based on YOUR standards? Is that not the very essence of what you object to the RCC Hierarchy doing?

    Correct! Which is why there is a difference between telling someone that they should do something, and suggesting that they do something (which is what I actually said - quite clearly :) )
    It's really not that impossible if you actually were willing to try. I have no issue with anyone objecting to an ideology being imposed upon them, I'd object to such practices myself. But you're not forced to subscribe to that ideology, and the people that make the the law are not forced to subscribe to that ideology, no matter how much pressure is put on them by the RCC. They accomodate the church because they want to, not because they have to.

    It is truly impossible for a pro-choice feminist who fully supports equality for the LGBT community and objects to the lack of choice in my area regards secular education for my children (among many other issues) to treat with respect the kind of ideology that refuses to itself respect people (never mind their ideologies - people, actual people :( ) that I care about. I can tell you that for a fact. I can respect the person (if they are respectful), but never those ideologies.

    As for not being forced to subscribe to the ideology - merely living in Ireland means that you are forced to this, as our constitution gives supreme authority to the "Holy Trinity". http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62213729&postcount=1 You can be sure that I am in the business of trying to change that. I don't however, agree that members of the RCC should be protected from being challenged on the unfairness of this (and the way this ideology filters down through the system) any more than the government should.
    Indeed-
    :D


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Aside from the interesting turn of phrase there (a significant percent?

    Of the hierarchy, as I said.
    It's not the beliefs are hurting the people of this country, it's the people that use those beliefs as an excuse to hurt the people of this country are the problem.

    I disagree. It is also the people who don't believe the damaging rhetoric/dogma but continue to let that remain unchallenged.

    You're absolutely right Obliq, it IS a double standard, but as I've said time and again, my humanity will trump my religion every time. That's only my own personal stance, not everyone thinks like me but I can only answer for myself. What I object to though is not people's double standards, but the fact that they use religion as a tool to further their own inherent prejudices.

    Nice! Great, but.....
    I actually DO actively challenge those within the RCC who would seek to use religion to further their own prejudices.

    They only have to fully believe in their religious ideology in order to be that prejudiced. I'm thinking you're missing the point about religion actually TEACHING people these prejudices.

    And look, we can have/are having a perfectly reasonable discussion about this, in very polite terms. However, I think that the dreadful ideologies we are talking about have created great anger in causing such harm to people. I don't like to see people being knocked for their beliefs, but I have very little issue with those harmful beliefs being ripped to pieces, tbh.


  • #223
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    With all due respect though Obliq, who are you to tell someone what they should and shouldn't do based on YOUR standards? ....

    That seems to be whats going on here in this thread, funny enough.


  • #224
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Nodin wrote: »
    That seems to be whats going on here in this thread, funny enough.

    Was. Those folk seem to have disappeared..... ;)


  • #225
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I cannot help but think there is something of a double standard being advocated by those who claim religious beliefs should not be mocked/criticised.

    My experience on boards as a very out lesbian who is also a mother is that it is perfectly acceptable for religious people to call my life with the woman I love a 'lifestyle choice', to style me as an abomination and threat to humanity, to insist I should not have equal rights, to speculate openly about how I conceived my child (and accuse me of stealing some poor man's sperm and deny him 'his' child!), to equate me with pedophiles and call my family structure inferior.

    That is absolutely awful. Where did that happen Bannasidhe, was it on AH's that somebody got that personal about your private life and speculating on it? You should have reported them - nobody should take that kind of personal abuse.


  • #226
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    That is absolutely awful. Where did that happen Bannasidhe, was it on AH's that somebody got that personal about your private life and speculating on it? You should have reported them - nobody should take that kind of personal abuse.

    You're RCC aren't you lmaopml? Perhaps the people who need to hear that you believe being gay is not a "lifestyle choice" or an "abomination", or that same sex couples with children are not inferior families, are the RCC hierarchy. I'd say that Bannasidhe already knows how awful those attitudes are.


