nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheist Ireland, pick your battles, will ya?

Shrap

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/atheists-label-rising-rebels-undemocratic-killers-1.2589126

Have to say, I cringed reading this. When I read a line like "the State was reinforcing the rebellion’s “religious connotations” by holding the celebrations on Easter Sunday" , my first reaction is a reversion to the vernacular "Ahh, for the love of god

". It comes across as so petty that no bloody wonder "atheism" is getting a bad name for whining.

It didn't get better as I read on....."Mr Nugent said members of the organisation were free to celebrate or refrain from celebrating the occasion as they wished, and that he respected the Government’s right to commemorate the Rising." Well, thanks very much Michael. Good to know your members have your permission to celebrate whatever the fcuk they want, but do you have to make it sound like they needed it? Ouch.

I just feel like AI would do well to remember that they don't always have to comment on everything in the most pedantic way possible. For example, I've been merrily staying out of all the "celebrations" in a "let 'em off" kind of way, as I figure there's little to be gained in bursting anyone's bubble - I have friends who are proudly flying flags, watching parades and tuning into all the RTE luvvies telling us about history, but I genuinely don't feel the need to start correcting their take on it by banging on about the state of the nation. That's called picking your battles.

Rant over. Anyone else?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

rsh118

I actually get this argument though maybe not the religious element of it. It's still only 99 years since the rising since it happened during one of those ridiculous pantomime moveable feasts.

If you are going to have the celebration of a centenary, have it on the feckin' centenary!

Shrap

rsh118 wrote: »

I actually get this argument though maybe not the religious element of it. It's still only 99 years since the rising since it happened during one of those ridiculous pantomime moveable feasts.

If you are going to have the celebration of a centenary, have it on the feckin' centenary!

I personally would say that holding the celebrations on an Easter holiday weekend when everyone is guaranteed to be off work is the more obvious and logistically favourable choice for an Easter rising commemoration, but why should we care anyway? My point is, did the point really have to be made? Way to get the backs up of half the country (again).

rsh118

Shrap wrote: »

I personally would say that holding the celebrations on an Easter holiday weekend when everyone is guaranteed to be off work is the more obvious and logistically favourable choice for an Easter rising commemoration, but why should we care anyway? My point is, did the point really have to be made? Way to get the backs up of half the country (again).

Yeah, I'm never that comfortable with constant militant atheism. As long as I'm free to be a heathen I'm happy enough for other people to believe whatever scary book things they want to believe.

Picking our battles is certainly important! You'd have to say abortion is the most important one by a mile.

iDave

Agreed bigger things to be worrying about.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

It didn't get better as I read on....."Mr Nugent said members of the organisation were free to celebrate or refrain from celebrating the occasion as they wished, and that he respected the Government’s right to commemorate the Rising." Well, thanks very much Michael. Good to know your members have your permission to celebrate whatever the fcuk they want, but do you have to make it sound like they needed it? Ouch.

I haven't followed this item in any depth - as I haven't followed any of the events of the last week at all - so forgive me if I'm jumping in here at the end and missing something obvious to everybody else

Anyhow, I'd imagine that Michael is simply pointing out, as he often has to, that AI is not a church and that its members can do whatever they want. A lot of religious appear to assume that AI operates in a fairly dictatorial fashion, perhaps to mimic the churches they're familiar with. That's not the case and while it's a little tiresome to have to be told that, unfortunately, history shows that it's usually a good idea to do so.

And while referring to the rebellion as one lead by "undemocratic killers" is certainly un-PC - so far as I understand the sequence of events before, during and after the rising, there's more than a little bit of truth there too.

Hotblack Desiato

Some serious spin being applied by the IT there.

He's right in that it's ridiculous we have a commemoration of an event taking place at the wrong time for no other reason than the religious event which happened to occur at the same time has moved.

We must be one of the only countries in the world with no proper national day or independence commemoration, the nearest we have is poxy St Patrick's day :rolleyes: of course there's a whole can of worms here about the 'national project' and whether some perceive it to be 'completed' or not

Very valid points raised about religious oaths etc. which should have no place whatsoever in a republic.

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

I haven't followed this item in any depth - as I haven't followed any of the events of the last week at all - so forgive me if I'm jumping in here at the end and missing something obvious to everybody else

Anyhow, I'd imagine that Michael is simply pointing out, as he often has to, that AI is not a church and that its members can do whatever they want. A lot of religious appear to assume that AI operates in a fairly dictatorial fashion, perhaps to mimic the churches they're familiar with. That's not the case and while it's a little tiresome to have to be told that, unfortunately, history shows that it's sometimes necessary.

I haven't followed any of it either, till I saw twitter hopping with the usual "jaysus, atheists banging on again" comments. It's that that annoys the head off me - the fact that this petty sounding article distracts from the important stuff and turns people right off the actual injustices of non-separation of church/state.

I realise that the part about "permission" was probably Michael having to point out that there aren't any dictatorial rules for atheists, but the way it's reported makes it look like he walked right into it. And my point is, he doesn't have to wade into every topic with a pedantically atheist angle on it. It doesn't help and is about as diplomatic/welcome as a goat in a veg garden.

wokingvoter

rsh118 wrote: »

I actually get this argument though maybe not the religious element of it. It's still only 99 years since the rising since it happened during one of those ridiculous pantomime moveable feasts.

If you are going to have the celebration of a centenary, have it on the feckin' centenary!

.....or have a good old celebration/commemoration on an almost worldwide 4 day weekend, allowing visitors from other countries who are also on a 4 day weekend to visit us and celebrate/commemorate with us and leave lots of money here.
I also want to give my thanks to AI for permitting us to acknowledge that the Easter Rising happened at Easter.
I suppose it should be renamed April Rising to avoid further insult.

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Some serious spin being applied by the IT there.

YES. The spin is what is so predictable every time AI open their mouths these days. Looked like Michael walked right into it

My question is, did he have to? You say there are valid points - and so there are, but did they have to be pointed out? It's so unimportant in the greater scheme of things that I think it does more harm than good to constantly be pointing out the religious element as if the rest of the country are thick.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We must be one of the only countries in the world with no proper national day or independence commemoration [...]

Given the nationalist sentiments which frequently accompany national independence days, I for one, am quite happy we've avoided the idea entirely.

12Phase

There is a point but it's more that it's a bit cringeworthy and tacky.

If I were Christian I think I might be offended to have a violent uprising linked to a festival of a religion that would claim to be about peace.

It does strike me as a little bit of an attempt by the state at mythology creation through the linking of a "birth moment" to a major religious festival.

That being said, Easter symbolism is all mixed up. It's basically the Christian community hijacking the ancient festival of the Giant Chocolate Egg Laying Bunny.

All Hail the Bunny!

recedite

I was in town at the parade yesterday, and I was a bit surprised at the amount of prayers being read out via big screens by various dignitaries, at the end of which a large part of the crowd were mumbling and making the sign of the cross. So no harm for AI to remind "the state" that a secular republic as envisaged by some in 1916 would not behave like that.

The whole situation is complicated and hypocritical on many levels now, just as it was back in 1916. Connolly was a far-left marxist, probably the nearest thing we have ever had to a Stalin "in the making". Pearse was a right-wing catholic, and the nearest thing to a Franco in the making. If they both hadn't been shot by the British, they probably would have been at each others throats before long. I doubt either would be happy with the Ireland of today.

12Phase

Well there was undoubtedly a major issue with some people trying to create 'Holy Catholic Ireland' (TM) rather than an actual republic.

The reasons and motivations for different factions were very different.

The outcome : a highly conservative state that looked inwards and sank into an economic depression by the mid 20th century was hardly something that I would imagine some of the more passionate republicans and freedom fighter types were rising up in 1916 for.

2016 as a vision for a real, modern, Republic would have been a nice idea.

weisses

12Phase wrote: »

There is a point but it's more that it's a bit cringeworthy and tacky.

If I were Christian I think I might be offended to have a violent uprising linked to a festival of a religion that would claim to be about peace.

Why ... Wasn't the old chap violently crucified 3 days earlier ?

I also think they got it balanced with what happened on a certain good Friday not so long ago

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

The whole situation is complicated and hypocritical on many levels now, just as it was back in 1916. Connolly was a far-left marxist, probably the nearest thing we have ever had to a Stalin "in the making". Pearse was a right-wing catholic, and the nearest thing to a Franco in the making. If they both hadn't been shot by the British, they probably would have been at each others throats before long. I doubt either would be happy with the Ireland of today.

It is of course incredibly hypocritical - but it does more harm than good IMO to point that out to a nation of people caught up in varying degrees of revisionism about the centenary of a morally and ethically dodgy deal. Kind of as useful as pissing into the wind the UK kerfuffles over refusing to wear a poppy to commemorate the war dead.

12Phase

weisses wrote: »

Why ... Wasn't the old chap violently crucified 3 days earlier ?

I also think they got it balanced with what happened on a certain good Friday not so long ago

Yeah but, you can see its all about symbolism and a rather propaganda type attempt to give the state a mythological link.

These guys and girls weren't fools when it came to marketing and understanding of how to use symbolism and mythology.

I would doubt it's coincidental.

It's actually a very theatrical 1910s piece of state creation.

Quite clever really when you think of it in the context of a pretty religious 1910s society.

12Phase

Shrap wrote: »

It is of course incredibly hypocritical - but it does more harm than good IMO to point that out to a nation of people caught up in varying degrees of revisionism about the centenary of a morally and ethically dodgy deal. Kind of as useful as pissing into the wind the UK kerfuffles over refusing to wear a poppy to commemorate the war dead.

I tend to agree. It's probably counterproductive for AI as they'll raise the heckles of conservative nationalism and get nowhere.

They should keep focuses on the issues that actually impact day to day lives ; that mostly lack of access to public education tbh.

RealJohn

In fairness OP, from what I've seen, atheist typically do pick their battles, specifically the easy targets. No chance of big objections to Christmas or to Ireland's national holiday being St. Patrick's Day because those are popular events. No objections to Easter (or chocolate Christmas) either but very happy to attack the alcohol ban on Good Friday because if there's one thing guaranteed to get support in Ireland, it's objecting to restriction of alcohol intake (other than if you're going to be driving somewhere other than rural Kerry afterwards).

To be honest, I would think that atheists who are truly looking to separate Church and state should be targeting St. Patrick's Day, looking to get a separate national day (Ireland Day perhaps? Or maybe some form of Irish Independence Day?) and allowing the religious to celebrate St. Patrick if they wished but not getting a public holiday to do it (much like St. Bridget's Day - no equality needed there, eh?). It seems only logical to me. Problem is it would be horrendously unpopular to do so so integrity goes out the window to focus on easy targets.

12Phase

As for revisionism, I had an elderly relative yesterday tell me "if it wasn't for 1916 we'd never have had womens' rights...

A living history of Magdalene laundries, child exporting, no contraception, no divorce, symphisiotomy, no access to legal abortion, highly conservative laws and practices that limited working rights etc etc etc etc

By Western Europen standards, after a good start Ireland ended up tripping and being almost last to the finish line on women's rights.

Stealthfins

AI are entitled to their opinion but I think using the easter celebration as a pedestal to get their point across is a bit petty.

Religion,history and politics are full of contradictions.

12Phase

To be honest, I think we need Secular Ireland.

There's too much confusion about atheism and secularism and I think we really need a movement to bring secular Catholics, Protestants and the many, many people who might define as agnostic, lapsed Catholic, spiritual etc etc and others on board.

Atheist Ireland do a good job on making the points but I think a lot of our problems are lack of secularism and lack of understanding of what that is.

I'd rather see a vision for a totally inclusive, secular society. I know AI does that and I am very appreciative of their standing up for Non religious rights but, I think we need something that's a lot broader as well.

They're parallel things really.

Links234

Shrap wrote: »

I just feel like AI would do well to remember that they don't always have to comment on everything in the most pedantic way possible.

I think that Michael does this as much for the self promotion as anything else, while you're far from the first person to express frustration with him on this forum, the point that's missed is that this is about growing the "Atheist Ireland" brand, and name recognition, it's about getting Michael Nugent in the papers. If instead of assuming this is about promoting atheism, and instead about promoting Michael Nugent and the AI brand, then right now is the most opportune time for an attention grabbing contrarian comment.

Stealthfins

Links234 wrote:

I think that Michael does this as much for the self promotion as anything else, while you're far from the first person to express frustration with him on this forum, the point that's missed is that this is about growing the "Atheist Ireland" brand, and name recognition, it's about getting Michael Nugent in the papers. If instead of assuming this is about promoting atheism, and instead about promoting Michael Nugent and the AI brand, then right now is the most opportune time for an attention grabbing contrarian comment.

He does like to moan a lot,I seen and heard him speaking and he doesn't promote his AI very well.

Maybe if he was less serious and a bit more funny and witty sometimes he'd be more easy on the ears.

[Deleted User]

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Did Atheist Ireland Snub the Royal Visit?
Reading over their anti-1916 manifesto last night, I could not think how every issue they have grievances with here, are just as applicable (and then some) to the British Royals which is a sectarian, non-democratic bloodline, 'divine rights' and all that, who have started numerous undemocratic wars which cost the live of millions of innocent people. The Queen derives her powers directly from God and so on...

So where was these smug, self-righteous and infallible lot protesting the royal visit then? I did not see them out of the streets. Did you?

[The above thread was closed on After Hours, and we were directed here]

A bit of uncomfortable history follows:

Curiously, Anne Holliday and her partner Michael Nugent (the founders of Atheist Ireland) were founders of the British state-funded "peace" lobby group New Consensus in the 1990s which had the amazing skill of never condemning British state or loyalist violence (actually, they condemned one piece of loyalist violence when people pointed out they were only condemning republican violence; they never once condemned British state violence). They were both also closely associated with the explicitly unionist so-called Reform Movement.

More pertinently, to answer your question read this from The Irish Times in June 1995. It's the report of the visit by Britain's Prince Charles to Dublin:

"Then a lone lady in red - red hat, red lipstick, red jacket, red skirt - appeared from nowhere, draped a Union Jack over the barrier in front of her, right beside the Bloody Sunday people and held up a poster proclaiming 'Welcome Prince Charles'.... She was Anne Holliday of the New Consensus group...she explained how wonderful it all was "It's just wonderful he is able to come", she said, "and let's hope it's the first of many royal visits"

- Patsy McGarry, The Irish Times, 2nd June 1995.

Clearly this representative of the institutionally sectarian British monarchy is perfectly acceptable to these two founders of Atheist Ireland. Irish Catholic nationalist believers = bad; British Protestant unionist believers = good.

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent. That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for their growth in Ireland.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent. That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for the growth in Ireland.

You were directed here? Can you also direct yourself back out again? The carry on above is exactly why I avoided the whole centenary bullsh1t.

[Deleted User]

12Phase wrote: »

To be honest, I think we need Secular Ireland.

That actually sounds good. I wouldn't have the sense of certainty to be either an atheist or a theist so if I'm to have a label it's probably agnosticism - having said that, I find Gregorian Chant, baroque and other church music uniquely spiritual, far more spiritual than any sermon.

Hopefully whatever group does emerge to lobby to get the churches out of Irish education won't have the baggage that Atheist Ireland has in terms of its founders and leader. I'd venture to guess that most Irish agnostics and atheists, like the rest of the population, are quietly proud to be Irish and of our struggle against British colonial rule.

12Phase

To be honest someone like Dara O'Briain or Stephen Fry probably have more public opinion sway and making people actually think about secularism and atheism.

In the LGBT movement recently on marriage equality it was people like that (including Panti) and creating a forum for your average gay person to tell their story was probably what won it.

Secularism needs to be discussed and religious state merger nonsense needs to be shown up for what it is : sectarianism and religious discrimination.

[Deleted User]

Shrap wrote: »

You were directed here? Can you also direct yourself back out again? The carry on above is exactly why I avoided the whole centenary bullsh1t.

Have you a problem with the political hypocrisy on this issue of Michael Nugent/the founders of Atheist Ireland being highlighted?

They won't attend the Easter Rising ceremony (God knows why they were invited) because it's allegedly "sectarian" but they were out on the streets of Dublin back in 1995 waving union jacks and dressed up in red, white and blue to welcome the next head of the explicitly sectarian British monarch. Soak that Michael Nugent historical reality, and astonishing hypocrisy, up quick smart.

12Phase

I just think you can't be negative about everything. Ireland has a somewhat screwed up history. What country doesn't?

Sometimes you have grab thr positive aspects of a culture and run with them. Part of creating a better place is to select the good stuff and move forwards.

There were very high ideals in 1916 and plenty of very positive things in terms of ideas of a modern republic.

Grabbing those and expanding on them is one way of linking our revolutionary, passionate past with a vision for a modern, inclusive future.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

[The above thread was closed on After Hours, and we were directed here]

A bit of uncomfortable history follows:

Curiously, Anne Holliday and her partner Michael Nugent (the founders of Atheist Ireland) were founders of the British state-funded "peace" lobby group New Consensus in the 1990s which had the amazing skill of never condemning British state or loyalist violence (actually, they condemned one piece of loyalist violence when people pointed out they were only condemning republican violence; they never once condemned British state violence). They were both also closely associated with the explicitly unionist so-called Reform Movement

More pertinently, to answer your question read this from The Irish Times in June 1995. It's the report of the visit by Britain's Prince Charles to Dublin:

"Then a lone lady in red - red hat, red lipstick, red jacket, red skirt - appeared from nowhere, draped a Union Jack over the barrier in front of her, right beside the Bloody Sunday people and held up a poster proclaiming 'Welcome Prince Charles'.... She was Anne Holliday of the New Consensus group...she explained how wonderful it all was "It's just wonderful he is able to come", she said, "and let's hope it's the first of many royal visits"

- Patsy McGarry, The Irish Times, 2nd June 1995.

Clearly this representative of the institutionally sectarian British monarchy is perfectly acceptable to these two founders of Atheist Ireland. Irish Catholic nationalist believers = bad; British Protestant unionist believers = good.

I trust nobody now has any doubts whatsoever about the anti-republican/pro-British credentials of Michael Nugent. That people in Atheist Ireland evidently support him enough for him to be leader is disturbing and certainly won't do anything for their growth in Ireland.

Oh dear, the Reform Group, really?