Iona vs Panti

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2014 01:17PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's grand, so far as it goes. What I think is missing is some consideration of why Catholic lay organisations can move to occupy the space that Bishops might have occupied in the past. In some sense, it's because they are not yet irrelevant.

For them to become irrelevant, some coherent organisation with a solid social basis has to emerge. In other words, built on a fair number of people waking up in the morning feeling they've some compelling reason to co-operate because they've a lot in common. I wouldn't see Atheist Ireland (for the sake of argument) finding that they can mobilise that kind of coherent support. I wouldn't feel the current controversy will, either. It's just too peripheral an issue.

The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation has more of coherent social basis, and more significance in the influence its likely to have our collective lives. And not necessarily a good influence, precisely because we can only achieve a degree of consensus around stuff that doesn't really matter.We could probably contemplate a referendum on gay marriage before we could contemplate a referendum on abortion, precisely because gay marriage won't change anything that matters in any real sense.

Now, the Iona thing can't last more than a couple of decades. It won't be that much longer that you'll have Irish people feeling that Catholicism has some particular reason to be listened to, even if it is probably the main reason that we're living in an Irish State.

It's probably not.

Connelly was the one who led the rebellion and his motivation was not religious plus the RCC was anti-republican.

oscarBravo · 09-02-2014 01:19PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...gay marriage won't change anything that matters in any real sense.

...to you.

weisses · 09-02-2014 01:33PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Keeping one's opinion to one's-self?

Ahhh responding to someone who is banned..

And look at the thanks your getting ..... Impressive

aloyisious · 09-02-2014 01:44PM

weisses wrote: »

Ahhh responding to someone who is banned..

And look at the thanks your getting ..... Impressive

I do expect BB to come back, see it and respond, if he/she chooses. S/He's returned in the past.

aloyisious · 09-02-2014 01:49PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

Is it bad that Panti's speech brought a tear to my eye?

Such a lovely person, doesn't deserve any of this **** from a bunch of bigoted Catholics wanting to bully their own beliefs onto others

Re your last para, I've just heard Archbishop Diarmuid Martin on RTE Radio 1 news interview decrying any Roman Catholic person using the RC church to attack gay people.

robindch · 09-02-2014 03:06PM

^^^ Linky?

unfortunately · 09-02-2014 03:30PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's grand, so far as it goes. What I think is missing is some consideration of why Catholic lay organisations can move to occupy the space that Bishops might have occupied in the past. In some sense, it's because they are not yet irrelevant.

Well, I think a lay organisation has come about because religious arguments have become irrelevant to the main political discourse. Bishops are ignored by large parts of the populace when considering political issues, so the social authoritarians have to re-brand themselves and put forward arguments with a secular veneer to get anywhere.

Any group quoting Biblical passages to forward positions are rightly laughed out of the place.

The Black Oil · 09-02-2014 03:53PM

Archbishop Martin's comments, wonder if a bishop in another jurisdiction would make such remarks.

Archbishop of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin has said that some people in the Catholic Church may be homophobic.

Speaking on RTÉ's This Week, he said it was also possible that the teaching of the church could be used "in a homophobic way".

He said that the Church had to be very careful that in the forthcoming debate on the same sex referendum, that this was not done.

Archbishop Martin said he felt that the debate had already got off to a bad start.

"Debates on issues like this have to be carried out in a mature way so that people can freely express their views while at the same time being respectful and not causing offence," he said.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0209/503216-diarmuid-martin/

Sarky · 09-02-2014 03:57PM

Just finished listening to Rory O'Neill's interview on Sunday With Miriam. Hell of a speaker, that chap. Well worth listening to.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-02-2014 04:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's probably not.

Connelly was the one who led the rebellion and his motivation was not religious plus the RCC was anti-republican.

For some reason, I found that moment in ""If ..." coming to mind when the history teacher interrupts his description of the origins of the First World War to say "Or perhaps you fashionably and happily believe that it's all a simple matter of evil dictators rather than whole populations of evil people like... ourselves?"

