Seanad discussing should the pope visit Ireland

Tombo2001 · 20-02-2014 10:54AM

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

If he wants to come, he can pay for it himself.

I know he's being marketed as the cool new pope but he has done feck all to redress victims of clerical abuse, he has messed around with the UN and he has sheltered child abusers in the Vatican itself.

Not to mind all the platitudes about loving your fellow man while Magdalene survivors die off one by one.

If he comes and the state picks up the tab, it is just more money that we are giving an organisation that can well fund itself and that can afford to do the right thing if it were that way inclined.

The more interesting question for me is whether the ordinary people of Ireland would register any sort of protest if he did come here.

Irish people appear to me to be peculiarly lacking in empathy. Clerical abuse is one example; if it doesnt affect someone in your family, then you'd rather not think about that sort of thing......similarly, and a slight disgression.....but half of Limerick could be under a flood and I dont think the rest of the country would give it a second thought....inner city Dublin is a land of walking dead junkies, but it will never be an election issue.

How Cardinal Brady has been able to stay in his position, I really put that down to the indifference overall that the Irish public has shown to the clerical abuse issue.

the_syco · 20-02-2014 11:00AM

I think he should come over. In the past, we have fined employers for dodgy crap by their employees, and I don't think this is any different. He should be bought into a court of law, and held accountable for his inaction.

Kidchameleon · 20-02-2014 12:42PM

I couldn't give a toss if some nobody from a bs organization came here.

MrPudding · 20-02-2014 12:50PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I couldn't give a toss if some nobody from a bs organization came here.

Does it not get boring not caring about anything?

Does that fact that the Irish people will have to fork out between 10 and 20 million euros for the trip not bother you in the slightest? Can you not think of anything that money might be better spent on?

MrP

Kidchameleon · 20-02-2014 12:59PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Does it not get boring not caring about anything?

Does that fact that the Irish people will have to fork out between 10 and 20 million euros for the trip not bother you in the slightest? Can you not think of anything that money might be better spent on?

MrP

These are the same arguments that were used for the Queens visit. I'm bored of these arguments. The fact of the matter is, if the pope comes here, far more than 20 million will come into the economy.

Pherekydes · 20-02-2014 01:09PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

These are the same arguments that were used for the Queens visit. I'm bored of these arguments. The fact of the matter is, if the pope comes here, far more than 20 million will come into the economy.

The Queen is the head of state of our nearest neighbour and our biggest trading partner.

What trade do we have with the Vatican, except perhaps in stolen babies?

Sarky · 20-02-2014 01:21PM

Those stolen babies made a hell of a lot of money for the orders, in fairness. He might have a point about the Vatican bringing more than 20 million to Ireland. It'd likely take it back to Rome, or shove it in a trust fund though.

Brian Shanahan · 20-02-2014 03:42PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Within going into a godwin arguement. You do realise that Stalinist Russia was a forced Atheist State and some of the 3rd Reich leading members were staunch atheists. So in a sense your comparing the RCC to an atheist regime?

Wrong on both counts, from 1941 to Stalin's death the USSR worked hand in glove with the Orthodox hierarchy (Stalin himself died a devout believer) and after that the Orthodox church was tolerated. The early paroxysm of violence against Orthodoxy was a typical lashing out against those who opposed the winners in a revolutionary war. That's leaving aside the fact that the cult of Stalin was an attempt to create a new religion, with Uncle Joe as the putative new deity.

And Nazi Germany was a devoutly christian country. Hitler even went so far as to ban secular education during the period of the Third Reich, and was constantly referring to the christian god in his speeches (in fact Hitler died a devout catlick). And atheists were actively persecuted under Nazi rule, with many of their organisations being supressed early in Hitler's rule. And of the main leaders only one, Alfred Rosenberg, wasn't a proclaimed christian and a) he was neo-Nordic pagan, and b) he was too nutty even for the Nazis and was quickly sidelined.

So your point is wrong.

Then we come to the fact that your point has nothing to do with what I meant. The rcc is as evil in nature as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. It allows the same level of persecution and wrongdoing, it shelters the perpetrators from justice and it punishes the innocent to the same extent. The only difference between the rcc and the other two is that the church has being committing its evil for nigh on 2,000 years while neither of the other lasted a century.