  • #227
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    pedophiles and perverts are very much in the minority in the RCC as a whole

    Just to come back to you there Czarcasm about the stats contained in that Catholic Education Resource Centre (10 myths about Priestly Pedophilia) link that claims only about 0.3% of priests were child abusers, Wikipedia has it somewhat differently to that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Roman_Catholic_cases

    "The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time."

    Not that I take Wikipedia as gospel (:rolleyes:), but I can't help thinking those two stats are a bit different and that one may be looking at the priesthood in a particularly good light......


  • #228
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Obliq wrote: »
    You're RCC aren't you lmaopml? Perhaps the people who need to hear that you believe being gay is not a "lifestyle choice" or an "abomination", or that same sex couples with children are not inferior families, are the RCC hierarchy. I'd say that Bannasidhe already knows how awful those attitudes are.


    I am a Catholic Obiq, generally I'm not all that interested in calling people names tho - I mainly only post on the Christianity forum - and even there ever more rarely these days.

    However, I am absolutely shocked at what Bannasidhe says happened to her here on boards. Such speculation about a person is really awful.


  • #229
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I am a Catholic Obiq, generally I'm not all that interested in calling people names tho - I mainly only post on the Christianity forum - and even there ever more rarely these days.

    However, I am absolutely shocked at what Bannasidhe says happened to her here on boards. Such speculation about a person is really awful.

    But surely those speculations are based on what your church teaches? If you'll take my point about the RCC hierarchy being the ones who probably need to hear about how awful you think that is?


  • #230
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The fault then in that case isn't theirs, it's yours*, and all because you were more concerned about defending your right to be deliberately and knowingly offensive.
    I'm far more interested in having a debate than I am in openly mocking people. At least up until the point at which it becomes clear that open debate is impossible and people are either taking offence at whatever controversial ideas I might be putting forward or knowingly ignoring the rules of polite debate (which is more common).
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    because most people do tend to take it personally when you criticise their ideology by mocking it.
    Yes, I agree and mentioned this several times above. The reason that they take criticism personally, is because it's politically useful to do so.

    For better or worse, I'm afraid that I've no time for people declaring topics off-limits simply because they can't distinguish between an idea and their identity, or more probably, because they've intentionally connected the two in order to turn my respect for a person into respect for an idea.

    The problem might be easier to see if people ask what might happen if everybody were allowed to declare any idea they wanted as being "offensive to their person". In that kind of intellectual atmosphere, how on earth could anybody get anything discussed or done at all?

    Nope, the only way to avoid this rabbit-hole -- and specifically, on people wh might turn the tables on them by doing the same thing -- is to separate the idea from the person and to draw attention to the difference between the two, and enforce it. Yes, some people might get offended, but I think the same people probably have a little bit of intellectual growing up to do.


  • #231
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    That seems to be whats going on here in this thread, funny enough.
    Obliq wrote: »
    Was. Those folk seem to have disappeared..... ;)


    Nope, they're still here-

    Nodin wrote: »
    In a shared space, the choices are to put up with what doesn't suit you, or reduce the place to such white-bread blandness that no-one is offended and nothing really takes place. Or go somewhere that suits you.


    Now Nodin would you care to answer the two questions I put to you earlier on in the thread that you seem to have missed? Or is that just a distraction tactic that only you reserve the right to use? To refresh your memory-
    Nodin wrote: »
    That seems to be whats going on here in this thread, funny enough.

    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If I were to engage your posting style I'd ask you where in this thread if you could point it out to me please did I ignore any poster who disagreed with me?


    If they cannot express their disagreement in a proper, respectful, civil, and mature manner, then why should I, why should anyone, feel obliged to engage with them?


    Or like I said, do you just prefer to play Devil's Advocate, just for the hell of the argument, yet contributing nothing of any substance to the discussion with your David Norris style interjections? Contrast the below with what you said above-
    Nodin wrote: »
    A compromise is required in a shared space. Thats why the rules that are there are there. I'd suggest that if this isn't to your liking, perhaps its you and others who need to disengage?


    And you don't like the rules of a private website because they impinge upon your perceived right to mouth off and say whatever you like and to hell with whoever you offend, that's their problem free speech, or do you think just you should be above the rules?