The point is around what was a social coherent force. Labour wasn't an especially important force, as the subsequent political shape of the independent State demonstrates. Catholicism was. What gave the independence cause legs was the fact that an awful lot of Irish people woke up every morning, defining themselves as Catholic, and feeling that being Irish and Catholic meant they had limits placed on them that could only be removed by breaking the Union.

For instance, a lot of folk who got involved were post office clerks, who were unlikely to progress very far in the civil service because of their religion.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...to you.

Yup, to me. Although, can I point out that I did attempt to plow through the 700 differences between civil partnership and marriage to see if there was some substantial issue that justified taking an interest. Maybe there is, but unfortunately the first point that caught my eye was the non-recognition of engagement prior to civil partnership.

There's one of those sad legal cases (I'm working from memory, as I could not be arsed to look it up) where a man demanded back the engagement ring from his ex-intended. She refused, and they ended up in Court. The Court used the wisdom of Solomon, and decided something like he could have the ring back but not the diamond (or the other way around).

I know they want to broadcast a big figure like "700 differences". I also know that some will want to cling to that figure. But, I'm afraid, the effect on me was to confirm my existing bias that there's really nothing to see here. There's just a block of shapeless outrage looking for something to be outraged about.

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2014 04:19PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

For some reason, I found that moment in ""If ..." coming to mind when the history teacher interrupts his description of the origins of the First World War to say "Or perhaps you fashionably and happily believe that it's all a simple matter of evil dictators rather than whole populations of evil people like... ourselves?"

The point is around what was a social coherent force. Labour wasn't an especially important force, as the subsequent political shape of the independent State demonstrates. Catholicism was. What gave the independence cause legs was the fact that an awful lot of Irish people woke up every morning, defining themselves as Catholic, and feeling that being Irish and Catholic meant they had limits placed on them that could only be removed by breaking the Union.

For instance, a lot of folk who got involved were post office clerks, who were unlikely to progress very far in the civil service because of their religion.Yup, to me. Although, can I point out that I did attempt to plow through the 700 differences between civil partnership and marriage to see if there was some substantial issue that justified taking an interest. Maybe there is, but unfortunately the first point that caught my eye was the non-recognition of engagement prior to civil partnership.

There's one of those sad legal cases (I'm working from memory, as I could not be arsed to look it up) where a man demanded back the engagement ring from his ex-intended. She refused, and they ended up in Court. The Court used the wisdom of Solomon, and decided something like he could have the ring back but not the diamond (or the other way around).

I know they want to broadcast a big figure like "700 differences". I also know that some will want to cling to that figure. But, I'm afraid, the effect on me was to confirm my existing bias that there's really nothing to see here. There's just a block of shapeless outrage looking for something to be outraged about.

I would be more like one of the History lecturers that says lets look at the primary sources and see what was actually happening at the time and let the sociologists build their theories of social cohesion castles in the sky on some one else's time.

But no doubt you will argue you know better than me (possible as my expertise is Early Modern but I have lectured on Modern Ireland as well so unlikely)- or Diarmaid Ferriter who is my go-to guy on the early years of the Irish State.

May I suggest if you do wish to pursue what ever tangent you are heading off on you do so in a different thread as this thread is very much about the now not the then.

Testicular cancer doesn't concern me as I will not be affected by it - should the State therefore not fund research into it?

Such fuss and nonsense about a couple of balls one can live without. Cut 'em off and stop whinging guys!

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-02-2014 04:24PM

unfortunately wrote: »

Well, I think a lay organisation has come about because religious arguments have become irrelevant to the main political discourse. Bishops are ignored by large parts of the populace when considering political issues, so the social authoritarians have to re-brand themselves and put forward arguments with a secular veneer to get anywhere.

It should, but organisations rarely emerge just because a particular view makes sense in theory.

If lay Catholic organisations can emerge, when their sponsor is dying on its feet, it suggests that there are folk who did alright under the old regime. It's not because of fear of our immortal souls that people get involved in such things. Its to protect the structures that keep things they way they like them.

Just to take a thought, a lot of our "best" schools have religious patrons. Where are they left if there's meaningful change? What's the point in spending your shirt on sending your offspring to schools run by Jesuits, if their master franchise just went insolvent? Gosh, it doesn't bear thinking about.

