Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheist Ireland, pick your battles, will ya?

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,351 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Birdie Num Num wrote: »
    "The Irish Government is reinforcing the religious connotations of the rising by marking its anniversary on the wrong date. The 1916 rising began on 24 April 1916. The Government is marking its centenary four weeks early, on 27 March 2016. The reason for using the wrong date is to make the commemorations coincide with the Christian holiday of Easter"

    So why does AI celebrate Secular Sunday? Why not Secular Monday or Secular Wednesday? ...trying to coincide with the Christian day of worship perhaps?

    Because they're sun worshippers, not the moon or Odin? :pac:

    You do have to laugh when christians claim ownership of a day named for pagan worship.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #93
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Because they're sun worshippers, not the moon or Odin? :pac:

    You do have to laugh when christians claim ownership of a day named for pagan worship.

    I don't see any Christian attempt to claim ownership of Sunday. It's just regarded as a day of rest. So why don't atheists pick a different day, if they're not constricted by the bonds of our Vatican overlords?


  • Options
    #94
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    Ulster is not the "homeland" of people who view themselves as British subjects, their home is from wherever in Britain they emanated from.
    Well, they would argue that it is, and the reason they armed themselves for self-defence in 1913 is because of this same attitude. Also BTW there were a lot more like-minded people in the 26 counties back then than there are now, so a lot of them did leave the 26 counties, and went north or east.

    Perhaps they could have been enticed into some Home Rule agreement back then, as opposed to being threatened with domination and annihilation. Perhaps some day they will agree to rejoin the 26 counties if we make it worth their while.


  • Options
    #95
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Hotei wrote: »
    It might surprise you to know that polarisation did exist in Ireland prior to 1916, and never more so than under the thumb of the British. There was no compromising with the British either - it was their way or no way (the signing of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty is a perfect case in point; partition wasn't a compromise).
    I agree the British policy did not encourage integration, it was always based on "divide and conquer".
    However there were compromises available between Holy Catholic Republic and British Empire; Home Rule and Free State were just two of these.
    Redmond had a much greater following than either the IRB or the Citizen Army, and his popularity reflected the less polarised attitude that was prevalent pre-1916.


  • Options
    #96
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I don't see any Christian attempt to claim ownership of Sunday. It's just regarded as a day of rest. So why don't atheists pick a different day, if they're not constricted by the bonds of our Vatican overlords?
    _Some_ atheists.

    Does it upset you? If it doesn't, then what is the problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Birdie Num Num
    Registered Users Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭Birdie Num Num


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Because they're sun worshippers, not the moon or Odin? :pac:

    You do have to laugh when christians claim ownership of a day named for pagan worship.

    You don't have to laugh but you can if you want to and I am sure plenty of Christians are aware of the link between pagan festivals, dates and the Christian calendar.

    When did worshipping the sun become part of atheism?


  • Options
    #98
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,351 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    Perhaps some day they will agree to rejoin the 26 counties if we make it worth their while.

    Hard to see us being willing or able to replace the 9 or 10 billion quid the British exchequer subsidises NI with every year, though. Hard to see anyone in NI voting to replace the NHS with the HSE.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #99
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,351 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Birdie Num Num wrote: »
    When did worshipping the sun become part of atheism?

    It's not. Your post was ridiculous so I responded in kind.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #100
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Birdie Num Num wrote: »
    You don't have to laugh but you can if you want to and I am sure plenty of Christians are aware of the link between pagan festivals, dates and the Christian calendar.

    When did worshipping the sun become part of atheism?

    Well, it is the sun that gives us life, whilst I would balk at the word worship, maybe I could go in for sun appreciation.:cool:


  • Options
    #101
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    recedite wrote: »
    Well, they would argue that it is, and the reason they armed themselves for self-defence in 1913 is because of this same attitude. Also BTW there were a lot more like-minded people in the 26 counties back then than there are now, so a lot of them did leave the 26 counties, and went north or east.

    Perhaps they could have been enticed into some Home Rule agreement back then, as opposed to being threatened with domination and annihilation. Perhaps some day they will agree to rejoin the 26 counties if we make it worth their while.

    "in self defence in 1913", :rolleyes: you are selectively ignoring the past, pray tell who were the peep 'o day boys?

    No one was threatening anyone with domination and annihlation, Scottish protestants up north feared backlash from their centuries of domination and repression, hence them attempting to carve out their own little rump state and running it on apartheid lines


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Birdie Num Num
    Registered Users Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭Birdie Num Num


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    It's not. Your post was ridiculous so I responded in kind.

    Oh lets throw in that word again when stuck for a constructive opposing response.

    Peace Brother.