    If we all engaged in your idea of free speech, would anyone ever place any importance on the more important skill of listening? I doubt it. Immature people are all about their rights, yet care nothing for their responsibilities.



    Oblique the above is no reflection on your posts.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Obliq wrote: »
    But surely those speculations are based on what your church teaches? If you'll take my point about the RCC hierarchy being the ones who probably need to hear about how awful you think that is?


    The circles I move in we generally don't behave that way towards others. Most Catholics I know don't go around shouting about 'abominations' etc. etc. etc. or are even all that interested in somebody else's private life.

    The Church doesn't teach people to behave menacingly towards others.

    I have a gay brother in law - I've mentioned him on here before and I love him - he's a practicing Catholic (mass goer) too.

    However, that's not what the thread is about surely?

    Anyway, I just feel shyte for somebody who has taken that kind of abuse on the boards, and I'd like to apologise if somebody who is Catholic online ever caused anybody that much hurt - that's terrible.


  • #233
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    However, that's not what the thread is about surely?

    Anyway, I just feel shyte for somebody who has taken that kind of abuse on the boards, and I'd like to apologise if somebody who is Catholic online ever caused anybody that much hurt - that's terrible.

    Yes, you're dead right - I'm off topic. And that's a nice thing to say :)


  • #234
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Obliq wrote: »
    Just to come back to you there Czarcasm about the stats contained in that Catholic Education Resource Centre (10 myths about Priestly Pedophilia) link that claims only about 0.3% of priests were child abusers, Wikipedia has it somewhat differently to that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Roman_Catholic_cases

    "The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time."

    Not that I take Wikipedia as gospel (:rolleyes:), but I can't help thinking those two stats are a bit different and that one may be looking at the priesthood in a particularly good light......

    Whichever statistic is the more accurate, a huge amount of blame must fall upon those in positions of authority in the church who provided cover for those who abused children. I've a lot of time for a great many priests who do terrific work, but they were let down by bishops and those in the Vatican who were more concerned with protecting the reputation of the institution of the church rather than the interests of the victims. It's the cover up that has left so many feeling betrayed and disillusioned.


  • #235
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Whichever statistic is the more accurate, a huge amount of blame must fall upon those in positions of authority in the church who provided cover for those who abused children. I've a lot of time for a great many priests who do terrific work, but they were let down by bishops and those in the Vatican who were more concerned with protecting the reputation of the institution of the church rather than the interests of the victims. It's the cover up that has left so many feeling betrayed and disillusioned.

    Absolutely Benny. Just to put a context on this, I did actually say that the RCC congregation were not to blame - my more on topic comment that led to these stats being posted was this:

    "Where I differ from this viewpoint is the in notion that the ordinary RCC worshiper, while not to be held accountable for past crimes committed by a significant percent of the heirarchy, seem to think that they should not be called out on where their church continues to purport beliefs that don't even sit well with the ordinary congregation."

    The bolded parts being on topic.


  • #236
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Obliq wrote: »
    Correct! Which is why there is a difference between telling someone that they should do something, and suggesting that they do something (which is what I actually said - quite clearly :)


    It's all in the delivery tbh, there's a fine line between telling someone you were only making a suggestion; if that helps you see where I'm coming from?
    It is truly impossible for a pro-choice feminist who fully supports equality for the LGBT community and objects to the lack of choice in my area regards secular education for my children (among many other issues) to treat with respect the kind of ideology that refuses to itself respect people (never mind their ideologies - people, actual people :( ) that I care about. I can tell you that for a fact. I can respect the person (if they are respectful), but never those ideologies.

    The ideologies you're referring to though are the same ideologies that I'm saying are used by certain people who use religion as the basis for their prejudices. In other words they are the ones who are being a-la-carte about what it is to be a member of the RCC, as guilty of cherry picking as the people who they deride for same cherry picking. The Bible is only used as a guide, but some within the RCC tend to use "God's will" only when it suits them. God was never hate mongerer, and this is one of my issues with the RCC Hierarchy- they preach tolerance and understanding, yet show none themselves, only more interested in exerting their influence and control. They are corrupting the image of the RCC and that's what people such as yourself are picking up on.