The_Valeyard · 20-02-2014 06:27PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong on both counts, from 1941 to Stalin's death the USSR worked hand in glove with the Orthodox hierarchy (Stalin himself died a devout believer) and after that the Orthodox church was tolerated. The early paroxysm of violence against Orthodoxy was a typical lashing out against those who opposed the winners in a revolutionary war.

Incorrect. His post 1941 'conversion' was simply a way to create patriotic support for the war to repel the Nazi invasion. Once the war was over, the old wars returned. Even during the war the Orthodox churches of Ukraine were suppressed -twice! In 1946 Ukranian Catholic Church was forced to join the Russian Orthodox church. Even after Stalins death with Khrushchevs closure of over 12000 churches in the 1950s. By 1985 there were less than 7000 active churches within the Soviet Union. Many members of church hierachy would continue to be jailed or exiled and have KGB elements take their place. (Never mind the continued attacks to stamp out Judaism right up until the mid 1980s)

Stalins conversion to a religious affliction was merely a death bed conversion that could be seen as a 'hedging your bets'. His daughter Svetlana (before her escape to USA) speaks about it in Allen Bulloks book "Hitler and Stalin"

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And Nazi Germany was a devoutly christian country. Hitler even went so far as to ban secular education during the period of the Third Reich, and was constantly referring to the christian god in his speeches (in fact Hitler died a devout catlick). And atheists were actively persecuted under Nazi rule, with many of their organisations being supressed early in Hitler's rule. And of the main leaders only one, Alfred Rosenberg, wasn't a proclaimed christian and a) he was neo-Nordic pagan, and b) he was too nutty even for the Nazis and was quickly sidelined.

Wrong again. In 1936 religious schools were abolished and absorbed into the State education system. (along with other private schools). In 1934 onwards Priests were instructed to no longer visit school and confine religious instructions to the church. In schools were special permission was given to show a crucifix, it had to be placed below the picture of Adolf Hitler. In Koch book (p172) it goes into detail on how Christians were no longer allowed to celebrate religious festivals or holidays on weekdays. By 1938 all teachers we prohibited from belonging to any demomnistion professional organisations. Religious education was 'discouraged'

The Nazis both supported and suppressed religious groupings. Sort of like telling a dog to 'sit up and lie down' at the same time, impossible and causes confusion. Hitlers use of the word 'God' in speeches was similar to Stalin, simply a war to create support for his war machine, to increase morale and encourage better fighting and create loyalty. Impossible to a country with a premodinalty staunch Catholic population in Southern Germany without referring to some deity to gain support, it is not indicative of actual belief.

Thousands of priests also found their way into concentration camps for protesting the deportation of Jews (Kolbe, Tituss, Von Gelen, etc). Example would be the 2600 priests would be executed in Dachau alone. Not to mention the RCC was completely suppressed in Poland to allow for Nazi domination. (3000 Polish Priests executed) Not to mention groups like Baha'i Faith & Jehovah Witnesses were banned under the 3rd Reich.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So your point is wrong

I do not believe so.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Then we come to the fact that your point has nothing to do with what I meant. The rcc is as evil in nature as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. It allows the same level of persecution and wrongdoing, it shelters the perpetrators from justice and it punishes the innocent to the same extent. The only difference between the rcc and the other two is that the church has being committing its evil for nigh on 2,000 years while neither of the other lasted a century.

Finally we come to this.

Your comment that the RCC is as evil in nature as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia is ludicrous. I do not recall any organised Roman Catholic Church death camps within 20th century Europe. I do not see how the Catholic Church allows for the same level of persection and wrongdoing as that of Russia? I do not see purges based on faith & I do not see camps created to break people down.

The Catholic Church committed many crimes over 2000 years, Stalinist Russia surpassed them in far quicker time than that.

shruikan2553 · 20-02-2014 07:17PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Religion was not simply pushed back into the private place, many priests and followers were exterminated during the purges or sent to the gulags. Some very old cathedrals were knocked down and build on with things like swimming pools.

Nazi Germany bullied Christians into submission. Nazism openly encouraged people to abandon their religion. Hitlers inner circle did have plans to eventually but slowly remove Christianity from Germany and advoate state atheism. Led by men like Martin Bormann.

