As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

foggy_lad · 24-05-2015 02:06PM

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

I was presiding officer in a school belonging to a convent.
I love the misinformation some people put out

The decision was down to the boards of management of the individual schools and parish halls/centres. Many were used but also many were not used for polling this time.

uck51js9zml2yt · 24-05-2015 02:07PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

The boards of management of quite a lot of the church schools and buildings used in the past decided this time that they could not allow voting on this issue to take place on their premises because it went to much against the ethos of their church. Obviously "their church" is not everyone's church as has been shown by the massive yes vote by so many Christians and Catholics.

Your original post said "the church refused to allow schools..." Now its the BOM of quiet a lot of schools.....which is it?

I presided on Friday in a convent school and the nuns who came up to vote had no issue with their school being used for the purpose.

RandomName2 · 24-05-2015 02:08PM

katydid wrote: »

You're a nutter...:pac:

Seriously, you think that Una Mullally wrote that letter herself and is pretending it was sent to her? Seriously?

Did she draw public attention to it herself or was it done on her behalf?

It just seems so totally bonkers - it's as if it ticks all the boxes of what makes a horrible human being (religious nut? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Full confidence in their wrong headedness? Check. Homophobic? Check. Racist? Check.)

katydid · 24-05-2015 02:09PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

The decision was down to the boards of management of the individual schools and parish halls/centres. Many were used but also many were not used for polling this time.

Can you name the particular schools? First I heard of this. Where I live, the same schools were used that are always used.

PopePalpatine · 24-05-2015 02:12PM

Manach wrote: »

If you pardon me, I need now step out of this thread. Given the lack of the Church's power to shape Ireland over the past generation, perhaps there is a bright new dawn being hearld with this vote or perhaps Catholicism, where it once was the English, will continue be a convinient scapegoat for a the failure to reach the progressive paradise.

Oh noes, did we chip away at your Catholic privilege?

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2015 02:13PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

The decision was down to the boards of management of the individual schools and parish halls/centres. Many were used but also many were not used for polling this time.

Sorry but nobody is going to believe that unless you can provide a citation from the mainstream media (who would have been all over that story like a rash, if true.)

If there was even one instance of that happening in the whole country, I'd be surprised. To claim it happened in 'many' places, well....

katydid · 24-05-2015 02:14PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sorry but nobody is going to believe that unless you can provide a citation from the mainstream media (who would have been all over that story like a rash, if true.)

If there was even one instance of that happening in the whole country, I'd be surprised. To claim it happened in 'many' places, well....

This is like the codology about surrogacy and mothers being for life etc. Just keep saying something that's untrue long enough and some people will believe you.

katydid · 24-05-2015 02:16PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Did she draw public attention to it herself or was it done on her behalf?

It just seems so totally bonkers - it's as if it ticks all the boxes of what makes a horrible human being (religious nut? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Full confidence in their wrong headedness? Check. Homophobic? Check. Racist? Check.)

I have no idea, nor does it matter. Either you believe this is a genuine letter or you don't. If you don't, you're calling her a liar. If you do, then however it was brought to public notice, it is a revolting piece of work, as is the person who wrote it.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2015 02:23PM

She posted it on Twitter. To claim that she or someone else faked it is tinfoil hat stuff.

Don't doubt for a moment that there are people out there who are nasty enough to write letters like that and believe every word they say.

The Black Oil · 24-05-2015 02:30PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Did she draw public attention to it herself or was it done on her behalf?

It just seems so totally bonkers - it's as if it ticks all the boxes of what makes a horrible human being (religious nut? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Full confidence in their wrong headedness? Check. Homophobic? Check. Racist? Check.)

Are you aware of the letter George Hook received recently?

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.339/44051/0/

joseph brand · 24-05-2015 02:32PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I've been wondering about Quinn and Co. Do you think they really felt it was going to be a No? If so it must have come as a real shock to them, I wonder what is going through their minds now and how its going to impact on them going forward.

John Murray was on RTE radio 1 this afternoon. He said that he wasn't up for an interview yesterday as he was too upset and angry over the landslide win for the Yes (human decency) side.

He must have been expecting a win. A lot of time, money and effort went into the No campaign. They must be so, so angry.

The sight of a rainbow in the sky is now a source of annoyance for the likes of Quinn, Waters, O'Brien and the rest of their ilk. "Why do you mock me oh Lord, why?"