    The RCC Hierarchy is making it easy for ye though in fairness.

    As for not being forced to subscribe to the ideology - merely living in Ireland means that you are forced to this, as our constitution gives supreme authority to the "Holy Trinity". http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62213729&postcount=1 You can be sure that I am in the business of trying to change that. I don't however, agree that members of the RCC should be protected from being challenged on the unfairness of this (and the way this ideology filters down through the system) any more than the government should.

    But the only people with the power to change it Oblique are the politicians. Anything else is just misdirection. Enda Kenny can spout all he wants about telling the RCC stay out of affairs of the State, but until he actually takes affirmative action on this stance, it was merely a suggestion.


  • #237
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Obliq wrote: »
    Of the hierarchy, as I said.


    In truth Obliq I had imagined it'd have to be a lot higher than 4% to be considered significant. I'm not a fan of statistics anyway as I believe they never give a true representation of an issue and can be manipulated to "prove" or "disprove" anything. My rational mind is telling me the figure is somewhere in between 0.3% and 4%, but my gut instinct is telling me that you cannot put people's lives down in figures, and the truth is we'll never know the full extent of the issue.

    I disagree. It is also the people who don't believe the damaging rhetoric/dogma but continue to let that remain unchallenged.


    I think we're all agreed the Census figure of 84% catholic Ireland is pure bollocks, and a damning indictment of the fact that statistics are unreliable as fcuk.

    They only have to fully believe in their religious ideology in order to be that prejudiced. I'm thinking you're missing the point about religion actually TEACHING people these prejudices.


    I don't think I am Obliq. The way I see it is that only the most feeble minded individual would never question what they are being taught. Only the most feeble minded people are easily malleable by authority, and if that authority is corrupt, then they only reinforce people's inherent prejudices.

    My parents would have been "devout" RC (as in they used religion as an excuse to exert their authority and try and keep us "in line"; read "controlled"), they were prejudiced about plenty, and tried to impart those prejudices upon their children. But, because I was not a feeble minded individual (I can hear my wife in my head doing the Nelson laugh already, but that's a whole other issue :D), I was able to form my own opinions. As you can imagine, this didn't go down well, and caused many decades of friction between us and still does to this day.

    And look, we can have/are having a perfectly reasonable discussion about this, in very polite terms. However, I think that the dreadful ideologies we are talking about have created great anger in causing such harm to people. I don't like to see people being knocked for their beliefs, but I have very little issue with those harmful beliefs being ripped to pieces, tbh.


    I agree with you as regards the dreadful ideologies causing anger and harm, but those ideologies are corrupted by people that seek to use them as an excuse for their prejudices, so the problem isn't the ideologies, it's the inherently prejudiced people that espouse them and make the rest of the RCC look like a pack of intolerant ignoramuses.


  • #238
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Thread seems to be going off topic -

    Anyway, I think I agree that open debate about peoples ideas etc. should be allowed, and AH has it's own unique kind of humour, which generally speaking one can either take or leave - or just not open the thread, or else report the post.

    Still, if it descends to personal abuse such as what happened to Bannasidhe than that should just not be really tolerated imo -

    I have noticed a trend to perhaps undermine somebodies political ideas by saying they must be Religious to hold them, which is not necessarily true...Everybody has a worldview whether they are atheist or no, and it makes them no less a citizen with ideas or values. It's when they can't be discussed that there is a problem -

    In the instance of all the abortion threads, or even the schooling system in Ireland and the way it should be etc. I think somebody who holds their religion dear will probably feel drowned out on AH sometimes and their valid worldview and points kind of drowned out with well 'noise' tbh - that's why I don't really post there anymore. ( and I'm hard nosed..lol...)

    I saw one Christian, who since closed his account, merely answering and expressing himself, never caused trouble and he was told he was 'disgusting' repeatedly in a very hostile manner by a poster who was repeatedly thanked and backslapped. At least that's the way it read to me...

