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
Religious Threads in After Hours
Options
Comments
-
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
0 -
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?0 -
-
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!0 -
Nope, they're still here-.
Yep - lecuring us on the "right" way to do things.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.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
I'm not lecturing anybody,.
I bet to differ
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84563049&postcount=103Hmm, 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.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.0 -
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!:D0 -
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-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-
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-
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.0 -
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.
0 -
Advertisement
-
You are probably the only mod who does have some sympathy for the RCC in AH's, some of the comments are just plain stupid and tiresome.
This is a catholic country and we all believe what we believe, it's just not cool to be a catholic in AH's.
I've said I have sympathy for RC posters on AH, bit like I've sympathy for anybody arguing an unpopular opinion or position on AH on any topic, I just don't believe I should treat them differently to people who support FF, FG, Labour or SF and have to defend unpopular stuff. The usual AH rules should apply though, by all means report posts that you think the AH line, but I'm not going out of my way to enforce religious threads more rigorously than political threads for example.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
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-.
.....I thought it was just mockery? Now its "atheist opinion"? Dear me.If you want the freedom to mock religion, there are plenty of other sites on the Internet where you can indulge your prediliction.-.
So it is back to 'ban the Life Of Brian' then. Well at least thats cleared up.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.
I had no idea we were discussing "atheism" at all, up until this point.
At this point Nodin, you have continuously dodged the question I put to you
earlier in this thread-
I've answered that twice
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84612865&postcount=246
You didn't take any issue with my answer, but just keep ignoring it.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........
There's an attitude to various threads you could employ in AH. And it doesn't drag the rest of us back to 1950.0 -
I've said I have sympathy for RC posters on AH, bit like I've sympathy for anybody arguing an unpopular opinion or position on AH on any topic, I just don't believe I should treat them differently to people who support FF, FG, Labour or SF and have to defend unpopular stuff. The usual AH rules should apply though, by all means report posts that you think the AH line, but I'm not going out of my way to enforce religious threads more rigorously than political threads for example.
I agree with this. I don't see how religion, or lack of a religion, and all the views that may stem from either - could be kept out of a general board like AH - either whether it was mostly Christian friendly or mostly not.
In the Charter (which I just read) there is the entry about 'How to be a better poster' lol.... - which also covers people who resort to personal abuse, or the 'Don't be a Dick' rule and that seems to pretty much cover it.
I think it's probably just lack of reporting, and perhaps that the board is so busy to cover all posts...probably the busiest board here.
Lot's of people don't really like 'reporting' people - I know I don't, it feels like grassing on them or something, so perhaps that's why it reads the way it does. Perhaps changing that kind of attitude might help somewhat....how to do that however, I don't know.
I'd prefer to just post elsewhere than battle through all the fly by, 'you're Christian so you must be delusional - therefore your opinion means nothing to me because I love the skyfairy' comments that can at times get posted on there...or the 'Peado' comments and generalising etc. I think that's what most Christians end up doing, just leaving it as it is. The demographic here is what it is, and they are entitled to say what they think I guess.0 -
I agree with this. I don't see how religion, or lack of a religion, and all the views that may stem from either - could be kept out of a general board like AH - either whether it was mostly Christian friendly or mostly not.
In the Charter (which I just read) there is the entry about 'How to be a better poster' lol.... - which also covers people who resort to personal abuse, or the 'Don't be a Dick' rule and that seems to pretty much cover it.
I think it's probably just lack of reporting, and perhaps that the board is so busy to cover all posts...probably the busiest board here.
Lot's of people don't really like 'reporting' people - I know I don't, it feels like grassing on them or something, so perhaps that's why it reads the way it does. Perhaps changing that kind of attitude might help somewhat....how to do that however, I don't know.
I'd prefer to just post elsewhere than battle through all the fly by, 'you're Christian so you must be delusional - therefore your opinion means nothing to me because I love the skyfairy' comments that can at times get posted on there...or the 'Peado' comments and generalising etc. I think that's what most Christians end up doing, just leaving it as it is. The demographic here is what it is, and they are entitled to say what they think I guess.