And folk will back it, because they're not clear on where the alternative leads you. Perish the thought that this whole secularism business meant that the elite would be drawn from VEC schools.

Anyway, enough of such wild speculation. Back to the serious business of putting a right to gay marriage into a Constitution that asserts, in its preamble, that the Holy Trinity is the only source of legitimate human authority.

vitani · 09-02-2014 04:27PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

Is it bad that Panti's speech brought a tear to my eye?

Such a lovely person, doesn't deserve any of this **** from a bunch of bigoted Catholics wanting to bully their own beliefs onto others

The bit that really got to me was him talking about the crap he's been subjected to over the past three weeks - having been denounced in the Oireachtas, online, in newspapers etc. It may be something interesting for all of us to talk about and rally round, but it's him at the centre of it all.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-02-2014 04:28PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But no doubt you will argue you know better than me (possible as my expertise is Early Modern but I have lectured on Modern Ireland as well so unlikely)- or Diarmaid Ferriter who is my go-to guy on the early years of the Irish State.

Nope, I'd never make any appeal to authority. I'd stick to discussing what might reasonably be said about how humans organise their affairs.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Testicular cancer doesn't concern me as I will not be affected by it - should the State therefore not fund research into it?

Do we fund research into it? I'd suspect that it costs more to run the A&E in Roscommon Hospital, because that's more likely to represent something that mobilises things.

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2014 04:39PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Nope, I'd never make any appeal to authority. I'd stick to discussing what might reasonably be said about how humans organise their affairs.Do we fund research into it? I'd suspect that it costs more to run the A&E in Roscommon Hospital, because that's more likely to represent something that mobilises things.

I get the distinct impression you believe yourself to be the ultimate authority on a myriad of topics.

But as I said, the situation at the foundation of the State is not really relevant to the situation now which is what this thread is about.

Should the State only interest itself in what affects the majority or should the State treat all citizens equally?

You appear to be arguing the former - if so, you need to explain exactly why the State should discriminate against any minority.

oscarBravo · 09-02-2014 05:18PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yup, to me. Although, can I point out that I did attempt to plow through the 700 differences between civil partnership and marriage to see if there was some substantial issue that justified taking an interest. Maybe there is, but unfortunately the first point that caught my eye was the non-recognition of engagement prior to civil partnership.

There's one of those sad legal cases (I'm working from memory, as I could not be arsed to look it up) where a man demanded back the engagement ring from his ex-intended. She refused, and they ended up in Court. The Court used the wisdom of Solomon, and decided something like he could have the ring back but not the diamond (or the other way around).

I know they want to broadcast a big figure like "700 differences". I also know that some will want to cling to that figure. But, I'm afraid, the effect on me was to confirm my existing bias that there's really nothing to see here. There's just a block of shapeless outrage looking for something to be outraged about.

That's not so much an argument against marriage equality as it is for abolishing marriage and replacing it with civil partnership. If it's good enough for the gheys, surely it's good enough for everyone else.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Anyway, enough of such wild speculation. Back to the serious business of putting a right to gay marriage into a Constitution that asserts, in its preamble, that the Holy Trinity is the only source of legitimate human authority.

Good thinking. Let's get rid of that voodoo from the Constitution while we're at it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-02-2014 06:13PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I get the distinct impression you believe yourself to be the ultimate authority on a myriad of topics.

But as I said, the situation at the foundation of the State is not really relevant to the situation now which is what this thread is about.

Should the State only interest itself in what affects the majority or should the State treat all citizens equally?

You appear to be arguing the former - if so, you need to explain exactly why the State should discriminate against any minority.

Where do I claim authority? I'd more typically argue that there is no ultimate authority.

What I've looked for in this issue is something material. It doesn't have to impact a lot of people, if the issue is more than cosmetic. If it's just 700 technicalities, like not being able to demand
return of the ring if the union doesn't go ahead, then I'm afraid I don't see the materiality.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-02-2014 06:20PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not so much an argument against marriage equality as it is for abolishing marriage and replacing it with civil partnership. If it's good enough for the gheys, surely it's good enough for everyone else.

Good thinking. Let's get rid of that voodoo from the Constitution while we're at it.

It's an argument about materiality, and not adjusting the Constitution if it's just to assert Stan's right to have babies.