    I think if this thread does nothing more, than perhaps it may just highlight a need for posters to report posts a little more - and perhaps for mods to be more aware of personal abuse as opposed to real 'heated' discussions and obviously the more playful sense of humour that goes on in that forum such as the mocking all and sundry...which seems to be part and parcel of the humour on AH's.


  • #239
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lmaopml wrote: »
    That is absolutely awful. Where did that happen Bannasidhe, was it on AH's that somebody got that personal about your private life and speculating on it? You should have reported them - nobody should take that kind of personal abuse.

    It was in the Christianity forum mostly with a few drive-by insults in A&A - not so much AH (although it has happened there too) but then I don't go there that often.

    The issue is the fact that quite often technically it is not 'personal' abuse as it is not aimed specifically at myself or any other the other gay posters here.

    Where it has been personal the Mods - or at least most of them, there were exceptions - dealt with it.

    Generally, it takes the form of people stating that their religion says x,y and z (it is never complimentary) about Gay people and they believe this to be true as it is part and parcel of their faith.

    How do I report that?

    Should such a thing be reportable?

    Is a person entitled to say hateful things about a group of people as that is what their religion says?

    These are big issues and worthy of debate.


    When religious people spout hateful things about gay people do they not realise that there are gay people reading this hurtful stuff?

    Do they care?

    That is my point about when religious people get upset and take criticism of their religion personally and complain about it, yet many of those same people have no issue with judging my life and my family often in the most appalling way and justify this with 'we don't hate the sinner. We hate the sin.'

    Well, in that case I don't hate the religious. I hate the religions that spreads such horrible lies about me and people like me and as members of that religion believe they have the 'right' to comment on my life, I equally have the 'right' to comment on their beliefs.



    Edit: Thank you lmaopml for caring.


  • #240
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I saw one Christian, who since closed his account, merely answering and expressing himself, never caused trouble and he was told he was 'disgusting' repeatedly in a very hostile manner by a poster who was repeatedly thanked and backslapped. At least that's the way it read to me...

    I'd think I know who you're talking about and I'd agree with you on that, it was regrettable and I wish he'd stayed on as I think it could have been dealt with. Nonetheless I was in the hot seat on that one and didn't move as quickly as I should have - something I genuinely regret.

    No one should have to take the kind of nonsense that Bannasidhe referred to, and if that sort of thing was going on, it should be reported or a pm should be sent to the mods. Even if it doesn't specifically violate the charter, personally I'd rather it was brought to my attention. In a religious forum it can be quite difficult to hold the line in a discussion about homosexuality for example, as there are many Christians who are genuinely against same-sex marriage. Now I fully support it, but those Christians opposed to it have a right to be able to express their views. Others will debate those views, as is right and proper. If it starts getting nasty or personalised (on either side), that's when a mod really needs to step in, even if it means getting called a "militant secularist" as one former poster referred to me as!


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It was in the Christianity forum mostly with a few drive-by insults in A&A - not so much AH (although it has happened there too) but then I don't go there that often.

    The issue is the fact that quite often technically it is not 'personal' abuse as it is not aimed specifically at myself or any other the other gay posters here.

    Where it has been personal the Mods - or at least most of them, there were exceptions - dealt with it.

    Generally, it takes the form of people stating that their religion says x,y and z (it is never complimentary) about Gay people and they believe this to be true as it is part and parcel of their faith.

    How do I report that?

    Should such a thing be reportable?

    Yes it should IMO, because not only is it uncivil and disrespectful, but it goes against the number one rule of boards which is - Don't be a dick. These people are using their faith as an excuse to vent their hateful prejudices.

    Is a person entitled to say hateful things about a group of people as that is what their religion says?

    No, they shouldn't be entitled to air their prejudices under the guise of religion.

    When religious people spout hateful things about gay people do they not realise that there are gay people reading this hurtful stuff?

    Do they care?

    Answered your own question there Bannasidhe. They don't care that what they say is likely to offend people, in their view in fact- the more people it offends, the more they feel validated.