  • Options
    #103
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    the numbers matter, northern Ireland would have been an ethnic civil war at the worst and thankfully it never came to that it. Also the provisional ira quickly descended into pure terrorism as we know it today where the tactic was to scare the public and should have been obvious a few years into it that it couldn't achieve its objectives.
    I wouldn't look for "objective rationale" one simply had a stronger case than the other
    What numbers? The proportion of the population supporting the provisional IRA in 1972 was almost certainly greater than that supporting the IRA in 1916, and the south didn't almost certainly have a civil war; it had one. Anyone who imagines there weren't ethnic elements mixed up needs to read a little more. The fact that the provisional IRA engaged in terrorism is just a label; flying columns is the name used by the IRA freedom fighters for the same tactic. If you can't find an objective rationale then I'm afraid one doesn't simply have a stronger case than the other; you just happen to agree with one more than the other.


  • Options
    #104
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    I see this comparison popping up time and time again, its utter nonsense, not every self proclaimed "freedom fighter", or anointed in the case of ISIS or Al Qaeda, can be compared to one another. The IRA were fighting against an imperial power and colonists, thats it. They were not bombing German protestants or fighting to establish overseas independent Catholphates in whatever states happens to have a large number of people of Irish descent. There are so many things wrong with the comparison I could go on for far longer than paragraph.
    The IRA fought against and killed born and bred Irishmen who were fighting in defense of their own nation and king, along with injuring and killing innocent Dubliners who were simply unlucky enough to be present during the rebellion. That's not nonsense; it's a simple fact that there were Irish people opposing the rebels who felt, and had a more immediately legitimate cause to say, that they were doing their patriotic duty defending their country from armed insurrectionists. Those Irishmen weren't an imperial power or colonists; they were patriots just like the men they fought. The rebels were terrorists, they just happen to be 'the good kind' from our point of view, like al Queda and ISIS are 'the good kind' from other peoples points of view.


  • Options
    #105
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    What numbers? The proportion of the population supporting the provisional IRA in 1972 was almost certainly greater than that supporting the IRA in 1916, and the south didn't almost certainly have a civil war; it had one. Anyone who imagines there weren't ethnic elements mixed up needs to read a little more. The fact that the provisional IRA engaged in terrorism is just a label; flying columns is the name used by the IRA freedom fighters for the same tactic. If you can't find an objective rationale then I'm afraid one doesn't simply have a stronger case than the other; you just happen to agree with one more than the other.

    the numbers of the population groups. Anyone growing up in the south was living in a society with 90% native Irish. that's a reasonable position to start from to want to change things. Much like one would be sympathetic to say to native South Africans to want to change the order.
    Your point about tactics is weak, any people trying to free themselves are not normally in a position to field a standing army , by your logic you would be having a go at the French Resistance.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #106
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Stealthfins wrote: »
    Very expensive for the recording of a few bells.

    That would go down very well on Monty python lol

    Tax payers money on a repetitive Bell lol

    Say it takes 20-30seconds of air time, how much do you think a company pays to air an advert for that amount of time on RTE?

    Its only fair RTE gets money for the airtime the exact same as they would for any advertisement they air, the airtime should not be covered by the tax payer.


  • Options
    #107
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,351 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Say it takes 20-30seconds of air time, how much do you think a company pays to air an advert for that amount of time on RTE?

    Its only fair RTE gets money for the airtime the exact same as they would for any advertisement they air, the airtime should not be covered by the tax payer.

    Except purchasing advertising for religious puposes is (rightly) not allowed.

    The RCC is getting something for free which is illegal to purchase. I can't think of that many things it's legal to give away for free but not to sell ;)

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #108
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    TechnoCentral pm'd an apology for his/her comments about Michael Nugent yesterday.
    TechnoCentral wrote:
    I apologise for my intemperate language regarding Michael Nugent, it was totally uncalled for despite our political differences.
    Many thanks for that.


  • Options
    #109
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Except purchasing advertising for religious puposes is (rightly) not allowed.

    The RCC is getting something for free which is illegal to purchase. I can't think of that many things it's legal to give away for free but not to sell ;)


    I can think of one anyway :D


  • Options
    #110
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    Scottish protestants up north feared backlash from their centuries of domination and repression, hence them attempting to carve out their own little rump state and running it on apartheid lines
    Apart from the fact that they are not Scottish, I won't disagree. But then you could hardly blame them for opting out of a Free State post 1918 with Sinn Fein as their govt.
    What they actually stated at the time was they were unhappy with the idea of Rome Rule and the possibility of economc stagnation due to a trade war with the rump Britain. Both of which turned out to be justified.

    If you compare to the recent Scottish independence referendum, and also the upcoming Brexit referendum, the flag is an emotive issue, but what really swings these things is whether people believe they are going to be poorer or wealthier after leaving a union.

    Also I find it amusing that our northern neighbours are still being referred to as "colonists" or "scottish" in this thread. 500 years ago their ancestors were, but they are not. Would you also say to all the European "colonists" in America today they should go back to Europe or else join in with the Native Americans "first nations" way of life, and submit to being ruled by them?
    As I said before, a country belongs to the people who live there.


  • Options
    #111
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    the numbers of the population groups. Anyone growing up in the south was living in a society with 90% native Irish. that's a reasonable position to start from to want to change things. Much like one would be sympathetic to say to native South Africans to want to change the order.
    The majority of that 90% considered themselves Irish, British, and loyal to their King. So how did they represent a reasonable position to start from to want to change things?
    silverharp wrote: »
    Your point about tactics is weak, any people trying to free themselves are not normally in a position to field a standing army , by your logic you would be having a go at the French Resistance.
    Not having a go at; pointing out that whilst they were active they were considered terrorists by the government in power, and had the Allies lost the war they would still be called terrorists today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Nick Park
    Registered Users Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Except purchasing advertising for religious puposes is (rightly) not allowed.

    I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. In a truly secular society, where there is real separation of Church and State, religion should neither be accorded any special privileges not subjected to special restrictions.

    To argue that religion should not be allowed to advertise, but neither should it be given free airtime, is, in effect, to argue for its suppression and banning from the airwaves. I'm surprised to encounter such old-fashioned Stalinism in 2016.

    I can appreciate that advertising on TV or radio should not be allowed to make any unverified supernatural claims. That's fair enough. But why shouldn't a church be allowed to advertise that they meet at such a place and such a time? That would appear to be no different from the FAI advertising football matches on TV or radio. Particularly when you consider that vastly more people choose to attend religious services each week than choose to attend football matches.


  • Options
    #113
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    The majority of that 90% considered themselves Irish, British, and loyal to their King. So how did they represent a reasonable position to start from to want to change things?

    it didn't happen in a vacuum, there had been a rebellion in the past and if my inter cert history serves me there was a gaelic revival in the preceding years which was an effort to lead the people to see themselves as not British, it was a reasonable place to plan a rebellion from.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Not having a go at; pointing out that whilst they were active they were considered terrorists by the government in power, and had the Allies lost the war they would still be called terrorists today.

    if you are talking about the French Resistance Im sure they were considered terrorists by many, but they had good reasons to do what they did and there was a purpose to it that they were contributing to. Had the Allies lost then some of their reasoning would fall away and possibly the costs would outweigh the benefits where French people would suffer more than the Nazis with no ultimate conclusion.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #114
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,351 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Nick Park wrote: »
    I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. In a truly secular society, where there is real separation of Church and State, religion should neither be accorded any special privileges not subjected to special restrictions.

    We are still quite a way from such a society, as you no doubt must be aware, and this ban was introduced in a much more religiously observant society than today's, so don't blame us.

    Political parties aren't allowed purchase broadcast advertising either, but like religions, are perfectly free to do so in other media.

    Like it or not, broadcast advertising (and programming) is subject to much tighter regulation than other media.
    To argue that religion should not be allowed to advertise, but neither should it be given free airtime, is, in effect, to argue for its suppression and banning from the airwaves. I'm surprised to encounter such old-fashioned Stalinism in 2016.

    I'm no stalinist Nick, and you know better than to make ludicrous slurs against other posters. If you want the law changed make a credible argument for change.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #115
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    it didn't happen in a vacuum, there had been a rebellion in the past and if my inter cert history serves me there was a gaelic revival in the preceding years which was an effort to lead the people to see themselves as not British, it was a reasonable place to plan a rebellion from.
    Nor did Northern Ireland, Syria, the Lebanon, or Iraq happen in a vacuum. Nevertheless, the Irish did see themselves as British. If it's a good enough justification for you that they shouldn't see themselves as British in someones opinion, then your justification also covers the Provisional IRA, who felt/feel people in Northern Ireland shouldn't consider themselves British, and also have been engaged in efforts to lead the people to see themselves as not British.
    silverharp wrote: »
    if you are talking about the French Resistance Im sure they were considered terrorists by many, but they had good reasons to do what they did and there was a purpose to it that they were contributing to. Had the Allies lost then some of their reasoning would fall away and possibly the costs would outweigh the benefits where French people would suffer more than the Nazis with no ultimate conclusion.
    The Provisional IRA, al Queda, and ISIS all think they have/had good reasons to do what they do/did. And in every case, the victors of those conflicts will present their victory as having benefits that outweigh the costs.


  • Options
    #116
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    robindch wrote: »
    TechnoCentral pm'd an apology for his/her comments about Michael Nugent yesterday.Many thanks for that.

    In that case I apologise to TechnoCentral for me being similarly intemperate.


  • Options
    #117
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    Nor did Northern Ireland, Syria, the Lebanon, or Iraq happen in a vacuum. Nevertheless, the Irish did see themselves as British. If it's a good enough justification for you that they shouldn't see themselves as British in someones opinion, then your justification also covers the Provisional IRA, who felt/feel people in Northern Ireland shouldn't consider themselves British, and also have been engaged in efforts to lead the people to see themselves as not British.

    but the point is that the vast majority of the country were ethnic Irish and Catholic and breaking away from an imperial power by force is not to be unexpected. NI was the creation of Britain and Ireland and the majority living in NI could never have agreed with the aims of the provisional IRA because they were ethnically British and were hostile to the minority. the provos might have had a moral standing if they simply protected catholic areas that were under attack at the time but their aims were not likely to be achieved so their campaign was rather nihilistic and the Good Friday agreement was not worth the preceding violence whereas the the creation of the Irish state was worth the preceding campaign.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #118
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Nick Park wrote: »
    To argue that religion should not be allowed to advertise, but neither should it be given free airtime, is, in effect, to argue for its suppression and banning from the airwaves. I'm surprised to encounter such old-fashioned Stalinism in 2016.
    It's quite inappropriate to equate a belief that religions shouldn't advertize commercially with the activities of a murderous regime of a totalitarian nutter like Josef Stalin (whose christian leanings have been well documented, as you're well aware).

    It's equally inappropriate to attempt to equate whatever suffering you've endured here in Ireland on account of your religious beliefs - currently none, so far as I'm aware - with the genuine suffering and deaths of Stalin's victims.


  • Options
    #119
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    but the point is that the vast majority of the country were ethnic Irish and Catholic and breaking away from an imperial power by force is not to be unexpected.
    That's not a point you offered before, but still; it very much is to be unexpected if the vast majority of those ethnic Irish Catholics see themselves as British and loyal subjects of the Crown. Which they did. And that neatly explains why they didn't try to break away from an imperial power by force; that was a small group of terrorists who did that.
    silverharp wrote: »
    NI was the creation of Britain and Ireland and the majority living in NI could never have agreed with the aims of the provisional IRA because they were ethnically British and were hostile to the minority. the provos might have had a moral standing if they simply protected catholic areas that were under attack at the time but their aims were not likely to be achieved so their campaign was rather nihilistic and the Good Friday agreement was not worth the preceding violence whereas the the creation of the Irish state was worth the preceding campaign.
    So now it's not that they did agree, or should agree, but could agree?
    So it's fine to engage in terrorism on behalf of a population who don't want you to, so long as the population has the capacity to agree with the terrorists?
    silverharp wrote: »
    the provos might have had a moral standing if they simply protected catholic areas that were under attack at the time but their aims were not likely to be achieved so their campaign was rather nihilistic and the Good Friday agreement was not worth the preceding violence whereas the the creation of the Irish state was worth the preceding campaign.
    You appear to be saying the ends justified the means for the terrorists you like, but not the terrorists you don't like...


  • Options
    #120
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's not a point you offered before, but still; it very much is to be unexpected if the vast majority of those ethnic Irish Catholics see themselves as British and loyal subjects of the Crown. Which they did. And that neatly explains why they didn't try to break away from an imperial power by force; that was a small group of terrorists who did that.

    britain had to back away from introducing conscription in Ireland at the time, sounds to me like there was significant difference of opinion or it wouldnt have been an issue, everyone being British and what not


    Absolam wrote: »
    So now it's not that they did agree, or should agree, but could agree?
    So it's fine to engage in terrorism on behalf of a population who don't want you to, so long as the population has the capacity to agree with the terrorists?

    its certainly a stronger case than if they dont have the capacity
    Absolam wrote: »
    You appear to be saying the ends justified the means for the terrorists you like, but not the terrorists you don't like...

    many States around today started off with one form of terrorism or another and various groups like the French Resistance or the Jewish Ghetto uprising were described as terrorists so I cant see that it can be universally condemned or praised. Just because an Army does something doesnt make it right or wrong and just because terrorists do something doesnt make it right or wrong. it is kind of a case by case.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    donaghs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,702 ✭✭✭donaghs


    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!

    To me is fairly obvious that that the anniversary is celebrated by supporters of the Rising at Easter, because Easter was deliberately chosen by Pearse to signify the Resurrection of the Irish nation. Whether you're religious or not, the connection is crucial to understanding Pearse's motives, and shouldn't be denied.


Advertisement