As to removing the Holy Trinity, I've no problem. I'd just wonder the extent to which we could agree what the basis of human authority is. I've a fondness for the US Declaration of Independence, because they obviously spent some time getting the opening lines to read nice. But, like they say, that assertion that equality is self-evident was made by a group that included slave owners.

Annasopra · 09-02-2014 06:29PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Where do I claim authority? I'd more typically argue that there is no ultimate authority.

What I've looked for in this issue is something material. It doesn't have to impact a lot of people, if the issue is more than cosmetic. If it's just 700 technicalities, like not being able to demand
return of the ring if the union doesn't go ahead, then I'm afraid I don't see the materiality.

I'm not sure why you're getting involved in the discussion at all if you think the whole thing is pointless.

MrPudding · 09-02-2014 06:30PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yup, to me. Although, can I point out that I did attempt to plow through the 700 differences between civil partnership and marriage to see if there was some substantial issue that justified taking an interest. Maybe there is, but unfortunately the first point that caught my eye was the non-recognition of engagement prior to civil partnership.

Do there have to be legal differences for it to be worth doing? Have a look at the Proposition 8 cases from California. Civil Parnerships were available to same sex couples and those civil partnerships were legally identical to marriage, yet it was still held that not allowing same sex marriage was discriminatory to same sex couples. But how can this be? They are the same... Well, the problem is, even when things are the same, but different, the fact that they are different, and the state upholds that difference, and views the "things" as different, that in and of itself is a type of discriminataion. Not only that, but the message that it sends is one that says, "these people are different, and it is ok for you to think they are different, and don't deserve the same things, afterall, we do."

So, although not a legal problem, not being able to call someone your husband or wife is a problem. Calling someone your husband or wife is a handy shortcut to explain to society the nature of your relaionship. This shortcut may not seem like much of a justification, but it is something that has caused some distress. For example, in the Proposition 8 case one of the plaintifs spoke of the trouble they had opening a joint bank account. When asked what the relationship was, she said partner. The bank clerk thought she wanted a business account. This small thing could be quite upsetting.

Now, I am not saying that causing people to be upset when opening a joint bank account is justificaiton alone for SSM, but it is things like this, outside legal differences, and apparently small in nature, that should be taken into account.

Is there one substantial issue that means we should have SSM? Perhaps not, but it does not matter. There does not have to be a single substanial issue. Sometimes it is ok to do something simply because you know it is the right thing to do.

MrP

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2014 07:01PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Where do I claim authority? I'd more typically argue that there is no ultimate authority.

What I've looked for in this issue is something material. It doesn't have to impact a lot of people, if the issue is more than cosmetic. If it's just 700 technicalities, like not being able to demand
return of the ring if the union doesn't go ahead, then I'm afraid I don't see the materiality.

If you think a gay couple not being allowed to adopt as a couple thereby denying a child of gay parents the right to have both their parents legally recognised as trivial then I would question why that is.

If you think it is all about returning rings then I suggest you seriously need to improve your research skills.

You keep using this 700 figure and making references to engagement rings- this strikes me as an attempt by you to to trivialise an issue that has a very real impact on other people's lives.

There are 160 Statutory differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage. You may deem these trivial but that begs the question if they are so trivial as to be safe to ignore - why were they not included in the CP legislation.

You can read the list of the 160 statutory differences here:
http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

It's even colour coded in case your research skills continue to fail you.

nagirrac · 09-02-2014 07:30PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Connelly was the one who led the rebellion and his motivation was not religious plus the RCC was anti-republican.

I think you are overstating the case for James Connolly, although admittedly an admirable figure in Irish history, as he was by no means the "one who led the rebellion". The Easter rising was orchestrated by the IRB, and Connolly's Citizen army were a minor player relative to the Irish Volunteers. Of the seven members of the IRB Military Committee who orchestrated the rising, Connolly was the last to join, presumably to get his Citizen army involved. More importantly, the War of Independence was effectively led by the IRB, Collins after all was its president since 1919.

