Can an openly atheist politician ever become Taoiseach in our lifetime?

Lapin · 03-12-2013 04:41AM #1

I'm not suggesting that anyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should ever be a factor in ones ability to hold the office, but given Irish society's ties with the catholic church since the foundation of the state, and the influence the church has on a large number of people and its continuing presence of many aspects of Irish culture, is it possible for a politician become elected as head of government without professing to be a practicing catholic, even though he or she may be non religious or atheist.

While there are a number of openly atheist TDs, the chances of them ever becoming Taoiseach are slim to none. Even as Ireland becomes more secular, would it be safe (politically speaking) for a politician with a chance of holding the office to declare themselves atheist or would it be seen as burning thousands of potential votes?

Peregrinus · 03-12-2013 04:51AM

Well, remember the Taoiseach is not elected by the voters.

Can we conceive of circumstances in which, say, Ruairi Quinn or someone of his views would be elected leader of the Labour Party? Yes, I think we can.

And can we conceive of circumstances in which Labour might the leading party in a governing coalition? It would take a dramatic turnaround in someone else's electoral fortunes but, again, I think the answer is yes, we can.

So, yes, an atheist could become Taoiseach.

Would his atheism be any kind of handicap or hurdle, electorally speaking? I think it would - as in, it would cost him more support than it would gain him - but not to such an extent as to make his election as party leader, or his securing enough support for his party to lead a governing coalition, impossible.

These things always look impossible until they actually happen. After all, much before 2008 would you have thought it was possible for a black man to be elected President of the United States? Much before the mid-1970s would you have thought it possible for a woman to become Prime Minister of the UK?

pauldla · 03-12-2013 05:43AM

It's a good question, but I don't think it would be as big a deal in Ireland as it might be on the other side of The Pond. Our first President was CoI (as was his mustache, and it's worth googling him just to get a view of his manly facial hair), at a time when Ireland was much more Catholic than it is now (indeed, he was chosen in part because he was non-Catholic). So while it's not quite the same thing as his being atheist, there is a tradition of high office holders professing different beliefs from the Plain People of Ireland.

magicbastarder · 03-12-2013 10:52AM

regarding the irish public's view of morality & religious teaching, remember that we elected bertie ahern as taoiseach three times in a row - and he was married, but living with a woman other than his wife (his other sins put to one side for now).
that's not a situation i'd easily imagine occurring in britain or the US.

Lucena · 03-12-2013 03:58PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

regarding the irish public's view of morality & religious teaching, remember that we elected bertie ahern as taoiseach three times in a row - and he was married, but living with a woman other than his wife (his other sins put to one side for now).
that's not a situation i'd easily imagine occurring in britain or the US.

Based on this, I really don't think it'd be an obstacle. Strangely enough, Irish people are quite tolerant in some respects. I think we could even have a gay Taoiseach, and no-one would mind.

PopePalpatine · 03-12-2013 04:05PM

I'm not certain on this, but I think Michael D Higgins is at least an agnostic. No-one except the Christian Right brought up Norris' sexuality in the 2011 Presidential Election either IIRC.

Kidchameleon · 03-12-2013 06:36PM

Does the Taoiseach need to take an oath?

Sulla Felix · 03-12-2013 09:44PM

No, they don't. I don't think that would be a factor anyway even if they did have a similar oath to that of the President or Council of State. We're not exactly sticklers for minutia, as a nation.

Benny_Cake · 03-12-2013 10:42PM

Sulla Felix wrote: »

No, they don't. I don't think that would be a factor anyway even if they did have a similar oath to that of the President or Council of State. We're not exactly sticklers for minutia, as a nation.

Indeed, Eamon Gilmore didn't let it bother him! And Dev was quite prepared to overlook his previous opposition to the oath of allegiance so he could take his Dail seat back in the 20s.

I don't see an atheist Taoiseach being an issue for the overwhelming majority of people in this country (how many people actually know or care that the current Taoiseach Tanaiste is an atheist?). In the US - not a chance. Irish people have a pragmatic streak when comes to such things.

Peregrinus · 04-12-2013 02:21AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

. . . how many people actually know or care that the current Taoiseach is an atheist? . . .

Sorry, are you saying that Enda's an atheist, or have I misunderstood you?

Benny_Cake · 04-12-2013 07:58AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying that Enda's an atheist, or have I misunderstood you?