I'm here long enough and have enough posts that there is an element of "water of a ducks back", a few posters "I zone out", many others I like reading.
Anyway, please report posts, you aren't ratting on anybody, you are highlighting what you think are problematic posts and giving your opinion. As I said previously, very few aren't acted on in someway, could be as simple as keeping an eye on a thread or making a mental note of a poster who pops up later on another thread. The vast, vast majority of reported posts contribute to the forum in some way, it mightn't be that visible, might get a discussion or a thought going, often more valuable than a run of the mill breaking of the rules, might eventually result in a change of the rules!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59030
True enough and I well remember the change. Catholicism went from sacred cow to fatted calf ripe for devouring in the space of a generation. Which I find interesting in of itself. I can be pretty sure that if Boards had existed back in the late 70's say, you'd find a scary number of current "Catholic church ha!" folks might well have been dyed in the wool crawthumpers. Go back to the 50's and it would be a given. I know among my peers at the time there were few agnostics, never mind vocal atheists. I was one of the more vocal(big shock) agnostics and was twice suspended from school for my troubles and support from my peers was overwhelmingly deafening in it's silence. It was very much a part of a cultural belief system from the ground up as well as from the top down. Thank the fates that changed.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.
Oh I agree K, especially on the last point, though it could be argued we already do steer threads/opinions. Sexist and racist guff is hopped on(rightfully), but what about cultural beliefs? How long would a thread entitled "Traveler culture is backward and damaging to Ireland" last? For good reasons considering how they tend to degenerate into daft stereotypes on both sides of the argument/debate. A thread entitled "Catholic culture is backward and damaging to Ireland" would be fine. Maybe we'd say "oh well, but that's different". I would argue the difference is slight enough. For many if not most religious people, their faith is a very strong part of their overall cultural belief system. It's how they define themselves. It's up there with their national allegiance, if not above it. I think that's something we non believers can forget/miss in this. Yep I think it daft myself, but I recognise how deeply many believers feel this allegiance.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.
Agreed again.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.
This, so much this. If too many people keep silent, then it's likely a problem won't be spotted and noting will change. Think of how Ireland would have changed if we could have anonymously and en masse reported real life back in the day.Anyway, please report posts, you aren't ratting on anybody, you are highlighting what you think are problematic posts and giving your opinion. As I said previously, very few aren't acted on in someway, could be as simple as keeping an eye on a thread or making a mental note of a poster who pops up later on another thread. The vast, vast majority of reported posts contribute to the forum in some way, it mightn't be that visible, might get a discussion or a thought going, often more valuable than a run of the mill breaking of the rules, might eventually result in a change of the rules!
TBH K having read through this interesting debate and reading both sides of the argument, I still come back to my main position of why on earth would someone engage in a particular thread on a particular forum knowing full well the general opinion of the locals is at odds and possibly offensive to them. The majority take on AH(and on Boards in general I'd reckon) towards religion runs along a spectrum of meh, disagree, strongly disagree. If you don't like it, you have a choice not to read it and yes you have the choice not to take offence.
TL;DR? If it's not broken don't fix it and IMHO AH ain't broke.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
True enough and I well remember the change. Catholicism went from sacred cow to fatted calf ripe for devouring in the space of a generation. Which I find interesting in of itself. I can be pretty sure that if Boards had existed back in the late 70's say, you'd find a scary number of current "Catholic church ha!" folks might well have been dyed in the wool crawthumpers. Go back to the 50's and it would be a given.
......................
For many if not most religious people, their faith is a very strong part of their overall cultural belief system. It's how they define themselves. It's up there with their national allegiance, if not above it. I think that's something we non believers can forget/miss in this. Yep I think it daft myself, but I recognise how deeply many believers feel this allegiance.
Very interesting Wibbs, and very true to my mind. My experience of growing up in 70's Dublin as an atheist child of a Protestant/Catholic mixed marriage (both of whom had completely rejected the religious indoctrination of their own upbringings) left me feeling fairly disenfranchised tbh, in terms of my identity as an Irish person. I readily admit to a massive store of resentment about how I was viewed as a west brit and not Irish enough for my political/religious views to be acceptable in any way.