Anything that was done against the Christian religions was done in an attempt to reduce peoples loyalty. Hitler had mein kampf on alters of his religion, pictures of him in the classroom as people have pictures of Christ. What he wanted was the loyalty the people had towards religion aimed at the state with him at the head. Nothing was done for atheism or to just destroy religion for the fun of it. Unlike the RCC which is the church itself so its actions represent those of the religion. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a God so actions of those with that belief or lack of represent nothing but themselves. If you wanted a comparison it would have to be theists and atheists but even then the theists tend to be a part of some group.

robindch · 21-02-2014 09:59AM

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland [...]

In its broadest sense, the church in Ireland was, is and will remain the most hideously self-interested, self-serving group of organizations in Ireland. I can think of no time when it has provided moral leadership beyond its own private and peculiar interests.

kylith · 21-02-2014 02:23PM

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland,

What moral leadership? The enslavement of women, the rape of children, and decrying gay people as abominations are moral?

compared to the weak and self-enriching political classes, I'm sure a visit will be a great idea.

And the church isn't corrupt and self-enriching? How much land does it own? How much gold? Have you seen the frigging golden throne that Pope Ben liked to park his arse on?

PopePalpatine · 21-02-2014 02:27PM

Something tells me Manach is only interested in drive-by posting.

Cabaal · 21-02-2014 03:03PM

kylith wrote: »

What moral leadership? The enslavement of women, the rape of children, and decrying gay people as abominations are moral?

My fav is the witch burning,
The Catholic church really knew how to burn a witch,

kylith · 21-02-2014 03:11PM

Cabaal wrote: »

My fav is the witch burning,
The Catholic church really knew how to burn a witch,

I don't think anyone was burned. Tortured and hanged is a different story though, they were mad for the torture and hanging.

Cabaal · 21-02-2014 03:13PM

kylith wrote: »

I don't think anyone was burned. Tortured and hanged is a different story though, they were mad for the torture and hanging.

Nah, they did the odd burning now and then

http://chooseireland.com/kilkenny/the-first-ever-witch-trial-the-ghost-of-kilkenny/

The_Valeyard · 21-02-2014 04:50PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Anything that was done against the Christian religions was done in an attempt to reduce peoples loyalty. Hitler had mein kampf on alters of his religion, pictures of him in the classroom as people have pictures of Christ. What he wanted was the loyalty the people had towards religion aimed at the state with him at the head. Nothing was done for atheism or to just destroy religion for the fun of it. Unlike the RCC which is the church itself so its actions represent those of the religion. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a God so actions of those with that belief or lack of represent nothing but themselves. If you wanted a comparison it would have to be theists and atheists but even then the theists tend to be a part of some group.

Im not sure that is really the case. While I believe many members on this forum may hold that to be true, with element emerging like Atheism+ , and 'The Sunday Service' is Atheism not simply branching out and becoming a social or almost religious like organisation?

shruikan2553 · 21-02-2014 05:07PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Im not sure that is really the case. While I believe many members on this forum may hold that to be true, with element emerging like Atheism+ , and 'The Sunday Service' is Atheism not simply branching out and becoming a social or almost religious like organisation?

They are groups of atheists. To join a religion you join a group of people. The only thing an atheist does is not believe in any god or gods. The groups you mention are a group of people joining together with a common goal who happen to be atheist. To be an atheist you just dont sign up for anything. What do you call someone who doesnt like football? If someone who doesnt like football tries to reduce the popularity of the sport it has nothing to do with anyone else who doesnt like football.

The_Valeyard · 21-02-2014 05:12PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They are groups of atheists. To join a religion you join a group of people. The only thing an atheist does is not believe in any god or gods. The groups you mention are a group of people joining together with a common goal who happen to be atheist. To be an atheist you just dont sign up for anything. What do you call someone who doesnt like football? If someone who doesnt like football tries to reduce the popularity of the sport it has nothing to do with anyone else who doesnt like football.

I get what you are trying to say, but there are now atheists who do sign up for things like atheist charity groups, atheist rights, the Sunday service for example -mass without God more or less. Atheism appears to be changing into something other than a lack in belief of a deity.

shruikan2553 · 21-02-2014 05:20PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I get what you are trying to say, but there are now atheists who do sign up for things like atheist charity groups, atheist rights, the Sunday service for example -mass without God more or less. Atheism appears to be changing into something other than a lack in belief of a deity.