That should have read Tanaiste. Duly corrected!

Hotblack Desiato · 06-12-2013 02:25AM

pauldla wrote: »

It's a good question, but I don't think it would be as big a deal in Ireland as it might be on the other side of The Pond. Our first President was CoI (as was his mustache, and it's worth googling him just to get a view of his manly facial hair), at a time when Ireland was much more Catholic than it is now (indeed, he was chosen in part because he was non-Catholic). So while it's not quite the same thing as his being atheist, there is a tradition of high office holders professing different beliefs from the Plain People of Ireland.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Douglas Hyde was chosen in an attempt to prove that we weren't a catholic fascist nation, even though we were.

That worked out well :rolleyes:

pauldla · 06-12-2013 02:47AM

ninja900 wrote: »

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Douglas Hyde was chosen in an attempt to prove that we weren't a catholic fascist nation, even though we were.

That worked out well :rolleyes:

It was working out grand until the fine old gent died (and he was a fine old gent, by all accounts), and the then-govt realised that, under then-RCC teachings, they wouldn't be able to enter the CoI church for the funeral, so they all had to wait outside. Ah, happier days. We must remember the mystery of faith.

jank · 06-12-2013 02:57AM

The days of what you are, defing who you are is behind us for most of the people of Ireland. Most people don't care and I would say that being an atheist would not matter.
However, if they go down the pontificating route of Atheism+/dawkins well that may rub people up the wrong way and would not be wise electorially as you will be seen as divise.

Julia Gillard was elected as an atheist, it was a talking point for about a day and then things moved onto policy, leadership, mandate, rudd and the **** storm joke that was the ALP etc.. She didnt push her personal views onto others and people left her alone. Australian politics can be very rough and tumble (much more so than Irish politics) but the non-religious thing was never a mainstream issue. She was hated for her spend and tax policies, her schoolmarm personality and crying 'sexim' everytime the opposition said anything about her. If she stayed as leader of the ALP to contest the last election they would have had their worst electoral result for over 60 years.

She will be remembered for being the first woman PM of Australia, her short reign in power which will go down as a failure but she will not be remembered for being the first atheist PM of Australia, because people dont care about it tbh.

jank · 06-12-2013 03:01AM

ninja900 wrote: »

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Douglas Hyde was chosen in an attempt to prove that we weren't a catholic fascist nation, even though we were.

That worked out well :rolleyes:

Seemed the word fascist is thrown about without it being truely understood. Ireland may have been a conservative nation under undue influence from the RCC but we werent a fascist nation by any means.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-12-2013 09:49AM

Try telling that to a 1950s unmarried pregnant woman, Jank. Her 'options' were emigration or imprisonment.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-12-2013 09:52AM

pauldla wrote: »

It was working out grand until the fine old gent died (and he was a fine old gent, by all accounts), and the then-govt realised that, under then-RCC teachings, they wouldn't be able to enter the CoI church for the funeral, so they all had to wait outside. Ah, happier days. We must remember the mystery of faith.

Exactly, there was nothing wrong with his presidency apart from the fact it was a fig-leaf for a catholic theocracy.

yeppydeppy · 06-12-2013 09:55AM

Charlie believed he was god, does that count?

Peregrinus · 06-12-2013 10:06AM

ninja900 wrote: »

Try telling that to a 1950s unmarried pregnant woman, Jank. Her 'options' were emigration or imprisonment.

Nevertheless Jank is correct. Social conservatism does not equal fascism. Puritanism does not equal fascism. You're in danger of Godwinning your own position.

robindch · 06-12-2013 12:35PM

jank wrote: »

[...] She was hated for [...] crying 'sexim' everytime the opposition said anything about her [...]

I'd have thought that Abbott telling Gillard she ought to "make an honest woman of herself" and referring to her as a "witch" and a "bitch" would count for 'sexim' (sic) in most peoples' books. Even Tony Abbott's books, should it ever turn out that he has some and he's able to read.

Here's Gillard making the prancing Abbot look like the arrogant, unenlightened, neanderthal fool he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0

jank · 06-12-2013 02:57PM

robindch wrote: »

I'd have thought that Abbott telling Gillard she ought to "make an honest woman of herself" and referring to her as a "witch" and a "bitch" would count for 'sexim' (sic) in most peoples' books. Even Tony Abbott's books, should it ever turn out that he has some and he's able to read.