I'm of the opinion that much of the anger felt by "the new" generation who have rejected wholly or partly the sacred cows of religion, stems from a similar feeling of being made an outsider in terms of tradition (certainly) and identity/belonging. For example, the notion of "The Pro-Life Republic - Keep Ireland abortion free" immediately and understandably gets the backs up of people who desire that the present reality of people's lives and social circumstances would be, not only recognised and represented, but accepted as a cultural change that does not diminish their national allegiance.0 -
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.
If YOU want to leave YOUR religion out of AH then by all means do. Just because you don't want these discussions in AH, doesn't mean that everyone else should have to stick to the Christianity/Atheist forums. If you don't like how religion is discussed in AH then don't read the threads.
I do think that personal abuse directed towards individuals based on their religion should of course be punishable. However criticism against a belief should of COURSE be allowed. Any religion is (and should be) open to criticism, be it Catholicism, Islam, Scientology...whatever. It's a big step forward for this country that the younger generation is finally starting to break free from religion and for many of those, boards.ie has probably been a big catalyst in that.
I know this is a tired quote that is often rehashed in such discussions, but I really think it's relevant here:
"To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom.
The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."
- Rowan Atkinson0 -
I would argue the difference is not slight at all. What kind of influence do traveller groups try to push on society? Nothing bar protecting or defending their way of life. The church gets representatives on every Prime Time, news slot, think tank etc, on any issue they have an opinion about. When's the last time you saw a debate on abortion or gay marriage without a priest or some apologist from the (tax exempt) Iona Institute being given a place at the table? I don't see many travellers invited, even though they can actually marry and have sex.How long would a thread entitled "Traveler culture is backward and damaging to Ireland" last? For good reasons considering how they tend to degenerate into daft stereotypes on both sides of the argument/debate. A thread entitled "Catholic culture is backward and damaging to Ireland" would be fine. Maybe we'd say "oh well, but that's different". I would argue the difference is slight enough.
The church use every media outlet available to put themselves forward as effectively unpaid representatives of the Irish people, and as such are answerable for what they do and say in the same way our TDs are. We even have our archbishop hinting at excommunication for politicians voting in legislation twice sanctioned by the people in a referendum. Pressure. Influence.
So no, the RCC are not travellers, feminists or Nigerians; they are something far bigger, far more influential, and far more likely to push their views on you.
Jibes at believers in general add nothing to any debate, I'd agree, but in no way should the church be given protection from criticism.0 -
TBH K having read through this interesting debate and reading both sides of the argument, I still come back to my main position of why on earth would someone engage in a particular thread on a particular forum knowing full well the general opinion of the locals is at odds and possibly offensive to them. The majority take on AH(and on Boards in general I'd reckon) towards religion runs along a spectrum of meh, disagree, strongly disagree. If you don't like it, you have a choice not to read it and yes you have the choice not to take offence.
TL;DR? If it's not broken don't fix it and IMHO AH ain't broke.
Quality Post Wibbs, but I'll try and answer this one as best I can and bear in mind I can only speak for myself here.
The reason I want to engage in threads that would be at odds with my religious beliefs is because for me, when AH talks about an issue that affects society such as abortion, religious beliefs or lack thereof shouldn't come into the issue.
On an issue such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, these are issues that affect a society, so one should be able to see beyond oneself if they want to gain an understanding of others. That's why for me when somebody tries to lend weight to their opinion using phrases like "as an atheist", "as a catholic", "as a parent" even, that's when I as K-9 put it "zone out".
I also zone out when in a discussion about child sexual abuse, somebody (and I'm paraphrasing here) interjects with "That'll be the kiddie fiddling catlicks again. As an atheist I can't stand the cnuts and the RCC should be burnt to the ground".