Some atheists are joining groups in response to a theist dominated society but their actions have as much bearing on atheism as a whole as the child abuse in the catholic church has on the monks of a Buddhist religion.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-02-2014 12:18AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Im not sure that is really the case. While I believe many members on this forum may hold that to be true, with element emerging like Atheism+ , and 'The Sunday Service' is Atheism not simply branching out and becoming a social or almost religious like organisation?

In your extensive study of this forum and its posters, did you fail to notice the well-deserved ridicule these groupings have received?

pauldla · 22-02-2014 12:35PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I get what you are trying to say, but there are now atheists who do sign up for things like atheist charity groups, atheist rights, the Sunday service for example -mass without God more or less. Atheism appears to be changing into something other than a lack in belief of a deity.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'Atheism appears to be changing into something other than a lack of belief of a deity'. That's all atheism is, or can be. You'll find Atheists who form charity groups, atheists who build death camps, atheists who post on internet forums and atheists who wear colanders on their heads. The only common point of ideology these people have is their lack of belief, and one would need to be cautious how far one can attribute their actions to their lack of belief. You’ll notice that groups such as A+ or Atheism Ireland get varying degrees of ‘meh’ from sundry posters on here, and threads about atheist books or atheist movies (my own, sniffle) tend to sink very quickly. The atheist music thread very quickly devolved into ‘music I like because sod it I like it’. And wonderful it was too, but in my opinion it gives the lie to such comments as yours above. How can it change into something other?

The_Valeyard · 22-02-2014 02:57PM

ninja900 wrote: »

In your extensive study of this forum and its posters, did you fail to notice the well-deserved ridicule these groupings have received?

If you had read my previous posts you would see that stated I did not believe that posters on these threads were in support of those views.

pauldla wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'Atheism appears to be changing into something other than a lack of belief of a deity'. That's all atheism is, or can be. You'll find Atheists who form charity groups, atheists who build death camps, atheists who post on internet forums and atheists who wear colanders on their heads. The only common point of ideology these people have is their lack of belief, and one would need to be cautious how far one can attribute their actions to their lack of belief. You’ll notice that groups such as A+ or Atheism Ireland get varying degrees of ‘meh’ from sundry posters on here, and threads about atheist books or atheist movies (my own, sniffle) tend to sink very quickly. The atheist music thread very quickly devolved into ‘music I like because sod it I like it’. And wonderful it was too, but in my opinion it gives the lie to such comments as yours above. How can it change into something other?

What lie? of course beliefs can change over time, just look at the partitioning and schisms of any major organised religious movement. It can evolve and change over time and stand for different meanings or activites. Atheism is not immune to that activity either. While its basic premuse is the firm believe that there is no God(s), it can evolve into a whole other creature or organisation while still using Atheism as its founding blocks.

Groups such as 'Sunday Service' as using Atheism as their bedrock and building on it, to form a whole new community or social structure with ageism as a founding stone or philosophical outlook.

pauldla wrote:

You’ll notice that groups such as A+ or Atheism Ireland get varying degrees of ‘meh’ from sundry posters on here, and threads about atheist books or atheist movies (my own, sniffle) tend to sink very quickly. ?

Your own movie? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Pherekydes · 22-02-2014 03:21PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

While its basic premuse is the firm believe that there is no God(s)...

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Not the [firm] belief that there are no deities.

pauldla · 23-02-2014 04:54AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

What lie? of course beliefs can change over time, just look at the partitioning and schisms of any major organised religious movement. It can evolve and change over time and stand for different meanings or activites. Atheism is not immune to that activity either. While its basic premuse is the firm believe that there is no God(s), it can evolve into a whole other creature or organisation while still using Atheism as its founding blocks.

Is atheism a belief? Is it an organised movement? Is it an ideology? Or is it a ‘None of the above’ to the question of belief? Atheism has always meant disbelief in god(s). I don’t see how that can change over time; indeed, it can’t change (in contrast, notice, to ideologies, which do change over time).