Here's Gillard making the prancing Abbot look like the arrogant, unenlightened, neanderthal fool he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0

I could count on you Robin to add a bit of drama to this thread.
Abbot has never called Gillard a 'bitch' or a 'witch. I think you are confusing it with signs he was photographed next to at an anti-carbon tax demo a few years ago where he spoke. Optics aren't great but he never directly referred to her in those terms nor were the sings sanctioned by the liberal party.

Regarding the comment about 'making an honest woman out of herself' this was again referring to the carbon tax.

"I think if the Prime Minister wants to make, politically speaking, an honest woman of herself, she needs to seek a mandate for a carbon tax and she should do that at the next election."

For background, Gillard campaigned, in fact pledged in front of the nation NOT to have a carbon tax, yet low and behold, like magic appeared a carbon tax under a Gillard government. Comment could be taken out of context but much like in Ireland, promises don't appear to mean much expect at least in Australia the people remember broken promises.

I think Tony Abbot is capable of reading seeing as he is a Rhodes Scholar but he must be an idiot cause he is a conservative I suppose….

Regards the video, yes it made popular headlines around the world where people who don't have a clue about Australia loved her but if they found out the true story behind the speech that love would be quickly lost. A vote was won by Abbot to take out the speaker of the house for making sexist comments and harassment against a gay man, never mind also the fact that he was being investigated for fraud.

"LUCY is very available and keen! Could turn you from your wayward ways," Peter Slipper texted to adviser James Ashby on September 3.

"Brough is a c..t,'' Mr Slipper said in a text on October 10 last year. Soon after, he said: ''Funny how we say that a person is a c..t when many guys like c..ts.''

About five minutes later Mr Slipper began what the Opposition has called "'vile anatomical references''. Referring to women's private parts, he said: ''They look like mussell (sic) removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat. Salty C..ts in brine.''

Charming!

http://www.news.com.au/national/revealed-what-peter-slippers-sexist-text-messages-actually-said/story-fndo4eg9-1226492172640

This is some of hundreds examples of what the speaker of the house (akin to the ceann comhairle of the dail )texted to his aide. Do you think this is acceptable behaviour of someone who holds such a public position Robin? Julia Gillard didn't seem to have a problem with it surprisingly yet anytime someone made a slight of hand comment at her well we all saw her get on that high horse.

Gillard wanted to keep Peter Slipper on board as speaker of the house for her own selfish political aim of keeping power. So I guess that makes her a homophobe? She is against Gay marriage of course so she must be!

Anyway, she was so unpopular and people got so sick of her whining that even her own party including senior cabinet ministers that owed their start to her dumped her out of office. She didn't even bothering contest the last election. We still have Cowen as a TD FFS!

To summarise, she will be remembered as the above not as an atheist which will be a footnote of her term. Hence my point that people don't really care of ones personal religions/non-religious beliefs.

jank · 06-12-2013 03:00PM

ninja900 wrote: »

Try telling that to a 1950s unmarried pregnant woman, Jank. Her 'options' were emigration or imprisonment.

It would have be interesting where she would have emigrated to as the UK only allowed legal abortion in 1967. Maybe she could have found her 'freedom' behind the iron curtain?

Calling Ireland a fascist state is just a lazy argument.

nagirrac · 06-12-2013 07:10PM

Ireland was never a fascist state, and to state such is highly inflammatory and inaccurate. However, it did have fascists in its midst, those who believed in the absolute power of the state, a power that should be maintained by force against its own citizens if necessary. They were the ultra right wing of Cumann na nGaedheal (later became Fine Gael), many of whom sailed off to Spain to side with Franco and the RCC and against those seeking freedom from fascism. Fortunately they were sent home quickly after a "friendly fire" incident, before they could sully Ireland's reputation too much. Nonetheless an unfortunate incident in Irish history.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-12-2013 10:11PM

jank wrote: »

It would have be interesting where she would have emigrated to as the UK only allowed legal abortion in 1967. Maybe she could have found her 'freedom' behind the iron curtain?

Many Irish women left to give birth in the UK and bring up their child there. Almost no-one did that here in Ireland until the 1970s. There was no state support and massive social disapproval.

Calling Ireland a fascist state is just a lazy argument.