    That is my point about when religious people get upset and take criticism of their religion personally and complain about it, yet many of those same people have no issue with judging my life and my family often in the most appalling way and justify this with 'we don't hate the sinner. We hate the sin.'

    These are not religious people, these are prejudiced people that use religion as both a weapon and a shield to attack people who disagree with their prejudices.
    Well, in that case I don't hate the religious. I hate the religions that spreads such horrible lies about me and people like me and as members of that religion believe they have the 'right' to comment on my life, I equally have the 'right' to comment on their beliefs.

    Why would you lower yourself to their level? That's exactly what they want, is to make out that you are the insecure person. You are giving them validation for their prejudices. At least on Boards you can report the posts, though as you quite rightly point out, sometimes even the Moderators of that forum may not see an issue the way you do.

    This is why to me at least, religious beliefs which are a personal to the person that holds them, should be kept out of AH, in the same way as I said earlier in this thread-

    If I can keep my religious beliefs out of discussions in After Hours, then why can atheists not be expected to do the very same?


  • #242
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I have a gay brother in law - I've mentioned him on here before and I love him - he's a practicing Catholic (mass goer) too.

    Sorry now lmaopml, just tongue in cheek for a moment (making dinner, no time to reply really - just checking in!)

    But how do you have a gay brother in law?! Last time I checked, gay marriage was something the RCC actually teaches people is wrong (:mad:) ..... so he can't be married to your brother AND go to mass....

    Totally off topic - sorry folks ;)


  • #243
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Obliq wrote: »
    Sorry now lmaopml, just tongue in cheek for a moment (making dinner, no time to reply really - just checking in!)

    But how do you have a gay brother in law?! Last time I checked, gay marriage was something the RCC actually teaches people is wrong (:mad:) ..... so he can't be married to your brother AND go to mass....

    Totally off topic - sorry folks ;)


    His wife's brother?


  • #244
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    His wife's brother?

    Tongue in cheek? :p


  • #245
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    His wife's brother?

    Husband's brother in this case I'd have thought :)

    Sorry about all the speculation about your family life lmaopml!


  • #246
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Nope, they're still here-.


    Yep - lecuring us on the "right" way to do things.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Now Nodin would you care to answer the two questions I put to you earlier on in the thread that you seem to have missed?.

    You stated that long term posters were being ignored in order to let things continue the way they are. I already pointed out that I was a long term poster perfectly happy with the way it was.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84585576&postcount=136

    Subsequently even more long term posters have stated that they are happy the way it is, which rather begs the question why we should listen to a minority that seems to think that the volume at which they deliver their argument will overcome common sense.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    And you don't like the rules of a private website because they impinge upon
    your perceived right to mouth off and say whatever you like and to hell with
    whoever you offend, that's their problem free speech, or do you think
    just you should be above the rules?

    The rules of the website currently accomodate me quite comfortably. It seems to be 3 or 4 others who have a problem with the current set up.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yep - lecuring us on the "right" way to do things.


    I'm not lecturing anybody, I'm engaging in discussion, a concept you are clearly unfamiliar with.

    You stated that long term posters were being ignored in order to let things continue the way they are. I already pointed out that I was a long term poster perfectly happy with the way it was.

    Subsequently even more long term posters have stated that they are happy the way it is, which rather begs the question why we should listen to a minority that seems to think that the volume at which they deliver their argument will overcome common sense.


    Hmm, ignore the views of the minority then, is that what you're saying? That's a viewpoint that could come back to bite you in the ass. I'm alright Jack too by the way, being a white, heterosexual male and all, the majority in every respect. Why should I bother entertaining the views of minorities in society, eh?

    The rules of the website currently accomodate me quite comfortably. It seems to be 3 or 4 others who have a problem with the current set up.


    You clearly haven't read through the thread as I have. There are a significant number of posters who have expressed their revulsion at the treatment of a minority of posters in After Hours, and even more who understand that nobody should be given free reign to be a dick.


  • #248
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I'm not lecturing anybody,.