I don't think there's any evidence that the IRB were motivated by religion, their goal was a democratic Republic (since the time of the United Irishmen, most of whose leaders were Protestant and were non-sectarian), laid out pretty clearly in the Easter proclamation. Most of the IRB leaders, whose vision and actions inspired and secured at least partial independence, were unfortunately dead when arguably they were most needed. Sadly, after independence, the country was effectively left in the hands of gombeens.

I would agree the RCC hierarchy were always opposed to Irish independence movements, in particular since the Fenians in the mid 19th century. True to form though, they changed horses pretty sharply after 1922. The RCC have been very consistent in backing the winner after the fighting is over.

A bit off topic, but I think it speaks to how the country evolved in a very different manner to the vision of the original movement that inspired and secured independence.

el pasco · 09-02-2014 07:38PM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Supposedly, a statement from Iona's site. Don't seem to see it mentioned anywhere else.

Complete sickener if it turns out to be true.

Just say the shoe was on the other foot I wonder what people woul be saying??

Bannasidhe · 09-02-2014 07:57PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I think you are overstating the case for James Connolly, although admittedly an admirable figure in Irish history, as he was by no means the "one who led the rebellion". The Easter rising was orchestrated by the IRB, and Connolly's Citizen army were a minor player relative to the Irish Volunteers. Of the seven members of the IRB Military Committee who orchestrated the rising, Connolly was the last to join, presumably to get his Citizen army involved. More importantly, the War of Independence was effectively led by the IRB, Collins after all was its president since 1919.

I don't think there's any evidence that the IRB were motivated by religion, their goal was a democratic Republic (since the time of the United Irishmen, most of whose leaders were Protestant and were non-sectarian), laid out pretty clearly in the Easter proclamation. Most of the IRB leaders, whose vision and actions inspired and secured at least partial independence, were unfortunately dead when arguably they were most needed. Sadly, after independence, the country was effectively left in the hands of gombeens.

I would agree the RCC hierarchy were always opposed to Irish independence movements, in particular since the Fenians in the mid 19th century. True to form though, they changed horses pretty sharply after 1922. The RCC have been very consistent in backing the winner after the fighting is over.

A bit off topic, but I think it speaks to how the country evolved in a very different manner to the vision of the original movement that inspired and secured independence.

Nope. Connelly was going to rebel with or without the IRB.

It was the IRB who then decided to join with Connelly when they realised he was going with or without them.

There was a bit of spin after the event which placed Pearse in the fore-front to diminish the role of the Left.

I was surprised when I learned that being young and naive at the time. I am rarely surprised by the spin in Nationalist historiography now as I have encounter so much of it.

PopePalpatine · 09-02-2014 08:03PM

The Easter Rising makes me think "what if?" a lot. If the leaders of the Rising survived, would Ireland have capitulated to the Catholic Church so easily?

I wonder if the Catholic Church could have seized control as easily if the Home Rule Party were successful, too.

robindch · 09-02-2014 08:17PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The Easter Rising makes me think "what if?" a lot. If the leaders of the Rising survived, would Ireland have capitulated to the Catholic Church so easily?

Have a watch of this - which asked the same question in 1967:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Road_to_Dublin_(film)

sid waddell · 09-02-2014 08:24PM

el pasco wrote: »

Just say the shoe was on the other foot I wonder what people woul be saying??

I'd venture that there an awful lot more members of the gay community who know a lot more about "getting their face kicked in" than any members of the Iona Institute.

We hear constant calls for "a reasonable debate" from the Iona Institute, yet well-known supporters of their position are only too happy to dish out abuse on Twitter that could probably be classed as incitement to hatred.

el pasco · 09-02-2014 08:27PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

A religious lobby forcing its own morality onto others by excessive and unwarranted access to the media, RTE are far too close to Iona if I am honest

Many Catholics think RTE is too left wing and anti catholic so it depends which side if the fence you sit in IMHO

lazygal · 09-02-2014 08:40PM

el pasco wrote: »

Many Catholics think RTE is too left wing and anti catholic so it depends which side if the fence you sit in IMHO

Yeah it's not like rte broadcasts the Catholic call to prayer twice a day or anything.

robindch · 09-02-2014 08:42PM

sid waddell wrote: »

We hear constant calls for "a reasonable debate" from the Iona Institute [...]

Iona vs Panti

Comments