Now, what has the above added to a discussion on a topic which affects society? Absolutely nothing. But guaranteed it'll get plenty of validation. Gotta love that thanks button for teaching posters that instead of giving their actual opinion on an issue, playing to the crowd by spouting irrelevant waffle gets far more approval.
I am actually ALL FOR difficult topics being discussed, I deal with it on a daily basis. I'll never be offended by anyone offering their true opinion on an issue, I'll appreciate and respect them more for it. But what I DO find offensive, is lazy, feeble minded thanks whoring. I am ALL FOR discussing Sean Brady's shot across the bow of Government on the abortion issue. I'm all for discussing his involvement with covering up the abuse of children. But can that be done without bringing his beliefs into the discussion? I think it can, because nowhere to my knowledge in Catholic Doctrine, Beliefs, even the Bible itself, nowhere does it say that it's OK to abuse children.
Therefore in my view at least, the likes of Sean Brady and Brendan Smyth should be seen apart from the wider RCC, which does not condone their actions. This is why I always say and I will say it again, that these people were pedophiles and perverts before they were ever members of the clergy, in the same way as anyone who is in a position of authority was a pedophile or a pervert before they were ever in that position of authority. There are many who use their position of authority to help people, and far too often these people are ignored, and their actions diminished by the behaviour of a very small minority.
One thing about After Hours is it has never accepted lazy generalisations and stereotypes, so why does the RCC get special exclusion from that? I understand that a charter is a living document so to speak, and a guide, and it's at the discretion of the Moderators of that forum and they have to make judgement calls. but seriously- either the lazy generalised stereotypes are not permitted in any case, or they should be permitted in all cases, in which case After Hours will go down the crapper.
I could've based my argument on what this guy says, but then I don't agree with everything he says either-
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/catholics-must-not-cede-ground-in-public-debate
Particularly relevant when politicians as public figures who espouse their Catholic faith to bolster their morality, are having the beam shone in their eye by an equally corrupt individual who uses his Catholic faith to bolster his morality. It'll be interesting to see will Enda actually mean what he says, or was that just playing to the electorate to get approval.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59030
Yea O, it's quite amazing to me how things have changed and how rapidly too(soooo much for the better). The pope shows up in Ireland in the late 70's and half the population rock up, if he had shown up in the late 80's, he'd have been lucky to fill Croke park.Obliq wrote:Very interesting Wibbs, and very true to my mind. My experience of growing up in 70's Dublin as an atheist child of a Protestant/Catholic mixed marriage (both of whom had completely rejected the religious indoctrination of their own upbringings) left me feeling fairly disenfranchised tbh, in terms of my identity as an Irish person.
While obviously the scale is different D, fundamentally(no pun) that's what the church is doing too. They are both cultural groups existing in Ireland, both looking for protection/special consideration for their cultural beliefs and practices. My point was that while one is rightfully criticised for this, another is protected. One is a sacred cow to be avoided, one is (again rightfully IMHO) a whipping boy. In one case someone can repeatedly bring up high levels of clerical sex abuse/sky fairy nonsense in the Catholic church to the point of fatigue, but a poster would last a very short time if they brought up the suggestion of higher levels of criminality among Travelers.I would argue the difference is not slight at all. What kind of influence do traveller groups try to push on society? Nothing bar protecting or defending their way of life.
BTW my attitude would be that all cultural ideas, including religion should be open to debate and criticism, so long as the "don't be a dick" law remains unbroken(to be fair that's generally the case and in the case of Traveler threads the law rarely remains unbroken past the first page of a thread, so I do get why it's often/usually not worth the hassle for mods).
Oh don't get me wrong I agree D, you have no idea how much I agree. I'd merely fall in behind K when he wroteJibes at believers in general add nothing to any debate, I'd agree, but in no way should the church be given protection from criticism.
and sometimes in this abuse the "Don't be a dick" law is bent and often enough broken. And we're back to people should report such posts.K-9 wrote:Yes, the abuse is OTT at times but AH is a general forum and I'm personally getting sick of itRejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
....