I'll withdraw that. But we weren't as far away as some would like to think. We simply did not respect the rights of anyone who wasn't willing to follow catholic 'social teaching'. A democracy where human rights are not well respected is a democracy in name only.

nagirrac wrote: »

However, it did have fascists in its midst, those who believed in the absolute power of the state, a power that should be maintained by force against its own citizens if necessary.

There were many who believed in the absolute power of the church, and the state did the RCC's bidding on almost all issues until the 1980s.

jank · 07-12-2013 05:34AM

ninja900 wrote: »

There was no state support and massive social disapproval.

This was true for most of the western world during that period.

ninja900 wrote: »

I'll withdraw that. But we weren't as far away as some would like to think. We simply did not respect the rights of anyone who wasn't willing to follow catholic 'social teaching'. A democracy where human rights are not well respected is a democracy in name only.

We were miles away from being a fascist state in the terms of what a European fascist state looked like in the 1930's. I don't want to Godwin this thread. Don't forget that Spain was under fascism until 1975…!, Argentina until the 80's. Brazil similar and so on. Almost every country has a skeleton in the closet.

People of other religions did have rights. People were free to practice their religion openly. The state did not close churches or synagogues. True the RCC tried to control morality, education and social policies to some extent but that is a far cry to actual fascism where people of other religions were extermintaed or imprisoned.

To say Ireland was democratic in name only is like saying that because there is no legal gay marriage in say the US or Australia than these countries are not democratic at all, which is absurd.

Anytime we talk about the RCC and its relationship with Ireland we also get this narrative where the impression given is that Ireland from 1921 to the 1980's was some sort of stalinist regime, where the fault of that lies totally with the RCC, and the outside world was pure, innocent, pluralist, tolerant, better. We should always be objective when looking at history, not fall into lazy cliche and arguments that might go well down the pub. We irish have a habit of hating ourselves, this one eyed revisionism of irish history in my opinion is an extension of that. Ireland may have not been a beacon of liberalism during that time but it was certainly not a Fascist/Stalinist state that some like to portray. In many ways it was a product of the time, at least until the 50's. We can rightly critique that period until the late 70's where Ireland tired to act morally like a pre war European country. Joining the EEC changed all that.

Hotblack Desiato · 07-12-2013 11:16AM

jank wrote: »

This was true for most of the western world during that period.

Attitudes were less liberal than today, but Ireland was far behind most other European countries.
Many Irish women during that period did make new lives for themselves and their children in the UK, they simply could not have done that here.

We were miles away from being a fascist state in the terms of what a European fascist state looked like in the 1930's. I don't want to Godwin this thread. Don't forget that Spain was under fascism until 1975…!, Argentina until the 80's. Brazil similar and so on. Almost every country has a skeleton in the closet.

Like industrial schools, laundries, and our massive psychiatric 'hospital' incarceration rate? We didn't call them prison camps but that's effectively what they were.

Many, many more 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate. It was quite common for people to lose their jobs and become effectively unemployable for opposing the church, especially but not exclusively in the public sector and jobs like teaching.

People of other religions did have rights. People were free to practice their religion openly. The state did not close churches or synagogues. True the RCC tried to control morality, education and social policies to some extent but that is a far cry to actual fascism where people of other religions were extermintaed or imprisoned.

Other religions were tolerated, but it was clear (and even in the constitution) which one had a 'special position'. Sure, people were free to not worship the catholic church, but they were not free to escape its 'morality' e.g. use contraception.

To say Ireland was democratic in name only is like saying that because there is no legal gay marriage in say the US or Australia than these countries are not democratic at all, which is absurd.

The tyranny of the majority over the minority is not democracy, it is a sham.

Human rights cannot be subject to the will of the majority, or else they are not rights at all but privileges.

Now we'll probably pass a gay marriage referendum if we have one - but imagine if we didn't. Imagine if a majority of the electorate chose to deny the minority the same rights the majority enjoys. How is that 'democratic' ?

Anytime we talk about the RCC and its relationship with Ireland we also get this narrative where the impression given is that Ireland from 1921 to the 1980's was some sort of stalinist regime, where the fault of that lies totally with the RCC, and the outside world was pure, innocent, pluralist, tolerant, better. We should always be objective when looking at history, not fall into lazy cliche and arguments that might go well down the pub. We irish have a habit of hating ourselves, this one eyed revisionism of irish history in my opinion is an extension of that. Ireland may have not been a beacon of liberalism during that time but it was certainly not a Fascist/Stalinist state that some like to portray. In many ways it was a product of the time, at least until the 50's. We can rightly critique that period until the late 70's where Ireland tired to act morally like a pre war European country. Joining the EEC changed all that.

The fault does lie totally with the RCC. They brainwashed politicians and voters from the cradle, under the threat of ostracism in this life and eternal hellfire after it, to do their bidding. This was not a choice freely entered into by an educated and informed population.

ironingbored · 07-12-2013 10:23PM

Lucena wrote: »

Based on this, I really don't think it'd be an obstacle. Strangely enough, Irish people are quite tolerant in some respects. I think we could even have a gay Taoiseach, and no-one would mind.

Except David Quinn and Iona I suspect.

jimd2 · 07-12-2013 10:52PM

Lapin wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that anyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should ever be a factor in ones ability to hold the office, but given Irish society's ties with the catholic church since the foundation of the state, and the influence the church has on a large number of people and its continuing presence of many aspects of Irish culture, is it possible for a politician become elected as head of government without professing to be a practicing catholic, even though he or she may be non religious or atheist.

While there are a number of openly atheist TDs, the chances of them ever becoming Taoiseach are slim to none. Even as Ireland becomes more secular, would it be safe (politically speaking) for a politician with a chance of holding the office to declare themselves atheist or would it be seen as burning thousands of potential votes?

Absolutely. Once the Taoiseach is a good fair leader who gives a balanced and fair judgement when dealing with church and secular matters. His or her religion or lack of it should not be a factor.

robindch · 07-12-2013 11:23PM

jank wrote: »

Abbot has never called Gillard a 'bitch' or a 'witch [...] Optics aren't great but he never directly referred to her in those terms nor were the sings sanctioned by the liberal party.

He was asked to reject the terms 'witch' and 'bitch' and he didn't. In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that he agrees - though as you say, he does not appear to have been caught using the terms in front of a live mike himself.

jank wrote: »

I think Tony Abbot is capable of reading seeing as he is a Rhodes Scholar but he must be an idiot cause he is a conservative I suppose….

And George Bush graduated from Harvard - perhaps academic qualifications aren't quite what they used to be.

No, Abbott is an idiot not because he is a conservative (you have that the wrong way around), but because he's a misogynistic, arrogant, hypocritical, climate-science denying, pro-gun, fact-averse, prancing twit.

BTW, the name of your PM is "Tony Abbott", with two letters "t".

jank · 08-12-2013 03:14AM

robindch wrote: »

He was asked to reject the terms 'witch' and 'bitch' and he didn't. In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that he agrees - though as you say, he does not appear to have been caught using the terms in front of a live mike himself.

Well at least you admitted your factual error in your earlier post.

robindch wrote: »

And George Bush graduated from Harvard - perhaps academic qualifications aren't quite what they used to be.

Nah, calling someone whom you disagree with politically 'stupid' is the same classroom type behaviour is calling someone smelly.

robindch wrote: »

No, Abbott is an idiot not because he is a conservative (you have that the wrong way around), but because he's a misogynistic, arrogant, hypocritical, climate-science denying, pro-gun, fact-averse, prancing twit.

So a conservative is an idiot then by default? Your hero Hitches was a conservative, was he an idiot. Even I wouldn't call him that a even though I may disagree with him on many things.

Then we get the the same infamous video of Jullia Gillard posturing in front of the world. Getting up on her high horse and calling out Abbot a sexist and misogynist in a debate that called for a motion of no confidence against James Slipper the speaker of the house. Are you serious? REALLY?

You do know that one on hand Gillard was railing against sexism and misogyny and then on the other voting to support, yes SUPPORT James Slipper even after it transpired what he had said to his Gay aide. Let me remind you of what he said.

Quote:
"LUCY is very available and keen! Could turn you from your wayward ways," Peter Slipper texted to adviser James Ashby on September 3.

"Brough is a c..t,'' Mr Slipper said in a text on October 10 last year. Soon after, he said: ''Funny how we say that a person is a c..t when many guys like c..ts.''

About five minutes later Mr Slipper began what the Opposition has called "'vile anatomical references''. Referring to women's private parts, he said: ''They look like mussell (sic) removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat. Salty C..ts in brine.''

He also called a colleague an 'ignorant bitch'. Do you stand by those comments Robin, do you agree with them? Do you think James Slipper should have kept his chair as speaker of the house?