It seems to me that much of the discourse about atheism from the religious attempts to present atheism as a movement. For example, you don’t have to look too far on Christian sites on the internet to see references to what ‘The Atheists’ are doing now. I’m not sure why this is; perhaps the conflation is deliberate, as a tactic that makes it easier to discredit atheism (‘Atheists building death camps’ etc. It’s a great strawman). I don’t think it’s a fair assessment of the situation: I think that, instead a somewhat sinister sounding ‘Atheism is changing into something else’, it would be more accurate to say ‘An increasing number of people are deciding that religion has nothing to offer them and are exploring other options’.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Groups such as 'Sunday Service' as using Atheism as their bedrock and building on it, to form a whole new community or social structure with ageism as a founding stone or philosophical outlook.

Well, yes, reading atheism for ageism (a typo, I presume?). What of it?

Your own movie? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I started a thread about atheist movies. It sank, probably because good luck trying to decide what an ‘atheist movie’ is.

jank · 24-02-2014 05:49AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Disappointed with Norris on this I have to say, he like many have fallen for the church's new PR guy

Do you honestly think it is that black and white and that people who dont think like you are insane as you are 'obviously' sane?

jank · 24-02-2014 06:14AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong on both counts, from 1941 to Stalin's death the USSR worked hand in glove with the Orthodox hierarchy (Stalin himself died a devout believer) and after that the Orthodox church was tolerated.

Link please? As I have never heard this bit before.

TheOrthodox church came to the fore in 1941 as the great patriotic war started to be waged against Hitler's Germany. Stalins saw it primarly as a way to boost morale and the spirit of the people more than anything and saw the advantage of working with the Orthodox church there after. This is not even mentioning the fact that this was spontaneous and not initially planned by Stalin. When their very existence of a people and nation was under threat people turned to religion and the old Russian legends and tales rather than Bolshevism itself. Stalin was wise and incorporated these into the overall message of victory. Stalin was flexible in his approach (e.g. working with dirty capitalists) so long that the final outcome for his people was victory. Hitler was un-relentless in his approach hence why he lost and Stalin won.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And Nazi Germany was a devoutly christian country.

Define, devoutly. Was it more or less devot than its neighbours for example.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Hitler even went so far as to ban secular education during the period of the Third Reich

Only to replace it with Nazi approved education. The only 'god' in that education was the power of the state, the fatherland and devotion to Hitlers force of will...

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

and was constantly referring to the christian god in his speeches (in fact Hitler died a devout catlick).

Ok, now that bit is pure bull****, are trolling?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And atheists were actively persecuted under Nazi rule, with many of their organisations being supressed early in Hitler's rule.

Were they persecuted because they were atheists or because they were deemed enemy of the state because of their poltical beliefs or their race?
Quite a difference I think.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And of the main leaders only one, Alfred Rosenberg, wasn't a proclaimed christian and a) he was neo-Nordic pagan, and b) he was too nutty even for the Nazis and was quickly sidelined.

I would not really call Alfred Rosenberg a leader in the same sense that he had all that much power. Hitler was the leader and after that there was Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann, Speer as the big four with others like Goering, Donitz with some say as well. Rosenberg was nowhere near the top echelon of power.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The rcc is as evil in nature as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. It allows the same level of persecution and wrongdoing, it shelters the perpetrators from justice and it punishes the innocent to the same extent. The only difference between the rcc and the other two is that the church has being committing its evil for nigh on 2,000 years while neither of the other lasted a century .

See now we see you go full retard...

Frank Lee Midere · 25-02-2014 07:06PM

Wiki says

" Hitler was raised by an anticlerical, sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother. Baptized and confirmed as a child in Austria, he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. In adulthood, he became disdainful of Christianity, but in power was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations.[1][2][3][4][5] It is generally believed by historians that Hitler's long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany"

This is hardly in doubt.

jank · 25-02-2014 10:29PM

Stalin and Hitler both devout believers…hmmmm. sure, what next? Mao was a priest and Pol Pot was a Bishop I suppose.

Brian Shanahan · 25-02-2014 11:20PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

This is hardly in doubt.

Yes there is no doubt that Hitler was a catholic with a sincere belief in god (he believed in god so much that he felt it was his destiny as laid down by god that he lead Germany into world rulership, while exterminating all the Jews, Slavs, gays, socialists and any other untermenschen he could think of).

So Frank thanks for finally acknowledging that fact.

Seanad discussing should the pope visit Ireland

Comments