TBH K having read through this interesting debate and reading both sides of the argument, I still come back to my main position of why on earth would someone engage in a particular thread on a particular forum knowing full well the general opinion of the locals is at odds and possibly offensive to them. The majority take on AH(and on Boards in general I'd reckon) towards religion runs along a spectrum of meh, disagree, strongly disagree. If you don't like it, you have a choice not to read it and yes you have the choice not to take offence.
TL;DR? If it's not broken don't fix it and IMHO AH ain't broke.
Indeed.0 -
The reason I want to engage in threads that would be at odds with my religious beliefs is because for me, when AH talks about an issue that affects society such as abortion, religious beliefs or lack thereof shouldn't come into the issue.
On an issue such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, these are issues that affect a society, so one should be able to see beyond oneself if they want to gain an understanding of others. That's why for me when somebody tries to lend weight to their opinion using phrases like "as an atheist", "as a catholic", "as a parent" even, that's when I as K-9 put it "zone out".
Any discussion in any forum, anywhere in the world but most especially here, cannot help but bring religious belief/lack thereof into the issue of abortion. I fail to see how you think it can be kept out of the debate actually? There would be no such debate and we would have access to abortion here in Ireland if it weren't for people's religious beliefs. Most people understand this to be the case, I think, so it is a little disingenuous tbh to expect people not to question the beliefs of people who will not keep religion out of the debate themselves.
Also, people use their own personal experience to give weight to their views, and it does. You can zone out if you want to, I find it more interesting when people give a simple and often effective definition of a position that they are coming from.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26391
Quality Post Wibbs, but I'll try and answer this one as best I can and bear in mind I can only speak for myself here.
The reason I want to engage in threads that would be at odds with my religious beliefs is because for me, when AH talks about an issue that affects society such as abortion, religious beliefs or lack thereof shouldn't come into the issue.
I'll make a deal with you,
If the RCC and other religious orders and groups don't get involved in such issues then non-religious people won't discuss religion in threads about these important matters.
Until that day happens its completely unreasonable to expect that religion won't be discussed in threads about for example:
- Gay marriage
- Contraception
- Abortion
- Divorce
- How the Irish school system is run
- How much time is devoted to religion in Irish schools
- Tax payer money going towards religious use (such as school chaplins)
etc
How else do you expect an important matter like gay marriage for example to be discussed when the reason for religious groups/RCC etc being against it is their religion!0 -
I am actually ALL FOR difficult topics being discussed, I deal with it on a daily basis. I'll never be offended by anyone offering their true opinion on an issue, I'll appreciate and respect them more for it. But what I DO find offensive, is lazy, feeble minded thanks whoring. I am ALL FOR discussing Sean Brady's shot across the bow of Government on the abortion issue. I'm all for discussing his involvement with covering up the abuse of children. But can that be done without bringing his beliefs into the discussion? I think it can, because nowhere to my knowledge in Catholic Doctrine, Beliefs, even the Bible itself, nowhere does it say that it's OK to abuse children.
Therefore in my view at least, the likes of Sean Brady and Brendan Smyth should be seen apart from the wider RCC, which does not condone their actions. This is why I always say and I will say it again, that these people were pedophiles and perverts before they were ever members of the clergy, in the same way as anyone who is in a position of authority was a pedophile or a pervert before they were ever in that position of authority. There are many who use their position of authority to help people, and far too often these people are ignored, and their actions diminished by the behaviour of a very small minority.
Y'know, for all that I disagree that questioning people's beliefs shouldn't be fair game, you have a point here. In the interests of fairness, it's very true that nowhere in Catholic doctrine is it ok to abuse children. I suppose that's what makes people all the more embittered about the church - the very people moralising to us have been the very ones covering up some of their member's appalling abuses.
I also have some sympathy for people who (sometimes against their wishes, certainly against their long-term best interests) were pressured into the priesthood at an early age, probably in a state of complete ignorance about their own sexuality, needs and desires. The very culture that raised up children to the priesthood, incubated, and indeed provided a fertile ground for abuse of children under the observation of the church's regime. And the culture of "celibacy" and silence/fear about sexuality and desire played into it the whole time. I think that's a given, at this stage, so I'm sure that for the most part, saying that "these people were pedophiles and perverts before they were ever members of the clergy" isn't even close to accurate in most cases. In other words, a fcuked up childhood can sometimes lead directly to being that fcuked up. Not always, but sometimes.