K4t · 24-05-2015 02:45PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Are you aware of the letter George Hook received recently?

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.339/44051/0/

That letter to Hook was hilarious. The one to Una Mullally wasn't as well written, and the first line mentioning the cancer was distasteful, but it was quite funny in its own pathetic way.

joseph brand · 24-05-2015 02:53PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Are you aware of the letter George Hook received recently?

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.339/44051/0/

George,

Nobody likes you. Blah blah blah.

How childish.

K4t · 24-05-2015 02:56PM

joseph brand wrote: »

How childish.

It's actually:

George,

Nobody likes you, not even yourself

That's a great line tbh.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2015 06:03PM

K4t wrote: »

That letter to Hook was hilarious. The one to Una Mullally wasn't as well written, and the first line mentioning the cancer was distasteful, but it was quite funny in its own pathetic way.

Suggesting that someone who was suicidal in the past would have been better off going through with it (and suggesting they still can) is far from bloody hilarious.

Your second sentence is beneath comment, and beneath contempt. She is a very brave woman who is very seriously ill at the moment.

am946745 · 24-05-2015 06:39PM

intrate per angustam portam quia lata porta et spatiosa via quae ducit ad perditionem et multi sunt qui intrant per eam

Saipanne · 24-05-2015 06:43PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

By your logic, we should stop prosecuting abusive parents because they've put a roof over their children's heads and kept them fed and watered.

Post of the day.

Delirium · 24-05-2015 06:45PM

am946745 wrote: »

intrate per angustam portam quia lata porta et spatiosa via quae ducit ad perditionem et multi sunt qui intrant per eam

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

Translation of quoted text.

marienbad · 24-05-2015 06:46PM

am946745 wrote: »

intrate per angustam portam quia lata porta et spatiosa via quae ducit ad perditionem et multi sunt qui intrant per eam

lasciate ogne speranza voi ch'intrate ,

I don't think so

Hotblack Desiato · 24-05-2015 07:41PM

Romani ite domum.

K4t · 24-05-2015 08:12PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Suggesting that someone who was suicidal in the past would have been better off going through with it (and suggesting they still can) is far from bloody hilarious.

Of course the sentiment is far from bloody hilarious, but the writing style of the letter was. And the first line is very funny; I still smile when I see it. You can take hate speech too seriously; sometimes it's best to just either ignore it, hate it or simply laugh.

Your second sentence is beneath comment, and beneath contempt. She is a very brave woman who is very seriously ill at the moment.

Right. Yes, I don't remember saying she isn't brave or seriously ill, and I did call the cancer comment distasteful. It was particularly cruel and equally ridiculous. You do know I didn't write the letters?

frostyjacks · 24-05-2015 08:52PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

To extend the 'job' analogy, I and lot of other people would love to know who is paying their wages...

It would be reasonable to expect them not to vilify non-traditional parents - anyone who isn't a male-female couple married in a catholic church isn't a 'gold standard' family according to them

There was the bishop who said that not everyone who has kids is a proper parent, what an insulting and nasty thing to say

It would have been reasonable to expect them to campaign on the issue and not bring in irrelevant issues purely to whip up confusion and fear. Surrogacy and adoption were not affected in any way by the referendum passing or falling

It would have been reasonable for them to disclose their sources of funding, as Yes Equality, GLEN, etc. have done. The openness of the Yes side in this regard was used as a stick to beat them with, while Iona and the shadowy groups linked to it are veiled in secrecy

It would have been reasonable to expect them to argue their case on its merits, not constantly complain about how they were supposedly being 'silenced' and 'bullied' during their 50% of broadcasting airtime, and in all their national newspaper columns. Not to invent and exaggerate reports of posters being torn down, I can't speak for anywhere else but in Dublin their posters were ubiquitous.

Edited to add: What they had to say about 'biological reproduction' etc. was very hurtful and insulting to people with fertility difficulties and parents of adopted children.

I feel it was a bit naive to think they would stick to Queensbury rules, given the unified front from the political parties and the reluctance of the Church to get involved. In a perfect world, referendums and elections would be contested politely and with respect, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

PopePalpatine · 24-05-2015 10:28PM

SW wrote: »

Translation of quoted text.

Ah, here was me thinking it was the Society of St Pius X's equivalent to "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!"

Morgans · 24-05-2015 11:30PM

What is interesting is the attitude from the No voters/traditional values is the whine that liberalism is the new orthodoxy. Sr. Stan and Peter McVerry and many priests have falen victim to a left-wing liberal groupthink. That the Catholic Church is the accidental bystander targetted by this new political/social force. If the people werent such sheep they would think along the lines proposed by the No side.

If there is a new orthodoxy based on treating everyone equally, allowing all faiths and religions to practice without interference but not providing one religion with special privileges, one that aims for a society that is inclusive rather than one that looks to discriminate or exclude those that do not live according to their special rules, then thats an orthodoxy that I can get behind, and one that most people who want to treat all people with dignity can get behind.

It is hitting home that the special position once held by the church is slipping. It is not a fashion, it is something that has been gradually happening for centuries, and has come later to Ireland. Claiming that its being unfairly maligned and playing the victim, rather than coming to terms with the new world will accelerate its decline.

hinault · 24-05-2015 11:57PM

Morgans wrote: »

What is interesting is the attitude from the No voters/traditional values is the whine that liberalism is the new orthodoxy. Sr. Stan and Peter McVerry and many priests have falen victim to a left-wing liberal groupthink. That the Catholic Church is the accidental bystander targetted by this new political/social force. If the people werent such sheep they would think along the lines proposed by the No side.

If there is a new orthodoxy based on treating everyone equally, allowing all faiths and religions to practice without interference but not providing one religion with special privileges, one that aims for a society that is inclusive rather than one that looks to discriminate or exclude those that do not live according to their special rules, then thats an orthodoxy that I can get behind, and one that most people who want to treat all people with dignity can get behind.

It is hitting home that the special position once held by the church is slipping. It is not a fashion, it is something that has been gradually happening for centuries, and has come later to Ireland. Claiming that its being unfairly maligned and playing the victim, rather than coming to terms with the new world will accelerate its decline.

McVerry and Kennedy both decided that the gospel teaching on marriage was not worth voting NO for.

I'd like to see the Church weed out the apostates within it's own ranks, and McVerry and Kennedy would top that list.

Whatever "good work" they do is obliterated by their failure to accept the marriage teaching of Jesus Christ.
Catholics should be lobbying the hierarchy for the removal of clergy who fail to publicly endorse the teaching of the church.
Both McVerry and Kennedy, and all the rest of the clergy who called for a YES vote should be dismissed from their ministry.

marienbad · 25-05-2015 12:01AM

hinault wrote: »

McVerry and Kennedy both decided that the gospel teaching on marriage was not worth voting NO for.

I'd like to see the Church weed out the apostates within it's own ranks, and McVerry and Kennedy would top that list.

Whatever "good work" they do is obliterated by their failure to accept the marriage teaching of Jesus Christ.
Catholics should be lobbying the hierarchy for the removal of clergy who fail to publicly endorse the teaching of the church.
Both McVerry and Kennedy, and all the rest of the clergy who called for a YES vote should be dismissed from their ministry.

But not the child molesters ? They can be forgiven ?

And since when did Jesus have an opinion on civil marriage ?

jungleman · 25-05-2015 12:13AM

hinault wrote: »

McVerry and Kennedy both decided that the gospel teaching on marriage was not worth voting NO for.

I'd like to see the Church weed out the apostates within it's own ranks, and McVerry and Kennedy would top that list.

Whatever "good work" they do is obliterated by their failure to accept the marriage teaching of Jesus Christ.
Catholics should be lobbying the hierarchy for the removal of clergy who fail to publicly endorse the teaching of the church.
Both McVerry and Kennedy, and all the rest of the clergy who called for a YES vote should be dismissed from their ministry.

Right, so the Church should "weed out" employees who dare to have an opinion themselves? They should just kick out people who value equality?

hinault · 25-05-2015 12:45AM

jungleman wrote: »

Right, so the Church should "weed out" employees who dare to have an opinion themselves? They should just kick out people who value equality?

The only marriage taught by Jesus was the marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, the Church should fire clergy from their ministry who advocate for marriages other than ones between a one man and one woman.

jungleman · 25-05-2015 01:01AM

hinault wrote: »

The only marriage taught by Jesus was the marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, the Church should fire clergy from their ministry who advocate for marriages other than ones between a one man and one woman.

Okey doke then.

Not a NSA agent · 25-05-2015 01:30AM

They could just move them to another parish. Seems to be what is done rather than throwing them out. It would be depressing to see them weeding out them rather than the ones who molested children, priorities arent really right there.

As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

Comments