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
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    I actually don't think it is anything wrong with declining invitation. But the approach just comes across a bit patronizing. It doesn't exactly help you win the popular support for other stuff.


  • Options
    #153
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    its just a label then a bit like the US army was the same as the Nazi Army, great but doesnt get me anywhere, perhaps the gardai are as much policemen as the Gestapo?
    Well, there wasn't a Nazi army, there was a German army, so hard to say whether that gets you anywhere. And the Gestapo were secret police, whereas the Gardai aren't, so I don't know whether that gets you anywhere either. When you talk about getting you somewhere, is there something other than Godwinning you have in mind? And what relationship do the four organisations have to your grandad?


  • Options
    #154
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,922 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    fisgon wrote: »
    In this case the issue is not in any way an atheist issue, has nothing whatsover to do with an atheist or secular cause, and in fact the majority of atheist opinion actually supports Donald Clarke and opposes whoever in AI decided to refuse the invitation.
    i'd certainly have more sympathy for DC's piece that AI's statement; AI in this instance took a stance in opposition to religion on a topic which was not really that religious. and whatever they think about the justification or lack thereof behind the easter rising, they got political on it, in a way which has little to do with the raison d'etre of the organisation.

    i cringed when i read their statement; and i'd have a lot of time for michael nugent usually.


  • Options
    #155
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,387 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    fisgon wrote: »
    and in fact the majority of atheist opinion actually supports Donald Clarke and opposes whoever in AI decided to refuse the invitation.

    When was this poll carried out?

    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
    #156
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    When was this poll carried out?

    Or, the poll of A.I. members on whether or not they supported publicly declining the invitation.

    Yeah ,let's see the polls.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    Or, the poll of A.I. members on whether or not they supported publicly declining the invitation.
    Have any of the members complained about being misrepresented?


  • Options
    #158
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    From AI facebook page regarding declining 1916 invitation:
    This is a clarification by Atheist Ireland, after our Committee meeting on Saturday, in response to some of the feedback about our declining an invitation to attend the commemorations of the the 1916 rising.

    Atheist Ireland did not oppose the 1916 commemorations. We said that we respect the right of the Government to hold these commemorations, and the right of anyone, including Atheist Ireland members, to attend them.

    We simply declined an invitation to watch them, just as President Higgins has since declined an invitation to attend a 1916 centenary dinner in Belfast. Nobody has suggested that President Higgins has opposed the Belfast commemorations.

    Atheist Ireland is neutral between national political allegiances. We work alongside Atheist Northern Ireland and Atheism UK. We participate in an ongoing dialogue process with the Irish Government. We work with Atheist Alliance International on global issues. We spent last week briefing the UN in Geneva about secular human rights.

    We do not reject either Irish nationalism or unionism, or the nonreligious aspects of the proclamation. One of our committee members had relatives involved in the 1916 rising, one of whose funerals included a Republican military salute. Another is an Irish nationalist who grew up as a Catholic in West Belfast, and brought his children to the centenary commemorations.

    Nobody represents all atheists. Atheists are individual people who typically value their personal philosophical independence. Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group that acts on behalf of our members to promote atheism, reason and an ethical secular constitution, laws, education, and healthcare. We take decisions by assessing what position is most consistent with the aims in our constitution. This helps us to depersonalise our decisions.

    In this case, we declined an invitation to watch a commemoration of events that involved killing innocent people in the name of God, celebrated on the wrong day to reinforce religious connotations. We would have declined a similar invitation to watch a religiously-permeated commemoration of the First World War. And there are still people today killing innocent people in the name of their Gods.

    Finally, some people have said that they were offended by what we said. While we do not set out to offend people, neither would we avoid saying something because it offends people. Many religious people are offended by many of the things that we say about the harm caused by religion, and that does not stop us from speaking out on those issues.

    With hindsight, we should have added these explicit clarifications to our original statement, in order to avoid confusion. We will continue to promote atheism, reason and ethical secularism, and we remain happy to clarify any misunderstandings about what we do.

    I've never been a huge history buff but this is the first time I've heard this. Is there anyone better versed in the history of 1916 that could confirm/deny that bolded claim is accurate?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #159
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Delirium wrote: »
    From AI facebook page regarding declining 1916 invitation:



    I've never been a huge history buff but this is the first time I've heard this. Is there anyone better versed in the history of 1916 that could confirm/deny that bolded claim is accurate?
    If one is a unionist Im sure they would view that as an accurate statement.


  • Options
    #160
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Delirium wrote: »
    From AI facebook page regarding declining 1916 invitation:



    I've never been a huge history buff but this is the first time I've heard this. Is there anyone better versed in the history of 1916 that could confirm/deny that bolded claim is accurate?

    The opening paragraph of the Proclamation
    IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

    So one could argue that the call was made in the name of God. This is to not only the ignore the historical context of the document (it was of it's time) but also the very radical sentiments expressed in the following paragraphs (which were ahead of their time - or some may say ahead of our time as they have not all been implemented).

    E.G.
    The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally


    To hoist my own flag, as it were, as far as I am concerned the whole thing was a farce and A.I. were part and parcel of the farce.
    The religious aspect was also part of the farce.
    The Pro-Treaty 'Home Rule' Party (to which Southern Unionists flocked) 'celebrating' was a farce.
    Attempts to state that if the Redmondite path had been followed there would have been independence with no violence is a farce.
    That banner - farce.
    To complain about a lack of a mandate for the Rising - farce.
    To try and have some 'inclusive' shure we are all friends now let's invite the Queen and put the name of all the dead on a wall in Glasnevin is a farce.
    We didn't get a (pseudo)republic until 18th April 1949 when the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was enacted so to say 'Easter' 1916 say the formation of the republic in which we live is a farce.

    As far as I am concerned April 24th is the centenary of the Declaration of the Irish Republic. It was a pivotal moment but also mainly aspirational and a failure. A failure because what they aspired to did not come to pass, in a great part due to the political parties 'celebrating'.

    They 'could' have decided to declare April 24th 'Republic Day' and marked the moment when enough Irish people's 'loyalty' to the Union was shattered to eventually spark a War of Independence. By moving the date to coincide with Easter, imo, it meant rather than have a completely secular commemoration they retained the religious connection.

    As for A.I. refusing to attend because we declined an invitation to watch a commemoration of events that involved killing innocent people in the name of God - of all the reasons to not attend that is one of the most tenuous I have seen (and I refused every invitation myself) - does A.I. also shun everything that emerges (legislation included) from Dail Éireann as it calls on God every morning to guide their deliberations?
    Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
    http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/a-misc/prayer.htm

    In the word of Special AKA 'It's all a load of b*llocks and b*llocks to it all.'


  • Options
    #161
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    If one is a unionist Im sure they would view that as an accurate statement.

    Do Unionist's not have a 'God'?

    Or are you assuming 'God' can only be Roman Catholic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    fisgon wrote: »
    Donald Clarke, (an avowed atheist) in the Irish Times, comments on the AI view of The Rising [...] Donald Clarke's piece is now being highlighted on the front page of irishtimes.com.
    Donald Clark should win the Iona award for fist-waving + misrepresentation - atheists are a community, no they're not, insert the "broad church" gag, creme eggs, stones and hats are atheists.

    Based upon what he wrote, he seems to be a very confused man indeed.


  • Options
    #163
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Do Unionist's not have a 'God'?

    Or are you assuming 'God' can only be Roman Catholic?

    I was referring to the "killing of innocents part", strikes me as how a unionist would class the Rising.

    The "in the name of god" would be secondary on the list, more along the lines of the revisionist IRA=ISIS comparisons the Quislings have been propagating.

    Or maybe you hit it on the head, AI regard the Rising as killing innocents in the name of a Roman Catholic state.


  • Options
    #164
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,701 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    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
    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    I was referring to the "killing of innocents part", strikes me as how a unionist would class the Rising.

    The "in the name of god" would be secondary on the list, more along the lines of the revisionist IRA=ISIS comparisons the Quislings have been propagating.

    Or maybe you hit it on the head, AI regard the Rising as killing innocents in the name of a Roman Catholic state.
    The final sentence of that paragraph is also intended to imply connection to ISIS, but that seems to be the trendy thing to do at the moment, Fisk, Geldof, the article in the Daily Telegraph and now AI. It's a bizarre statement, I thought they were against the religious aspects of the commemoration not the historical event? That at least was plausible, this will do damage to their credibility


  • Options
    #165
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,856 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, there wasn't a Nazi army, there was a German army, so hard to say whether that gets you anywhere. And the Gestapo were secret police, whereas the Gardai aren't, so I don't know whether that gets you anywhere either. When you talk about getting you somewhere, is there something other than Godwinning you have in mind? And what relationship do the four organisations have to your grandad?

    the spirit of "godwinning" I believe is calling people Nazis, I wasn't doing that what I am saying is that a State uses mechanisms like police, army to project power which need to be judged case by case, not to mention the objectives of the particular state itself. there is nothing that I can see that one can conclude that there should never be a reaction to State power. Its a case by case, looking at it from ancestor's perspective I can see why they wouldn't have been happy living under British rule.
    So linking the IRA to the provos or ISIS is meaningless, its 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



  • Options
    #166
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    I was referring to the "killing of innocents part", strikes me as how a unionist would class the Rising.

    The "in the name of god" would be secondary on the list, more along the lines of the revisionist IRA=ISIS comparisons the Quislings have been propagating.

    Or maybe you hit it on the head, AI regard the Rising as killing innocents in the name of a Roman Catholic state.

    It wasn't clear which part you were referring to so I assumed that it was the 'God' part as that was the basis for A.I's refusal.

    As for Unionists having an objection to 'killing innocents' - given their own threat to rise in rebellion and significant arms cache I find the suggestion of any such objections unlikely. Do you have any evidence to support this contention?

    I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it contains the words 'ISIS, IRA, revisionist and quislings' in one sentence and life is too short for that kind blugh.


  • Options
    #167
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,856 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As for A.I. refusing to attend because we declined an invitation to watch a commemoration of events that involved killing innocent people in the name of God - of all the reasons to not attend that is one of the most tenuous I have seen

    did they actually use those words? lol

    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
    #168
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It wasn't clear which part you were referring to so I assumed that it was the 'God' part as that was the basis for A.I's refusal.

    As for Unionists having an objection to 'killing innocents' - given their own threat to rise in rebellion and significant arms cache I find the suggestion of any such objections unlikely. Do you have any evidence to support this contention?

    I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it contains the words 'ISIS, IRA, revisionist and quislings' in one sentence and life is too short for that kind blugh.
    You say its the "god" part, but it could equally be the "killing innocents", or else why include it? You are making a big an assumption as I. They deliberately classed the rising as a killing of innocents, as a slur that is far more egregious then the classing of it as "in the name of god", I could even understand and agree(somewhat) with their objections to the religious aspect. However the manner of their phrasing points to them having a darker motive, a suspiciously internationalist motive imo

    I didnt say that. I said the characterisation of the Rising as a "killing of innocents in the name of god" strikes me as a unionist talking point, a two pronged attack in both classifying the rising as a slaughter of innocents and religiously driven(aka catholic). You can read as much in the IT, indo from John Bruton etc etc AI arent breaking new ground with their "objections"

    So comparing the IRA to ISIS, 1916 etc isnt revisionist and isnt propagated by quislings like Sir Bob Geldof, John Bruton et all :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #169
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    You say its the "god" part, but it could equally be the "killing innocents", or else why include it? You are making a big an assumption as I. They deliberately classed the rising as a killing of innocents, as a slur that is far more egregious then the classing of it as "in the name of god", I could even understand and agree(somewhat) with their objections to the religious aspect. However the manner of their phrasing points to them having a darker motive, a suspiciously internationalist motive imo

    I didnt say that. I said the characterisation of the Rising as a "killing of innocents in the name of god" strikes me as a unionist talking point, a two pronged attack in both classifying the rising as a slaughter of innocents and religiously driven(aka catholic). You can read as much in the IT, indo from John Bruton etc etc AI arent breaking new ground with their "objections"

    So comparing the IRA to ISIS, 1916 etc isnt revisionist and isnt propagated by quislings like Sir Bob Geldof, John Bruton et all :rolleyes:

    Pull back there - I did say I assumed you were referring to the 'God' part as that seemed to me to be the main thrust of AI's objection. I did not say your interpretation was invalid - just that it wasn't clear from your post.

    I was stretching to see how it is 'unionist' but that may be my fault as I read that as Unionist rather than unionist so where I was thinking Ulster Covenant folks I see that you may mean the CnG/FG/Home Rulers/unionist 'alliance' that emerged post War of Independence in which case yes. I would tend to agree that there is some serious spin but would argue that far from being 'revisionist' is has been the main narrative since 1922.


  • Options
    #170
    fisgon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    As for A.I. refusing to attend because we declined an invitation to watch a commemoration of events that involved killing innocent people in the name of God - of all the reasons to not attend that is one of the most tenuous I have seen (and I refused every invitation myself) - does A.I. also shun everything that emerges (legislation included) from Dail Éireann as it calls on God every morning to guide their deliberations?

    Exactly. And in 1916 practically everything that wasn't communist was influenced by religion in one way or another.

    More than that, the AI view of the Rising is incredibly simplistic. From an organization that tries to put itself across as based on rationality and critical thinking (and it usually is), this is an incredibly black-and-white view of history.


  • Options
    #171
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As for A.I. refusing to attend because we declined an invitation to watch a commemoration of events that involved killing innocent people in the name of God - of all the reasons to not attend that is one of the most tenuous I have seen (and I refused every invitation myself) - does A.I. also shun everything that emerges (legislation included) from Dail Éireann as it calls on God every morning to guide their deliberations?
    http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/a-misc/prayer.htm
    Whatever about the invocations and the dubious merits of what comes out of Dail Eireann, it never involves the killing of innocents.
    JPNelsforearm wrote: »
    I was referring to the "killing of innocents part", strikes me as how a unionist would class the Rising.
    It is fact that more innocent civilians were killed during the rising than actual combatants. Many were children. That's what happens when you start a war in a densely populated city centre. Especially an unexpected war with no warning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    recedite wrote: »
    Whatever about the invocations and the dubious merits of what comes out of Dail Eireann, it never involves the killing of innocents.

    Tell that to the unnamed women and children who died in Laundries, Industrial 'Schools' and Orphanages put there due to the policies of Dáil Éireann.
    Murdered by governmental neglect, lack of protection and allowing the religious orders to do as they wished.


  • Options
    #173
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Tell that to the unnamed women and children who died in Laundries, Industrial 'Schools' and Orphanages put there due to the policies of Dáil Éireann.
    Murdered by governmental neglect, lack of protection and allowing the religious orders to do as they wished.

    They were put there by their parents and their families. That's where the ultimate responsibility lies; it's not like priests and nuns crept into people's homes and abducted them. I didn't see anyone else queuing up to solve the problem.


  • Options
    #174
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    They were put there by their parents and their families. That's where the ultimate responsibility lies; it's not like priests and nuns crept into people's homes and abducted them. I didn't see anyone else queuing up to solve the problem.

    A "problem" created by the stranglehold of religion on the very definition of morality in that society.

    When an organization provides the "solution" to a "problem" of their own making, it is logical to find that a little suspect. To say the least.


  • Options
    #175
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    They were put there by their parents and their families. That's where the ultimate responsibility lies; it's not like priests and nuns crept into people's homes and abducted them. I didn't see anyone else queuing up to solve the problem.

    What was the problem exactly?


  • Options
    #176
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What was the problem exactly?


    You're obviously going to know more about this than I do, but I would suggest it was Irish society's shìtty attitude towards the most vulnerable members of society and their notions of 'respectability' and those people 'deserving' and 'undeserving' of their assistance:


    http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/welfare/articles/crossmanv.html

    http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/independent-ireland-was-a-cold-house-for-undeserving-poor-and-incorrigible-idle-1.2442018


    Not all that unlike Irish society today then.


  • Options
    #177
    JPNelsforearm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    recedite wrote: »
    Whatever about the invocations and the dubious merits of what comes out of Dail Eireann, it never involves the killing of innocents.

    It is fact that more innocent civilians were killed during the rising than actual combatants. Many were children. That's what happens when you start a war in a densely populated city centre. Especially an unexpected war with no warning.

    Collateral damage, innocents died, freedom is a bloody business, just because its unpalatable for the modern PC "I actually feel more European than Irish" brigade, doesn't change that fact. Nor does it make it ok to refer to the 1916 rising as a "killing of innocents", it wasnt.


  • Options
    #178
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    TBH I'm more annoyed by how IT wrote this article. From reading this you'd get the impression that 1). its the opinion of all atheists and 2). Atheists have leaders like its some kind of religion. When in reality its just the opinion of the members of Atheist Ireland.


  • Options
    #179
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    recedite wrote: »
    Have any of the members complained about being misrepresented?

    I don't know. It seems the statement(s) made are done on the basis of their constitution rather than consultation with their members.

    They say they have declined the invitation on the basis that" ...it commemorates events that involved the killing of innocent people in the name of God."

    Oddly, they then say that they have no problem with their members attending the commemorations, or the Government holding such commemorations.

    How does one make reasonable or ethical sense of these two conflicted statements?

    If members of A.I. attended the commemorations , how could they feel such a statement represented them?

    Or, how could A.I. be comfortable having members who commemorate "the killing of innocent people in the name of God" within their ranks?

    I think they have made a Boo-Boo here,and are compounding it with their attempt at defending said Boo-Boo.

    Maybe tiredness or overwork contributed.


  • Options
    #180
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    They were put there by their parents and their families.
    After the church did it's utmost to make life miserable if they didn't.

    As somebody whose family had to deal with a very similar situation in the mid-1960's - resulting in a lost cousin whom I will never know - your lack of understanding, or even human sympathy, and your willingness to blame the victim is typical of the Siberian warmth of hardline members of the catholic church.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What was the problem exactly?
    They didn't accept that the church ran society and the church does not like to be disrespected.


Advertisement