However, your point stands about child abuse not being condoned anywhere in the belief system, and so in relation to this issue, people's beliefs shouldn't be knocked IMO.0 -
Lads I've been reading everything that's been posted when it was posted since I last posted in this thread, and I've wanted to try and think of proper replies as best I can to try and convey what I'm thinking in my head, or where I'm coming from, but the truth is at this point I'm both mentally and physically drained from trying to think of how I could best reply to all the posts in a way that people could understand where I'm coming from.
I don't think I can explain tbh, at least I can't think of the words or put it in such a way that I think would get through to anybody. I had hoped that we'd get much more posters in here, because I don't have the energy mentally at least or the intellect even to express myself properly.
At least one thing is we were able to discuss the issue in a civil fashion and that's something at least. I think at this point the thread might go one of two ways- either wildly off topic, or circular, and I've said all I can say and tried to take on as much as I could, so at this point I'll have to with all due respect to every poster that's contributed, I'll have to bow out of this discussion and accept the outcomes of the Moderators decisions.0 -
Don't worry too much about it Czarcasm, I'd say. TBH, I rarely go near AH myself because it's such a free for all, and people do have a field day ripping a new one in someone's opinion, seemingly for the only reason that it differs from the majority. I have a problem with that myself, and although there are interesting/hard-hitting and in depth debates, I dislike seeing such leaps to judgement as I've regularly seen there. I can't imagine how hard it would be to moderate actually. Quite happy to stick to where people don't usually get away with being actually mean to anyone. My 2 cent worth - about all it's worth!0
-
Is there anything to be said for another mass?0
-
Lads I've been reading everything that's been posted when it was posted since I last posted in this thread, and I've wanted to try and think of proper replies as best I can to try and convey what I'm thinking in my head, or where I'm coming from, but the truth is at this point I'm both mentally and physically drained from trying to think of how I could best reply to all the posts in a way that people could understand where I'm coming from.
I don't think I can explain tbh, at least I can't think of the words or put it in such a way that I think would get through to anybody.
That is where you are wrong - you've said many things that do ring true, and some that don't - that's the complication of 'feedback'!I had hoped that we'd get much more posters in here, because I don't have the energy mentally at least or the intellect even to express myself properly.
At least one thing is we were able to discuss the issue in a civil fashion and that's something at least. I think at this point the thread might go one of two ways- either wildly off topic, or circular, and I've said all I can say and tried to take on as much as I could, so at this point I'll have to with all due respect to every poster that's contributed, I'll have to bow out of this discussion and accept the outcomes of the Moderators decisions.
At the end of the day, this is a tiny space on the whole of the internet that happens to be part of 'boards.ie' -
There are a few who might wander here every now and then out of boredom or looking to see what this forum is all about ( feedback posts are not by invitation - only by 'interest' ) and that is fostered - obviously.
You have demonstrated that you do have the energy, and indeed the mentality and the intellect too, don't doubt it because you read clear - to say what you mean and mean what you say, and came across loud and clear - that my friend is a good thing, and it is like you say, up to 'the powers that be' to decide where AH's is going.
That's what it's all about, I presume, this 'feedback' that you did.0 -
Is there anything to be said for another mass?
I remember watching Dave Allen 20 years ago, I was a young Irish lad growing up, he just took the piss out of so many things I thought sacrosanct.
Got a "Best of Dave Allen" DVD, Allen naval gazing at his obituary, a bit too lovingly, but still, a comic wizard. Young lad loves it, the parts I see as timeless, he probably sees as dated, and how quaint am I!
Such tame stuff, but the Dave Allen show was banned in Ireland. DAVE ALLEN BANNED, RTE!
That's why I cringe when I hear David Quinn, the Catholic voice of the NATION, speak.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement