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

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

2

Comments

  • #32
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,946 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    jank wrote: »
    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.

    The fact that we were slightly more liberal than the many European totalitarian states in the 1930s isn't really something to get excited over, is it?

    As far back as the eighteenth century, the founders of the USA recognised the importance of separation between church and state, yet in the early 20th our founders chose to give our constitution and institutions an explicit religious character, and even worse a specific denomination of a specific religion.

    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.

    Ah, so Ireland was comparable to repressive regimes after all?

    We had the world's highest psychiatric incarceration rate in the 1950s.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/professional-and-local-interests-had-stake-in-keeping-aslyums-says-major-study-1.1572258

    Now, that article goes to some pains to excuse the RCC in this regard, but as they had such a key role in everything the State did for most of the 20th century I wouldn't be so keen to do so.
    Do you have examples and peer reviewed research into this 'common' occurrence? How many 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate?

    Are you familiar with any 20th-century Irish writers?
    It was said that one didn't have any credibility as an Irish writer if ones works were not banned here. That was an attempt to enforce the silence of critics of the church-state, and deny them their livelihood.

    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?

    As I've repeatedly said, it is undemocratic for a majority to deny to the minority the rights that the majority themselves enjoy. Nobody said anything about special pleading on behalf of minorities.


    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?

    We would have been far better off in every way, and necessary social change would have occurred far earlier as it did in other Western nations.

    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 is the recurring obsession with communist dictatorships when we are discussing the role of religion in Western democracies??

    What they all have in common is the absence of the power of religion yet conservative social policies were applied none the less.

    As you well know, these states have their own proxies for religion.

    I have also deliberately left out what 'rights' european fascists bestowed to homosexuals

    Again, it really doesn't help your point to say that we were slightly better than actual fascist states.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #33
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    jimd2 wrote: »
    balanced and fair judgement when dealing with church and secular matters.

    So I expect you support the idea of brining state-funded schools directly under department control and secuarlising them then?


  • #34
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    A person does not have to take a religious oath in court, so why would a potential Taoiseach have to take a religious oath before taking office.I thought all tds had to take some kind of oath?

    Besides, he could always do a De Valera!

    Being Ireland, no cute hoor would declare that they are atheists especially if from down the country


  • #35
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


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

    There's a long tradition in Ivy League schools that if you're a legacy (i.e. you've multiple ancestors who went to the same school) you'll get in even if you fail an entrance test which consists solely of a request to translate your surname into Spanish. And the level of degree he subsequently gets is dependant on how much daddy is willing to fund the college (for example building a new wing is good for a PhD, throwing a million at the star quarter-back poached from a community college will get a 1st).

    The US college system is fcuked up in so many ways.


  • #36
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I don't think it's going to matter much and doubt it would at present either.

    Ireland has changed a huge amount in the last 20 years.

    It's also not America. For example Bertie was separated and had a new partner and it didn't even cause a raised eyebrow. However, if he'd been in the US and I think even in the UK that would have been a HUGE issue.

    We're not the conservative backwater we were in the 1980s


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Then we get the the same infamous video of Jullia Gillard posturing in front of the world.
    (cough)
    jank wrote: »
    So a conservative is an idiot then by default?
    I'm not sure what your experience is, but most idiots -- I'm using the term quite broadly here -- tend towards the conservative/authoritarian end of the political spectrum.

    Bob Altemeyer's excellent The Authoritarians goes into quite a lot of detail on that. It's an interesting read.





    (cough) BTW, the name of your previous PM is "Julia Gillard", with one letter "l" in "Julia".


  • #38
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,634 ✭✭✭feargale


    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?

    Correct me if I'm wrong - isn't the next highest office after Taoiseach presently occupied by a man of no religion? Given what I've seen of posts in the AA forum, I would expect religious people to be alot less exercised by the prospect of a non-religious Taoiseach than atheists are about the present reality of a religious one. That's how the wheel turns. Protestants struck a blow for religious freedom in a Europe in the throes of religious wars, and many fled Europe's intolerance to settle in America, where many of their descendants are among the most intolerant Christians on Earth. Many of the Paris Communards of the 1870s were exiled to New Caledonia, where many of their descendants became racist colonialists. Atheists suffered fire and sword in Christian Europe, and then one of their number, Enver Hoxha, became a byword for persecution of religious people. But that would never happen to Irish atheists, now, would it? I mean, the price of liberty being eternal vigilance and all that.


  • #39
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    feargale wrote: »
    Atheists suffered fire and sword in Christian Europe, and then one of their number, Enver Hoxha, became a byword for persecution of religious people. But that would never happen to Irish atheists, now, would it?
    Enver Hoxha was responsible for policies that lead to the deaths of innumerable non-religious people too.

    BTW, makes a nice change to be compared to a dictator other than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot!


  • #40
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,634 ✭✭✭feargale


    robindch wrote: »
    Enver Hoxha was responsible for policies that lead to the deaths of innumerable non-religious people too.

    Yes, I guess there were capital crimes over and above being religious. I don't recall that he was ever accused of discrimination, at least not on the question of who faced the firing squad. His deputy Mehmet Shehu wasn't required to bless himself as a prerequisite to qualifying. Being a Spanish Civil War hero and potential rival was enough, However, Hoxha did have a particular taste for religious blood.
    robindch wrote: »
    BTW, makes a nice change to be compared to a dictator other than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot!

    Link please.


  • #41
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    ninja900 wrote: »
    The fact that we were slightly more liberal than the many European totalitarian states in the 1930s isn't really something to get excited over, is it?

    Only slightly? Come off it. There is a huge gulf and leap from rounding up homosexuals and murdering them in camps to the treatment they got in Ireland which would have been similar in all respects to the treatment they got in other western nations of the 30's and 40's like the UK and US where homosexual activity was illegal in those states as well during that time....

    It shows a deliberate ignorance on your part.

    ninja900 wrote: »
    As far back as the eighteenth century, the founders of the USA recognised the importance of separation between church and state, yet in the early 20th our founders chose to give our constitution and institutions an explicit religious character, and even worse a specific denomination of a specific religion.

    I agree with a separation of church and state totally and lament the fact that this did not happen in Ireland. We may have an opportunity in the future to do this. However, how did the USA treat homosexuals and minorities in the period of 1920-late 1950's? Was it a liberal paradise for them? It was illegal in most states to marry someone outside your race up until the early 60's. Even if you were 1/4 native Indian for example... No RCC to blame for that, so what happened? Other conservative social and political forces filled a vacuum.

    ninja900 wrote: »

    Ah, so Ireland was comparable to repressive regimes after all?

    We had the world's highest psychiatric incarceration rate in the 1950s.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/professional-and-local-interests-had-stake-in-keeping-aslyums-says-major-study-1.1572258

    Now, that article goes to some pains to excuse the RCC in this regard, but as they had such a key role in everything the State did for most of the 20th century I wouldn't be so keen to do so.


    So you post an article to back up a claim yet dismiss the some of the findings of the study as they don’t 'fit' with your own personal outlook. That is not surprising in the least.
    “The staff had a stake in this. The medics and nurses had their professional interests in this. Economically, it became very important, and it became a snowballing institutional development,” said Dr Brennan
    Seems money outweighed piety.


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Are you familiar with any 20th-century Irish writers?
    It was said that one didn't have any credibility as an Irish writer if ones works were not banned here. That was an attempt to enforce the silence of critics of the church-state, and deny them their livelihood.


    Taking an example of a few writers works being censored is a far step from your original claim that it was a 'common' occurrence for the general population to more or less exiled from the state due to your beliefs. Again what are the stats to this claim? How many hundreds or thousands were exiled?
    Again I agree with the fact that post WWII the censorship regime was far too strict compared to our western European neighbours (books were banned in the UK and US as well don’t forget but not to the same numbers). I have made this point regarding post 1950’s Ireland about 3 times now yet choose to not listen or take it on board.


    ninja900 wrote: »

    As I've repeatedly said, it is undemocratic for a majority to deny to the minority the rights that the majority themselves enjoy. Nobody said anything about special pleading on behalf of minorities.

    So care to answer the question then. Is the USA and Australia non-democratic countries today by your own definition in your book as in your original claim? I have asked this three times. Simple yes or no.

    ninja900 wrote: »

    We would have been far better off in every way, and necessary social change would have occurred far earlier as it did in other Western nations.

    Probably/possibly true from the 1950's onwards but you would be sadly and foolishly mistaken if we would have turned into an enlightened Norway overnight. The thing that people forget is that the general populace handed over moral authority to the state and RCC freely. Without the RCC they would have handed it over just as easily to another force/movement or institution.


    ninja900 wrote: »

    What is the recurring obsession with communist dictatorships when we are discussing the role of religion in Western democracies??

    In these states there has been no influence of religion on law, yet homosexual activity was still largely restricted, persecuted and gay people were sent away to jail/die. Why did this happen if your scapegoat the RCC or religion didn’t have their say?


    ninja900 wrote: »

    As you well know, these states have their own proxies for religion.

    Bingo!!! Well done. You are learning something. That was exactly my point. Without the RCC, Ireland could well have its own ready made replacement to fill its vacuum and pursue very similar polices that was employed by the RCC anyway….
    ninja900 wrote: »

    Again, it really doesn't help your point to say that we were slightly better than actual fascist states.

    Read my first reply to the post. Hell of a lot of difference between Nazi Germany and Ireland in regards right to homosexuals and other minorities. For a start we didn’t round them up into camps, never mind what happened after to them. One can very easily cheery pick historical facts from each countries past and come up with the conclusion that said country was slightly better or no better than a 1930's fascist/Stalinist state. Take Australia white only policy or the US civil rights issue, the British treatment of Indians, the French treatment of Algerians, The Belgium Congo, the Dutch east indies and so on and on.

    Sure weren’t they all as bad as each other??? No, not at all. There was a scale of brutality employed here where on the lower/extreme end you had Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany and on the lighter/less extreme side of the scale you had the arguably the US and Australia. Not to say that blacks or aboriginals in these countries had it easy but must look at history objectively.

    All countries have shadows in their past but it is historical ignorance to ignore any grey scale when discussing this. It seems to you it was black and white where your anti-RCC bias clouds all your opinion and objective reasoning. My last point, we were miles off being a fascist state in all but name with the RCC controlling the levers of power. It does not stand up to historical scrutiny of the times and you have not shown any proof, statistics, laws to show prove otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    (cough)I'm not sure what your experience is, but most idiots -- I'm using the term quite broadly here -- tend towards the conservative/authoritarian end of the political spectrum.

    That is just the typical left wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage. Read my sig, very apt for this reply.

    Also, interesting that you again (3rd time) refused to answer my question about being in favour of Julia Gillard’s actions regarding Peter Slipper even after he communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments as speaker of the house . So using the reasoning of someone you are very familiar with I take it that "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she you agree" with these comments.

    Charming!


  • #43
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Whatever about an atheist taoiseach, it's quite surprising that we haven't gotten anywhere near having a female taoiseach yet and I do not think that's down to some kind of anti-female bias in the electorate. There are quite a few studies showing that female candidates in Ireland perform at least as well as their male counterparts in elections.

    However, the party structures are not getting women up the ranks, so the electorate isn't getting presented with all that many female candidates.

    As for the taoiseach's religious views, I don't ever remember them being called into question by anyone in any election campaign here in my lifetime. Where as in the US in particular, the President's religious views are a major issue for some people. I'd suspect even an agnostic presidential candidate would feel the full wrath of the very conservative population although many (most) Americans wouldn't give a damn, the conservatives would manage to swing a vote against them.

    I don't think Ireland's really in that position to be perfectly honest. The only times that an issue comes up and I don't think it's a religious one is around abortion and views on it because it's a public opinion flash point.


  • #44
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    That is just the typical left wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage.
    Well, that's just the typical right-wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage.
    jank wrote: »
    Also, interesting that you again (3rd time) refused to answer my question about being in favour of Julia Gillard’s actions regarding Peter Slipper even after he communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments as speaker of the house [...]
    I've no idea who this guy Slipper is but if you say that he's "communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments", then I'm sure he has. Bad boy Slipper!


  • #45
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Are you sure it's not a right wing inferiority complex?


  • #46
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Does the Taoiseach need to take an oath?
    Yes, the Taoiseach has to swear a religious oath at his or first Council of State meeting.

    Article 31.2 of the Constitution states that the “The Council of State shall consist of the following members: i. As exofficio members: the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann, the Chairman of Seanad Éireann, and the Attorney General…” (there are also other members.)

    Article 31.4 requires every member of the Council of State, at their first meeting, to take and subscribe publicly to an oath that begins “In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State.”

    This means that there is a religious oath for Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Chairman of the Dail, Chairman of the Seanad and Attorney General, as these officeholders are obliged to be members of the Council of State and are thus obliged to swear the oath for that office.

    This additional obligation became clear when Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore became the first person who is publicly on record as saying that he does not believe in God had to attend his first meeting of the Council of State and had to swear the religious oath. He stated that he had taken legal advice, that he respected the Constitution, and that he would comply with his constitutional obligations.

    These obligations include not only swearing the oath at his first Council of State meeting under Article 31.4, but also being a member of the Council of State under Article 31.2.


  • #47
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,725 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    robindch wrote: »
    I've no idea who this guy Slipper is but if you say that he's "communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments", then I'm sure he has. Bad boy Slipper!
    Well, it's not completely irrelevant in the context. Slipper was a long-standing but poorly-egarded MP from Tony Abbott's side of the house whose uncontrolled drinking, irregular private life and notorious abuse of travel claims eventually caused his party colleagues to lose patience with him. He was on the way to being dumped as a candidate for the next election when Gillard (who of course led a minority government) offered him the post of Speaker of the House of Representatives. It's the government's job to find a Speaker and, since by convention the Speaker does not vote except to break a deadlock, doing so normally costs the government side one of its regular voters. Instead, by appointing Slipper, Gillard hoped to deprive the opposition of a regular voter.

    This was always a high-risk strategy, since the Liberal party had all the dirt on Slipper and knew his (many) weaknesses. In an astonishingly short period of time, a gay staffer of Slipper's (who later turned out to be a Liberal Party stooge) resigned, bringing an unfair dismissal claim alleging that Slipper (who is married) had made repeated unwanted sexual advances to him, and in the course of the proceedings he released a number of (genuine) e-mails from Slipper which contained some pretty grossly offensive misogynistic material, Slipper evidently having assumed that the way to get into a young gay man's pants was to denigrate women, because as we all know gays hate and fear women, right? You can google it and read the stuff. It was not nice.

    The opposition promptly brought a motion of no confidence in Slipper, and it was in the debate on that motion that Gillard made her justly famous speech about misogyny, the gist of which was "the opposition are not well-positioned to complain about misogyny, because Tony Abbott".

    Gillard was of course quite right, but it remains the fact that the speech was given in defence of Peter Slipper, who is undoubtedly even nastier than Tony Abbott. Consequently the speech didn't have quite the traction in Australia that it had abroad, where the context in which it was given was basically not reported at all.


  • #48
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, that's just the typical right-wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage.

    Grand, dont engage the actual question.
    robindch wrote: »
    I've no idea who this guy Slipper is but if you say that he's "communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments", then I'm sure he has. Bad boy Slipper!

    Interesting seeing that you used Julia Gillards infamous speech not once but twice to back up your claims about Tony Abbot (did you even read the articles you posted FFS?) shows that you actually know nothing about Australian politics apart from a quick 10 sec on google to copy and paste to counter some argument. Only this time you got caught with your pants down and can't take your beating like a grown up.

    You(and many others) may not seeing the irony of using that speech of Gillards, railing against the big bad sexist, misogynist right, while at the same time voting in Australia's highest house to keep a man in the speakers of the house chair, who texted sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments to his gay aide as that was the actual topic of debate when she got up on that high horse. This is the double standards the left employ all the time. Hypocrisy at its highest.

    So seeing again that you ignored this fact again I will use your own exact words to see if "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she you agree" with these comments. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?


  • #49
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Surprisingly enough, despite the US being quite hot on the separation of church and state, it still has a "so help me God" line in the presidential (and most public office) oaths.

    I think Ireland really should change oaths though and also should ditch the religious stuff at Dail, Seanad and any other public meeting.

    People should be swearing to carry out their job in the interest of the nation and the people of Ireland! That's where they tend to fall down in public office anyway! A reminder of how serious their job is and that the people are their ultimate bosses would be at least a nice token of appreciation!


  • #50
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Comparison of preambles:
    French Constitution 1958 and ammended wrote:
    The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004.
    By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories which have expressed the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived for the purpose of their democratic development.
    Irish Constitution 1938 (no amendments to preamble) wrote:
    In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
    We, the people of Éire,
    Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
    Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
    And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
    Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.
    German constitution preamble wrote:
    Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law. Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.
    (A little bit of a reference to God, but not much and very definitely reference to humanism)
    United States Constitution Preamble wrote:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    We're very firmly stuck in the 1600s somewhere with our preamble anyway!

    The Irish ones sounds more like the introduction to the constitution of a monastery or something and really seems to have little or nothing to do with power being devolved to the Government by the people. It smacks of some kind of government appointed by God much like the Queen of England type setup.

    I wouldn't entirely blame the Catholic Church influence, but it looks like a very conservative adaptation of British-style monarchy appointed by God to be perfectly honest.

    We really need to look at what being a Republic is supposed to be about. It's meant to be about power derived from the people, not from some external agency (including God).

    I know the preamble is largely just a load of symbolic stuff with no legal meaning, but it does set the agenda to some extent and I think ours is totally inappropriate!

    If you're a president, taoiseach, TD, councillor, senator etc .. does it mean that God's your boss and to hell with the electorate? That's sort of what it's implying.

    ...

    It does need to change though, the constitution and public office should be open to EVERY citizen of Ireland, not just the piously religious ones!
    Otherwise, what exactly did we have a revolution for in the first place?
    We were up in arms about the Church of Ireland's official church status in the past, I don't see what the difference is nowadays other than we swapped it for the Catholic Church.

    Irish people need to actually realise that Republic and Republicanism does not just mean 'not British'! It's a whole philosophy of governance.
    Devine mandates really have no place in a republic. They're an obsolete vestige of monarchy.

    So, I'm not quite sure what kind of a half-arsed Republic we setup as it seems to have a hell of a lot of old concepts leftover from royalty!


  • #51
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Grand, dont engage the actual question.
    Well, I engaged with you in the same way you engaged with me, so I'm rather interested to see how you're going to deal with your own failure to engage? :)
    jank wrote: »
    Hypocrisy at its highest.
    You should take the time to read some of what you're replying to rather than just yelling like a town crier in Pompeii. I pointed out that Gillard has been insulted in a sexist manner and neither Abbott nor you appear to be concerned. This guy Slipper seems to be another clown in the same vein as Abbott, which may not be all that mysterious given that (checking on Wikipedia) Slipper seems to have spent 15 years in the same Liberal Party as Abbott did. The Liberal party really does need to have a think about the kind of people they allow stand in their name.

    BTW, I see that Abbott spent some time training to be a catholic priest. That would certainly explain some of his sexist views.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Surprisingly enough, despite the US being quite hot on the separation of church and state, it still has a "so help me God" line in the presidential (and most public office) oaths.
    Actually, that line is not part of the oath.

    It has come to be added in by tradition, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged it (more precisely, challenged the prompting of the President to say words that are not in the oath).

    The counter-argument was that the words were said after the oath, and not as part of it, and that the Chief justice was asking the President a question ("So help you God?") and not prompting him to say the words!
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I think Ireland really should change oaths though and also should ditch the religious stuff at Dail, Seanad and any other public meeting.

    People should be swearing to carry out their job in the interest of the nation and the people of Ireland! That's where they tend to fall down in public office anyway! A reminder of how serious their job is and that the people are their ultimate bosses would be at least a nice token of appreciation!
    I agree with all of this.


  • #53
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Surprisingly enough, despite the US being quite hot on the separation of church and state, it still has a "so help me God" line in the presidential (and most public office) oaths.

    The US is no longer so hot on the separation of church and state. Since the 1950's the church has been sidling up to the state and dropping rohypnol in its drinks, willingly abetted by a cabal of cynical politicians.

    There still are a few bastions of secularism within the US state system, but I expect them to fail, and the country to end up like A Handmaiden's Tale.


  • #54
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,168 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Even though I've only read Wikipedia's summary of "A Handmaiden's Tale", the idea of the USA morphing into the Republic of Gilead scares me sh*tless. I wouldn't be surprised if a fundie administration threatened nuclear war against a "godless" EU and China.


  • #55
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,946 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    jank wrote: »
    Only slightly? Come off it. There is a huge gulf and leap from rounding up homosexuals and murdering them in camps to the treatment they got in Ireland which would have been similar in all respects to the treatment they got in other western nations of the 30's and 40's like the UK and US where homosexual activity was illegal in those states as well during that time....

    Strawman (topic was treatment of pregnant women)
    It shows a deliberate ignorance on your part.

    Ad hominem.
    I agree with a separation of church and state totally and lament the fact that this did not happen in Ireland. We may have an opportunity in the future to do this. However, how did the USA treat homosexuals and minorities in the period of 1920-late 1950's? Was it a liberal paradise for them? It was illegal in most states to marry someone outside your race up until the early 60's. Even if you were 1/4 native Indian for example... No RCC to blame for that, so what happened? Other conservative social and political forces filled a vacuum.

    Same strawman again
    So you post an article to back up a claim yet dismiss the some of the findings of the study as they don’t 'fit' with your own personal outlook. That is not surprising in the least.

    Nope it was the bias in the IT article I was questioning.
    Taking an example of a few writers works being censored is a far step from your original claim that it was a 'common' occurrence for the general population to more or less exiled from the state due to your beliefs. Again what are the stats to this claim? How many hundreds or thousands were exiled?

    Again, the topic was pregnant unmarried women and large numbers of them did leave here.
    I know of mixed religion couples who had to leave here (1960s)

    Again I agree with the fact that post WWII the censorship regime was far too strict compared to our western European neighbours (books were banned in the UK and US as well don’t forget but not to the same numbers). I have made this point regarding post 1950’s Ireland about 3 times now yet choose to not listen or take it on board.

    I agree with you on that. There, happy now?

    So care to answer the question then. Is the USA and Australia non-democratic countries today by your own definition in your book as in your original claim? I have asked this three times. Simple yes or no.

    Strawman.
    All democracies are flawed to some extent.

    Probably/possibly true from the 1950's onwards but you would be sadly and foolishly mistaken if we would have turned into an enlightened Norway overnight. The thing that people forget is that the general populace handed over moral authority to the state and RCC freely. Without the RCC they would have handed it over just as easily to another force/movement or institution.

    Rather unlikely, unless the other movement was another church, with control of schools, hospitals, etc.

    In these states there has been no influence of religion on law, yet homosexual activity was still largely restricted, persecuted and gay people were sent away to jail/die. Why did this happen if your scapegoat the RCC or religion didn’t have their say?

    Because like the RCC they had no respect for human rights, only for their own ideology, and its ends could justify any means.

    Bingo!!! Well done. You are learning something. That was exactly my point. Without the RCC, Ireland could well have its own ready made replacement to fill its vacuum and pursue very similar polices that was employed by the RCC anyway….

    As ready made as the world's most powerful church, with 1500 years to establish itself?

    Read my first reply to the post. Hell of a lot of difference between Nazi Germany and Ireland in regards right to homosexuals and other minorities. For a start we didn’t round them up into camps, never mind what happened after to them. One can very easily cheery pick historical facts from each countries past and come up with the conclusion that said country was slightly better or no better than a 1930's fascist/Stalinist state. Take Australia white only policy or the US civil rights issue, the British treatment of Indians, the French treatment of Algerians, The Belgium Congo, the Dutch east indies and so on and on.

    Doesn't make us right.
    Did any of them imprison women simply for becoming pregnant?

    Sure weren’t they all as bad as each other??? No, not at all. There was a scale of brutality employed here where on the lower/extreme end you had Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany and on the lighter/less extreme side of the scale you had the arguably the US and Australia. Not to say that blacks or aboriginals in these countries had it easy but must look at history objectively.

    We had our own little gulag archipelago, but it only imprisoned women.

    All countries have shadows in their past but it is historical ignorance to ignore any grey scale when discussing this. It seems to you it was black and white where your anti-RCC bias clouds all your opinion and objective reasoning. My last point, we were miles off being a fascist state in all but name with the RCC controlling the levers of power. It does not stand up to historical scrutiny of the times and you have not shown any proof, statistics, laws to show prove otherwise.

    That was withdrawn several posts ago.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #56
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Strawman (topic was treatment of pregnant women).

    Topic is discussing wether Ireland was a pseudo-fascist state or not. The treatment of homosexuals in actual fascist states is a valid point to make in comparison to Ireland and other western democratic countries of the time.
    ninja900 wrote: »
    Same strawman again.

    It is a valid question to ask, why with the absence of the RCC is say the US where that particular country still had conservative social policies? It betrays your reasoning that if we got rif of the RCC overnight then the entire population would become enlightened and liberal.

    ninja900 wrote: »
    Nope it was the bias in the IT article I was questioning..

    It was a finding in the actual report, a report that took 10 years to produce. Once cant reject facts because they don’t like them or don’t fit into their own biased narrative.

    ninja900 wrote: »
    Again, the topic was pregnant unmarried women and large numbers of them did leave here.
    I know of mixed religion couples who had to leave here (1960s).

    Again, what are the stats for this? How many women had to leave. Please provide me with peer reviewed numbers regarding your claim.



    ninja900 wrote: »
    All democracies are flawed to some extent..

    As was/is Ireland yet miles off your original claim that it was a notch above a fascist state. Good to see recognise Ireland as a democracy now. :)

    ninja900 wrote: »
    Rather unlikely, unless the other movement was another church, with control of schools, hospitals, etc.
    .
    The National Socialist, Bolsheviks, Maoist and Khmer Rouge did not need to control the schools and hospitals to garner total control initially. Other forces will also fill a vacuum. Ever hear to the saying "Nature abhors a vacuum".


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Because like the RCC they had no respect for human rights, only for their own ideology, and its ends could justify any means..

    Yet as I have pointed out, similar laws against homosexuals were passed in democratic states where the RCC had very little power.


    ninja900 wrote: »
    As ready made as the world's most powerful church, with 1500 years to establish itself?.

    See my post about a vacuum.
    ninja900 wrote: »
    Doesn't make us right.
    Did any of them imprison women simply for becoming pregnant?.

    Never said it was right and yes, they did imprison women and steal their babies.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations



    ninja900 wrote: »

    We had our own little gulag archipelago, but it only imprisoned women.
    .

    Again, using the words 'gulag' suggests some sort of Stalinist regime which does not stand up to objective historical research
    We were not the only western country to have laundries (or similar) for single mothers. The UK had plenty of them as well, the first opening in London in 1758 and closing in 1966.


  • #57
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    robindch wrote: »
    You should take the time to read some of what you're replying to rather than just yelling like a town crier in Pompeii. I pointed out that Gillard has been insulted in a sexist manner and neither Abbott nor you appear to be concerned. This guy Slipper seems to be another clown in the same vein as Abbott, which may not be all that mysterious given that (checking on Wikipedia) Slipper seems to have spent 15 years in the same Liberal Party as Abbott did. The Liberal party really does need to have a think about the kind of people they allow stand in their name.

    BTW, I see that Abbott spent some time training to be a catholic priest. That would certainly explain some of his sexist views.

    Yet seeing as Gillard voted to keep Peter Slipper in the speaker of the houses' chair, by extension using your own logic and reasoning, "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she+you agree" with his sexist and homophobic comments. So whats the end result here?

    Just admit it, you got caught with your pants down using a bad example. Take your beating and we can move on.


  • #58
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,946 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I notice Jank you snipped out my reference to a claim having been withdrawn, so you could continue to rail against it.

    Oh and we didn't operate a system of exit visas or pregnancy tests on departure from Ireland, so the statistics you are disingenuously looking for simply do not exist. I am certain that you already know that, of course.
    Very convenient for our government's point of view that there was a common travel area with the UK where people who didn't fit in with their vision of holy catholic Ireland could go.

    Explain to me what was the major difference between the gulag system a (usually male) political dissident could be forced into in Stalin's Russia and the gulag system a (female) sexual dissident could be forced into here?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #59
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,725 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Explain to me what was the major difference between the gulag system a (usually male) political dissident could be forced into in Stalin's Russia and the gulag system a (female) sexual dissident could be forced into here?
    The main difference is that it was the legal power of the state, backed by the use of force, which put people into the gulags, whereas it was entirely social and conventional pressures which put people into the Magdalene Laundries, and kept them there.

    And, yes, that is a very important difference. Particularly in the context of attempts to parlay Irish social conservatism into something akin to fascism. It just wasn't. And people who think it was either don't understand the reality of mid-twentieth century Ireland, or they don't understand the reality of fascism.


  • #60
    GerB40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,047 ✭✭✭GerB40


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Does the Taoiseach need to take an oath?

    One can choose to take an oath on the constitution if they want.. Makes far more sense to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,725 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    GerB40 wrote: »
    One can choose to take an oath on the constitution if they want.. Makes far more sense to me.
    Strictly speaking, what the Taoiseach has to take (as a member of the Council of State) is a declaration, not an oath. There are no books involved. (Or, at least, there is no requirement for any books to be involved. I'm sure if someone making the declaration wants to hold a book while he does so, no-one will object.)

    The problem is not the presence or absence of a bible, but the wording of the declaration:

    "In the presence of Almighty God I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State."

    Obviously, it may be offensive to the conscience of non-believers, and indeed of some believers, to require them to make a declaration in this form.

    A similar issue arises in relation to the declarations which the Constitution requires (a) the President, and (b) Judges to make on entering into office. These declarations are again made "in the presence of Almighty God", and furthermore they both conclude with a prayer ("May God direct and sustain me.")


Advertisement