    I bet to differ

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84563049&postcount=103

    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Hmm, ignore the views of the minority then, is that what you're saying? That's a viewpoint that could come back to bite you in the ass. I'm alright Jack too by the way, being a white, heterosexual male and all, the majority in every respect. Why should I bother entertaining the views of minorities in society, eh?,.

    Playing semantics with "minority" won't make your argument any stronger. And as the thread goes on it seems to be more and more yours alone.

    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You clearly haven't read through the thread as I have. There are a significant number of posters who have expressed their revulsion at the treatment of a minority of posters in After Hours, and even more who understand that nobody should be given free reign to be a dick.

    ...and now you conflate freedom to mock religion with insulting its adherents, and claim those who want the freedom to do so want to "be a dick". Lovely. As Robindch pointed out, this claiming "victim" status is very convenient.


  • #249
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Yes it should IMO, because not only is it uncivil and disrespectful, but it goes against the number one rule of boards which is - Don't be a dick. These people are using their faith as an excuse to vent their hateful prejudices.


    No, they shouldn't be entitled to air their prejudices under the guise of religion.

    I agree. However if one has the audacity to point that out it usually results in cries of 'ad hom!!!!' and the 'victim card' is played.

    Plus, given that there are indeed a few select passages in the Bible which are less than favourable towards homosexuality there is a case to be made such prejudice is part of their faith.

    I have read posts where the poster claim such prejudice was not their personal belief or opinion - it was the word of God himself and they helpfully provided passages from Scripture to support this claim.

    Answered your own question there Bannasidhe. They don't care that what they say is likely to offend people, in their view in fact- the more people it offends, the more they feel validated.

    Some don't care. Some revel in being offensive. Others, I think, are genuine in their deeply held faith and honestly believe that as they are 100% correct what they are saying is not offensive because they believe it is true.
    That they have been 'saved' and wish for others to be 'saved' as well, but in order to do this we much accept the word of God including those very passages which inspire and underpin such prejudice. They don't see it as prejudice.



    These are not religious people, these are prejudiced people that use religion as both a weapon and a shield to attack people who disagree with their prejudices.

    Funny you should say that as in discussions where comments like 'All Christians believe x,z,y about homosexuals...' a phrase I admit I am on like a terrier and respond with links showing individual Christians and Christian denomination do not share that view plus Christian posters have themselves stated they do not agree it becomes about who is the real Christian. Those who disagree are disparaged for not conforming to a clear Biblical instruction therefore they are not proper Christians.


    Why would you lower yourself to their level? That's exactly what they want, is to make out that you are the insecure person. You are giving them validation for their prejudices. At least on Boards you can report the posts, though as you quite rightly point out, sometimes even the Moderators of that forum may not see an issue the way you do.

    This is why to me at least, religious beliefs which are a personal to the person that holds them, should be kept out of AH, in the same way as I said earlier in this thread-

    If I can keep my religious beliefs out of discussions in After Hours, then why can atheists not be expected to do the very same?

    I am hardly a blast them with urine kinda gal nor the type to tell anyone their life and family is lesser or poppycock of that ilk so I am not sure what you mean by lowering myself to their level.

    I do challenge religiously inspired poppycock, tosh and utter rot, in particular when I am the focus of that poppycock, tosh and utter rot.
    As an atheist I see no need to turn the other cheek (:P) nor do I believe allowing such poppycock, tosh and utter rot to pass unremarked and unchallenged is healthy.
    It presents a so-called 'Christian' viewpoint that is not shared by all Christians. Were I a Christian (my OH is) I would be very angry that someone was claiming a viewpoint on my behalf which I find offensive.

    Keeping religion out of AH - a worthy ideal but lets be honest here. This is an Irish discussion board and in Ireland religion (in particular Roman Catholicism) has been programmed into us, it is deep in the bones of our culture, society and institutions. It pervades the place, It is everywhere and so it is also in that microcosm of Irish society that is AH.

    I suspect to keep religion out of AH we would first need to flush it out of our collective system and make it personal.