Never mind sexist, but there is a touch of homophobia there as well. So your hero Gillard cast a vote in the Australian Federal parliament to SUPPORT such comments and never, ever apologised for that vote. Using your reasoning "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she agrees". After all she is against Gay marriage…..

Such blatant hypocrisy and double standards displayed by your part, putting Gillard on a pedestal and dumping on Abbot all through the medium of quick and easy soundbites and goggling opinion pieces and passing them off as your own. Utter laziness in debating.

jank · 08-12-2013 04:12AM

ninja900 wrote: »

Attitudes were less liberal than today, but Ireland was far behind most other European countries.
Many Irish women during that period did make new lives for themselves and their children in the UK, they simply could not have done that here.

As I said up until the late 50's until the 80's yes Ireland was behind some other European countries, but just because we didn't become Sweden overnight doesn't mean that we were 'pesduo-facsist' either. Before than pre WWII Ireland was much like most other European country and certainly better than actual fascist or communist states.

ninja900 wrote: »

Like industrial schools, laundries, and our massive psychiatric 'hospital' incarceration rate? We didn't call them prison camps but that's effectively what they were.

Yes, and these institutions only existed in Ireland pre 1950? The above existed in other western countries too and locked up undesirables as well. Lets not even go into what happened in Germany and eastern Europe. This one eyed approach is what bugs me, as if Ireland was in a vacuum of sorts when it comes to human rights abuse.

ninja900 wrote: »

Many, many more 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate. It was quite common for people to lose their jobs and become effectively unemployable for opposing the church, especially but not exclusively in the public sector and jobs like teaching.

Do you have examples and peer reviewed research into this 'common' occurrence? How many 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate?

ninja900 wrote: »

Other religions were tolerated, but it was clear (and even in the constitution) which one had a 'special position'. Sure, people were free to not worship the catholic church, but they were not free to escape its 'morality' e.g. use contraception.

Yes, Ireland was morally conservative but the point still stands that people were free to practice their own religion and other churches were not closed by the state. However, the issue of contraception after WWII should be rightly brought up as a valid criticism of the state.

ninja900 wrote: »

The tyranny of the majority over the minority is not democracy, it is a sham.

Human rights cannot be subject to the will of the majority, or else they are not rights at all but privileges.

Now we'll probably pass a gay marriage referendum if we have one - but imagine if we didn't. Imagine if a majority of the electorate chose to deny the minority the same rights the majority enjoys. How is that 'democratic' ?

You didn't answer my question. Would you not call Australia or the US a democratic state? Say in Norway one is not allowed to marry their mother or have multiple partners via marriage. Because that right is not inferred on someone, does that mean it is not democratic? By your reasoning there is no 'pure' democratic state in the world therefore. If the US is not a democratic state than what is it?

ninja900 wrote: »

The fault does lie totally with the RCC. They brainwashed politicians and voters from the cradle, under the threat of ostracism in this life and eternal hellfire after it, to do their bidding. This was not a choice freely entered into by an educated and informed population.

You are falling into the same trap as those that blame the RCC for all the ills of 'old' independent Ireland. It is a convenient scapegoat that fits the modern narrative but a scapegoat all the same. True the RCC did exert too much influence on Irish public life. However, even if we took the RCC out of the equation and say it never existed, do you really really think that Ireland would have overnight morphed into Norway?

One just has to look at other countries where religion was either illegal or had very little influence on their societies.
Examples in regards rights for homosexuals.
China only decriminalised homosexuality in 1997 and that is most certainly not a religious country.
The Soviet Union sent homosexuals to gulags for decades, same thing happened in Albania and Mongolia.
God knows what happening in North Korea right at this moment…

What they all have in common is the absence of the power of religion yet conservative social policies were applied none the less. I have also deliberately left out what 'rights' european fascists bestowed to homosexuals

The point is that even if the RCC disappeared in 1921 than some other conservative social or political force would have filled that vacuum and would have tried to shape society in their authoritarian image as in the examples I have put forward. If you want to accept the possibility that Ireland would have been more liberal without the RCC, than you also have to accept that Ireland could have been more authoritarian without the RCC, if you want to engage in 'what if' regards history and I don't want to open up that pandoras box.

Can an openly atheist politician ever become Taoiseach in our lifetime?

Comments