    Wouldn't that be loverly!:D


  • #250
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    I bet to differ

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84563049&postcount=103


    You're offering a post where I made suggestions as proof of lecturing? Of all my posts in this thread and that's the one post you can offer as proof of lecturing? Even I can do better than that myself-

    Czarcasm wrote: »
    With all due respect SR and while you're an exemplary Moderator in After Hours, I hope you take it as a constructive criticism when I say that in Feedback as an ordinary poster, you make a piss poor representation of yourself. With a little thought, you could have made a far more constructive post rather than one that came off as so condescendingly inaccurate.

    While it's true I don't know the exact inner workings of boards.ie and in particular AH, to get into a pissing contest about my project management chops would be to stoop to your level of condescension.

    I'm not about to do that and I think we gone far enough off topic already so with that in mind I'll step out now and let somebody else get a word in edgeways.

    Playing semantics with "minority" won't make your argument any stronger. And as the thread goes on it seems to be more and more yours alone.


    Who's playing semantics? Atheist opinion and derision of the Religion is the staple of After Hours. You yourself earlier in this very thread pointed out an example that Micky had missed-

    Nodin wrote: »
    Could have fooled me

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056945796


    As the thread has gone on there have been many opinions and perspectives put forward, many discussions had and understandings reached. This went on while the only poster who has contributed almost as much to the thread as I have, has yet to offer an opinion of any substance beyond sniping, which I have graciously entertained thus far though I am loath to do so.

    (That'd be you by the way Nodin).

    ...and now you conflate freedom to mock religion with insulting its adherents, and claim those who want the freedom to do so want to "be a dick". Lovely. As Robindch pointed out, this claiming "victim" status is very convenient.


    If you want the freedom to mock religion, there are plenty of other sites on the Internet where you can indulge your prediliction. I for one am glad that Boards has standards, which preclude people acting like dicks, and mocking anything in such a juvenille fashion as some people do in After Hours.

    There's nobody claiming victim status here at all. I'm saying the same thing I said all along- If I can leave my religion outside After Hours, why should the same not be asked of Atheists? It's truly saying something when I feel more comfortable expressing a contrary opinion in the Atheism forum than I do in After Hours.


    At this point Nodin, you have continuously dodged the question I put to you earlier in this thread-

    Czarcasm wrote: »

    If I were to engage your posting style I'd ask you where in this thread if you could point it out to me please did I ignore any poster who disagreed with me?


    But it's OK, because again I'm going to give you a better answer than any you could give-


    I will not be entertaining you any further in this thread and from this point on I am choosing to ignore any further posts of yours as I feel your posts have been of no benefit to this discussion and have contributed nothing whatsoever to the discussion.


  • #251
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I was with you all the way right up to the part in bold. TBH the need to mock religion(well lets face it mostly Catholicism in Ireland) strikes me as just a little adolescent at this stage.

    We are a bit late on that one Wibbs, we were to busy banning the Life of Brian and the Exorcist in the 70's, while other countries debated how to deal with satire and criticism, rejecting even limited grounds for abortion and divorce in the 80's and 49.9% of the electorate voted against divorce less than 20 years ago. We've had massive changes in how the country views gay people never mind marriage and adoption in those 20 years.

    That would be problematic in itself, then put decades od sexual and mental abuse by Church members and systemic cover ups of the aforementioned abuses and many people are extremely angry.

    Yes, the abuse is OTT at times but AH is a general forum and I'm personally getting sick of it, but we can't force or steer threads or opinions either.
    Bingo. Questioning and/or disbelieving what someone believes is grand as far as I'm concerned, mocking, especially of the all too often childish "they're all kiddy fiddlers Jim" kind is quite simply being a dick.

    Agreed. However I'm completely against this notion that religion should be protected or treated differently, I fail to see why we should have any type of ongoing superthread on religion, abortion, stuff like that. I don't see any other topic getting that privilege and I don't see why religion and atheism should be treated differently. To me it's like how left or right wingers get derided, pc, do gooders, that type of stuff. It's a belief, same as with political beliefs, you are entitled to them, it doesn't mean they are special just because you believe them.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement