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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Hobby Horses of Belief (and assorted hazards)

1…1011131516…30

Comments

  • #362
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you forgot

    (a) the state should not criminalise adultery

    If someone says that adultery is wrong from their religious perspective but they don't think it is the states business from a criminal perspective then I don't see how that isn't secular.

    Depends whether you consider secularism to be limited to the laws of the land or whether you also consider it to form part of a social or personal philosophy and/or moral framework. Personally, I'd go with the latter. So if person tells me to behave in a certain way as failing to do so would contradict their religious beliefs, I consider it anti-secular.

    As an example of this, myself and herself had our kids long before getting married, and she got a bit of flak from one of her aunts over it. When asked, 'would I not make an honest woman out of her' I pointed out that she already was an honest woman and suggested that perhaps they too should go forth an multiple. Though not it so many words ;)

    Your religious beliefs may instruct you how to behave but when talking to anyone else they amount to no more than opinion, one that may well be considered objectionable or even obnoxious.


  • #363
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,101 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    smacl wrote: »
    Depends whether you consider secularism to be limited to the laws of the land or whether you also consider it to form part of a social or personal philosophy and/or moral framework. Personally, I'd go with the latter. So if person tells me to behave in a certain way as failing to do so would contradict their religious beliefs, I consider it anti-secular.

    As an example of this, myself and herself had our kids long before getting married, and she got a bit of flak from one of her aunts over it. When asked, 'would I not make an honest woman out of her' I pointed out that she already was an honest woman and suggested that perhaps they too should go forth an multiple. Though not it so many words ;)

    Your religious beliefs may instruct you how to behave but when talking to anyone else they amount to no more than opinion, one that may well be considered objectionable or even obnoxious.

    exactly. There will always be people with different opinions to you. you give those opinions as much weight as you think they deserve. Once they do not infringe on your life or liberty I dont see the issue.


  • #364
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    exactly. There will always be people with different opinions to you. you give those opinions as much weight as you think they deserve. Once they do not infringe on your life or liberty I dont see the issue.

    The problem here is presenting an opinion as fact and instructing others to act on that basis. For example, saying 'adultery is wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment you made' is presenting an opinion as fact and making an instruction on that basis. Specifically, 'adultery is wrong' is an opinion, saying 'you definitely shouldn't do it' is an instruction based on that opinion, and qualifying this by stating 'it violates a commitment you made' is unqualified speculation. While seemingly innocent, you could replace 'adultery' with other more dubious Catholic dogma, e.g. gay sex, contraception, sex outside marriage, gay marriage, abortion and end up with something far more objectionable.

    Just my opinion, but I think we should actively avoid instilling prejudice where ever possible. So while I personally might agree entirely with Peregrinus' statement on adultery, I think it needs to be framed as opinion rather than fact.


  • #365
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,101 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    smacl wrote: »
    The problem here is presenting an opinion as fact and instructing others to act on that basis. For example, saying 'adultery is wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment you made' is presenting an opinion as fact and making an instruction on that basis. Specifically, 'adultery is wrong' is an opinion, saying 'you definitely shouldn't do it' is an instruction based on that opinion, and qualifying this by stating 'it violates a commitment you made' is unqualified speculation. While seemingly innocent, you could replace 'adultery' with other more dubious Catholic dogma, e.g. gay sex, contraception, sex outside marriage, gay marriage, abortion and end up with something far more objectionable.

    Just my opinion, but I think we should actively avoid instilling prejudice where ever possible. So while I personally might agree entirely with Peregrinus' statement on adultery, I think it needs to be framed as opinion rather than fact.

    an instruction with no weight behind it is only a suggestion.


  • #366
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,823 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    smacl wrote: »
    Simply believing it to be a higher bar doesn't make it true though does it? The implication that Catholics act with a greater degree of integrity having sworn on a bible than atheists who make a solemn declaration is specious and somewhat insulting.

    That's exactly what I was talking about. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, just whether the jury thinks it is.No way would I affirm in an Irish court if I was the defendant in a jury trial.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • #367
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    That's exactly what I was talking about. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, just whether the jury thinks it is.No way would I affirm in an Irish court if I was the defendant in a jury trial.

    Very much the same. I was working as an expert witness a few years acting on behalf of the prosecutor. I brought this up with them and they said bible would probably play better with the jury, so that's what I went with.


  • #368
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Cork woman (66) jailed for weekend after refusing to wear a mask

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/cork-woman-66-jailed-for-weekend-after-refusing-to-wear-a-mask-1.4571444
    Irish Times wrote:
    A 66-year-old Cork woman has been jailed for the weekend for her defiance in refusing to wear a mask in court. Margaret Buttimer of The Cottage, St Fintan’s Road, Bandon appeared before Clonakilty District Court earlier this week for refusing to wear a mask at Dunnes Stores in the town on February 12th. [...]

    The judge said that Ms Buttimer had turned up in the body of the court “without a mask, but worse still a smile on her face as if this is something to laugh about”. Ms Buttimer was an “enigma” and her family were deeply concerned about her, the judge said. He found her to be in contempt of court and remanded her in custody for the weekend. She will appear before Bandon District Court again on Monday for sentencing. The judge said Ms Buttimer was moving from defiance to “openly challenging the courts and the country”.

    Defence solicitor Plunkett Taaffe said that he was conscious of the age of his client. Mr Taaffe emphasised that Ms Buttimer’s family were concerned about her. He spoke briefly to his client at the end of her case. She did not put on a mask and was remanded in custody for the weekend. She will also appear in court in relation to other similar charges on June 14th.

    The judge told her she was entitled to her relationship with God, but not to the detriment of society.


  • #369
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,823 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    The concept of wisdom being correlated with age is unsubstantiated.

    It seems plenty of people were pretty thick to begin with and only get worse.

    Should stick her on remand into a two week mandatory Covid quarantine

    My local Dunnes doesn't give a feck about customers not wearing masks :mad:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #370
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,823 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Our least favourite dead nun is back in the news:

    Children tied to beds, nuns who flogged themselves, filthy homes: Was Mother Teresa a cult leader?

    (Possibly an exception to that rule of thumb about the answer to a question posed in a headline always being No :) )

    It is what she wants to flee that makes The Turning [podcast] so fascinating. [Mary] Johnson spent 20 years in Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity before leaving through official channels in 1997. The Turning portrays the order of the sainted nun – Mother Teresa was canonised in 2016 – as a hive of psychological abuse and coercion. It raises the question of whether the difference between a strict monastic community and a cult lies simply in the social acceptability of the operative faith.
    What makes The Turning unique is its focus on the internal life of the Missionaries of Charity. The former sisters describe an obsession with chastity so intense that any physical human contact or friendship was prohibited; according to Johnson, Mother Teresa even told them not to touch the babies they cared for more than necessary. They were expected to flog themselves regularly – a practice called “the discipline” – and were allowed to leave to visit their families only once every 10 years.

    A former Missionaries of Charity nun named Colette Livermore recalled being denied permission to visit her brother in the hospital, even though he was thought to be dying. “I wanted to go home, but you see, I had no money, and my hair was completely shaved – not that that would have stopped me. I didn’t have any regular clothes,” she said. “It’s just strange how completely cut off you are from your family.” Speaking of her experience, she used the term “brainwashing”.

    “I didn’t bring up the word ‘cult’,” Erika Lantz, the podcast’s host, told me. “Some of the former sisters did.” This doesn’t mean their views of Mother Teresa or the Missionaries of the Charity are universally negative. Their feelings about the woman they once glorified and the movement they gave years of their lives to are complex, and the podcast is more melancholy than bitter.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #371
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    In today's Irish Catholic, independent Clare TD, Michael McNamara, incidentially Chair of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Response, seems to have urged the church to ignore public health guidelines and hold whatever religious services it wants, including communion and confirmation, regardless of the pandemic. The screenshot below comes from the freely available front page, but I think it's safe to infer the contents of the remainder of the article.

    554208.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,020 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    robindch wrote: »
    In today's Irish Catholic, independent Clare TD, Michael McNamara, incidentially Chair of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Response, seems to have urged the church to ignore public health guidelines and hold whatever religious services it wants, including communion and confirmation, regardless of the pandemic. The screenshot below comes from the freely available front page, but I think it's safe to infer the contents of the remainder of the article.
    That's not really fair, Robin. Based on what you've posted McNamara is clearly talking about what the State should not, not about what the Church should do.

    You may think it's "safe to infer" that in the remainder of the article he goes on to urge the church to hold services in breach of the guidelines, but I really don't think it is. It's commonplace for people to criticise laws, rules or guidelines without going on to urge, expressly or by implication, that others should violate those laws, rules or guidelines. I don't see anything in what you've posted to support an inference that McNamara does this.


  • #373
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That's not really fair, Robin. Based on what you've posted McNamara is clearly talking about what the State should not, not about what the Church should do.

    You may think it's "safe to infer" that in the remainder of the article he goes on to urge the church to hold services in breach of the guidelines, but I really don't think it is.

    What are you talking about?
    The first paragraph of the screenshot states "Bishops of the Republic have been urged to trust priests in parishes with decisions around holding First Holy Communion and Confirmation ceremonies". McNamara is clearly saying that they should do what they want. He is not even saying here that it's the state who should trust the priests, but the bishops.

    And the last two paragraphs has McNamara even agreeing that parties should be discouraged, but saying the Sacraments are special and should go ahead.


  • #374
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,020 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The guidelines are that the ceremonies should be deferred.

    The Department has apparently suggested that the bishops they should defer them, but McNamara is saying the bishops should refer the decision to priests. This is not McNamara urging what the decision should be; he is urging who should make the decision — priests rather than bishops. "The State should not interfere with the church's internal decision making"; i.e. it's not for the State to say who, within the churches, should make decisions about the deferral of ceremonies.

    And he's not "clearly saying that they should do what they want". He suggests who should make the decision, but he says nothing about how they should go about making it. In particular, he doesn't suggest that priests would or should attach any less weight to advice from the Department than Bishops would or should.

    As for McNamara saying "saying the Sacraments are special and should go ahead", (a) he doesn't say the second bit, and (b) why would he? By his own reasoning, it's not for him to say whether the sacraments should go ahead or not. If the State should not interfere with the church's internal decision making, then neither should a TD.


  • #375
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,823 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Due to a national emergency, in recent days I have travelled through the centre and outskirts of our beloved capital city, on public transport to boot, for the first time in over a year.

    The shock of just being around other people - even the 95% who are thoughtful, distanced, masked, etc. is... a shock! House, wife, kids (supermarket, off-licence) was my world for 14 months, and I quite liked it actually.

    But (apart from the 5% of people who are either ignorant or wilful twats) the thing that struck me was "the Holy Face". WTF is that about. There was a billboard, and a few stickers on poles and stuff. Image on them of the fake Turin shroud and some URL that I couldn't make out. Anyone else noticed this?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #376
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,823 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Our least favourite dead nun is back in the news:

    Somehow the Irish Times (paper of record, don't you know) saw fit to erase this entirely factually accurate comment:
    MT was bitterly opposed to contraception and abortion, the more "souls" born into short lives of abject poverty and misery the better, as far as she was concerned.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #377
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,823 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    More hot breaking Holy Face news from 2016 (in fairness, the billboard I saw on Abbey Street was in bits)

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/hli-irelands-astonishing-holy-face-project
    June 16, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – In recent decades, there has been a major decline in the formerly strong Catholic faith of the Irish people. As a result, anti-life and anti-family forces have been making dramatic gains that no one thought could be possible in Ireland. Human Life International, Ireland realized something dramatic was needed to try to save the nation from moral and spiritual ruin.

    Executive Director Patrick McCrystal undertook a Holy Face of Jesus program that has shown great promise to help re-awaken the Irish people to what they have lost and must regain. He realized that a spiritual effort had to be his pro-life organization’s highest priority while still of course continuing with all their other pro-life efforts.

    etc. :rolleyes:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #378
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,101 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    More hot breaking Holy Face news from 2016 (in fairness, the billboard I saw on Abbey Street was in bits)

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/hli-irelands-astonishing-holy-face-project



    etc. :rolleyes:

    that went well for them. proof positive of the power of prayer.


  • #379
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,823 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Turns out BJ is an RC, who knew?

    Boris Johnson baptised Catholic and cannot defect from Church, says canon law
    British prime minister Boris Johnson was allowed marry Carrie Symonds, also Catholic, in Westminister Cathedral on Saturday as his two previous marriages were not seen as valid by the Catholic Church.

    The Archdiocese of Westminster said that, while they did not comment on specific situations, “in general terms, a baptised Catholic who has contracted a marriage recognised in civil law but without observing the requirements of Catholic canon law is not recognised as validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.”

    Mr Johnson, who is Britain’s first Catholic prime minister, and his wife “are both parishioners of the Westminster Cathedral parish and baptised Catholics,” an archdiocese spokesperson said, and that “all necessary steps were taken, in both Church and civil law, and all formalities completed before the wedding.”

    Mr Johnson had been married twice before with his first marriage annulled and the second ending in divorce. Neither marriage took place in a Catholic setting. Ms Symonds is a practising Catholic and their son Wilfred, born in April 2020, was baptised in the Catholic Church.

    Mr Johnson’s mother Charlotte Fawcett is Catholic and had him baptised into that denomination as a child. His godmother is Lady Rachel Billington, daughter of the late Lord Longford, a Catholic.

    However, as a teenager and while attending Eton, Mr Johnson became and was confirmed as a member of the Church of England.

    The archdiocese spokesperson pointed out that, according to the Catholic Church’s canon law, and despite Mr Johnson’s reception of Church of England confirmation at school, he remained a Catholic as it is not possible to formally defect from the Church. This was underlined in a decree by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #380
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    That's interesting. It is said that Blair felt it expedient to wait until he was out of office before he converted, because of potential issues (perceived or otherwise) a Catholic PM would result in.

    Opinion on Boris aside, it is a very welcome development, historically noteworthy, that a Catholic is and can be PM, given the horrendous discrimination and persecution that the English and British state inflicted on Catholics for hundreds of years.


  • #381
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »
    That's interesting. It is said that Blair felt it expedient to wait until he was out of office before he converted, because of potential issues (perceived or otherwise) a Catholic PM would result in.

    Opinion on Boris aside, it is a very welcome development, historically noteworthy, that a Catholic is and can be PM, given the horrendous discrimination and persecution that the English and British state inflicted on Catholics for hundreds of years.

    I'm not sure Catholicism is an issue for many if any British people in this day and age. Now if the elected a Muslim PM on the other hand, that would be more rather more interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »
    That's interesting. It is said that Blair felt it expedient to wait until he was out of office before he converted, because of potential issues (perceived or otherwise) a Catholic PM would result in.

    Opinion on Boris aside, it is a very welcome development, historically noteworthy, that a Catholic is and can be PM, given the horrendous discrimination and persecution that the English and British state inflicted on Catholics for hundreds of years.

    Given a pope once issued a Bull declaring any Catholics who followed the laws laid down by a ruling monarch of England would be excommunicated,and called for the overthrow of a reigning queen. Another pope not only gave backing for an invasion of England but also supplied troops and money so it's fair to say there was provocation.
    Indeed, the most stringent measures were specifically taken against Jesuits who it was felt were interfering in the peace of the realm by fomenting rebellion - a belief the primary sources support.
    So interfering were the Jesuits that at various points in time the French, Spanish, and Portuguese also expelled them.

    It is also worth noting that the Penal Laws as enacted in all the constituent parts of the eventual United Kingdom were aimed at all non-Anglicans - Protestant dissenters were just as restricted as Roman Catholics. That's the kind of thing that tends to happen when there's an official State religion.

    In summary - Realm with official State religion penalised those who are members of other religions, and Roman Catholics were viewed with distrust after the Pope calls on them to overthrow the monarch leading to a serious rebellion by RC nobles.

    In this same realm a Roman Catholic monarch had hundreds of Protestants burned to death.

    Bit more nuanced then you are claiming.


  • #383
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    I'm not sure Catholicism is an issue for many if any British people in this day and age. Now if the elected a Muslim PM on the other hand, that would be more rather more interesting.
    Try living in certain areas of Scotland or the six counties :)

    It is a significant development because it bookends and signifies that what you said is true, that the Catholic faith of the PM is not an issue. It would have been an impossibility for a long time, and even Blair decided to wait until he was no longer PM.

    Of course it is something that is historically noteworthy. It signifies and symbolises progress away, indeed the end, of centuries of state-led and imposed religious persecution of the most severe kind. A Catholic being PM of that same state is far more historically significant than, for example, a Catholic being president of the USA which was very significant when it happened for the first time (albeit Boris is no JFK except perhaps in the womanising department!)


  • #384
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Given a pope once issued a Bull declaring any Catholics who followed the laws laid down by a ruling monarch of England would be excommunicated,and called for the overthrow of a reigning queen. Another pope not only gave backing for an invasion of England but also supplied troops and money so it's fair to say there was provocation.
    Indeed, the most stringent measures were specifically taken against Jesuits who it was felt were interfering in the peace of the realm by fomenting rebellion - a belief the primary sources support.
    So interfering were the Jesuits that at various points in time the French, Spanish, and Portuguese also expelled them.

    It is also worth noting that the Penal Laws as enacted in all the constituent parts of the eventual United Kingdom were aimed at all non-Anglicans - Protestant dissenters were just as restricted as Roman Catholics. That's the kind of thing that tends to happen when there's an official State religion.

    In summary - Realm with official State religion penalised those who are members of other religions, and Roman Catholics were viewed with distrust after the Pope calls on them to overthrow the monarch leading to a serious rebellion by RC nobles.

    In this same realm a Roman Catholic monarch had hundreds of Protestants burned to death.

    Bit more nuanced then you are claiming.
    :pac::pac:

    This is your take? It would be funny if it were not so serious. I am sure that bigots in the north of Ireland or Scotland, or indeed any other place in the world where Catholics are still subject of discrimination or oppression (indeed, sadly, martyrdoms in certain parts of the world are almost routine) would also claim that there is "provocation", "interference" and that papists are disloyal.

    Try reading what you wrote again - a fairly innocuous statement noting that it is significant that a member of a minority religion which was historically horrendously oppressed in Britain is now PM has prompted justification and equivocation about that past treatment. Did you offer similar thoughts when a black man was elected president of the USA?


  • #385
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »
    Try living in certain areas of Scotland or the six counties :)

    It is a significant development because it bookends and signifies that what you said is true, that the Catholic faith of the PM is not an issue. It would have been an impossibility for a long time, and even Blair decided to wait until he was no longer PM.

    Of course it is something that is historically noteworthy. It signifies and symbolises progress away, indeed the end, of centuries of state-led and imposed religious persecution of the most severe kind. A Catholic being PM of that same state is far more historically significant than, for example, a Catholic being president of the USA which was very significant when it happened for the first time (albeit Boris is no JFK except perhaps in the womanising department!)

    Reading the beeb coverage of it, there seems to be rather more interest in the Catholic church agreeing to the marriage of a man who has already divorced twice and the double standards therein.


  • #386
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Reading the beeb coverage of it, there seems to be rather more interest in the Catholic church agreeing to the marriage of a man who has already divorced twice and the double standards therein.

    No double standards, as far as the Church is concerned he was never married. One assumes that Boris would have gone to confession before his marriage. At least Boris can be assured of no leaks there :)


  • #387
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »
    No double standards, as far as the Church is concerned he was never married. One assumes that Boris would have gone to confession before his marriage. At least Boris can be assured of no leaks there :)

    Or rather more likely, from the Guardian
    Father Paul Butler, the Church of England rector of St Paul’s in Deptford, tweeted: “Always one canon law for the rich and one for the poor.”


  • #388
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Or rather more likely, from the Guardian

    Well, the father is wrong and would do well to brush up on his Canon law.


  • #389
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »
    given the horrendous discrimination and persecution that the English and British state inflicted on Catholics for hundreds of years.
    Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »
    :pac::pac:

    This is your take? It would be funny if it were not so serious. I am sure that bigots in the north of Ireland or Scotland, or indeed any other place in the world where Catholics are still subject of discrimination or oppression (indeed, sadly, martyrdoms in certain parts of the world are almost routine) would also claim that there is "provocation", "interference" and that papists are disloyal.

    Try reading what you wrote again - a fairly innocuous statement noting that it is significant that a member of a minority religion which was historically horrendously oppressed in Britain is now PM has prompted justification and equivocation about that past treatment. Did you offer similar thoughts when a black man was elected president of the USA?

    I find it interesting how often you respond with mocking emojis when challenged, is if this lends weight to your opinion.

    No - it is not my 'take'. I was responding to a specific comment you made - I have quoted it in bold above - regarding the so-called "horrendous discrimination ... for hundreds of years" by pointing out some historical facts which played a large role in why Roman Catholics were looked at with suspicion in England. It is a matter of historical record -Regnans in Excelsis 1570 excommunicated Elizabeth I and called for her Catholic subjects to disobey her. This came a year after The Revolt of the Northern Earls had sought remove Elizabeth from the throne. The later Ridolfi Plot sought to replace Elizabeth with the Catholic Mary Stuart.
    Pope Sextus donated 100,000 ducats to the outfitting of the Spanish Armada - an invasion force. One sixth of the fighting men on board were Papal Troops.


    I haven't even touched on English Jesuits arriving in Ireland with troops to ferment rebellion. They had zero interest in removing English rule from Ireland, they simply wanted that rule to be under a Roman Catholic monarch. The Irish paid the price.

    Mary I had 280 Protestants burnt at the stake.
    You are big on claiming RC martyrdom but silent when it is the Catholics who were creating the martyrs.

    Yes, it is noteworthy if the UK has a Roman Catholic PM - and it will be interesting to see how his Unionist allies react. However - it was you who decided to interject a comment about historical "discrimination" and, while not denying there was, simply pointed out that such discrimination did not exist in a vacuum. From a strictly security of the realm perspective there were serious issues with Papal interference.

    As I said - it is far more nuanced than your little extra editorial comment portrays.


  • #390
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    No - it is not my 'take'. I was responding to a specific comment you made - I have quoted it in bold above - regarding the so-called "horrendous discrimination ... for hundreds of years" by pointing out some historical facts which played a large role in why Roman Catholics were looked at with suspicion in England. It is a matter of historical record -Regnans in Excelsis 1570 excommunicated Elizabeth I and called for her Catholic subjects to disobey her. This came a year after The Revolt of the Northern Earls had sought remove Elizabeth from the throne. The later Ridolfi Plot sought to replace Elizabeth with the Catholic Mary Stuart.
    So-called? So it was not horrendous discrimination?

    How sad, that you persist in trying to downplay and equivocate about the treatment of Catholics in Britain and England. With your comments you are engaging in what was and is one of the common traits of the bigot, holding an entire group of people responsible for actions and statements of their leaders. (of course, the date you chose to start your trip down history lane is interesting). But, leaving aside and rights or wrongs of who done what; commentary holding Jews, Muslims etc. collectively responsible and justifying collective punishment of them, or even equivocating about it is horrendous and objectionable. Yet you are doing the same about Catholics here? So you think it is ok to treat a group of people a certain way because of their religion? It is not clear that you are engaging in your "explanation" of "so-called" horrendous discrimination as a means to illustrate how the English and British went wrong and were terribly wrong in what they did :(
    Mary I had 280 Protestants burnt at the stake.
    You are big on claiming RC martyrdom but silent when it is the Catholics who were creating the martyrs.
    Eh, I'm not the one trying to "explain" and equivocate about persecutions here. That is you. Have a look in the mirror. Do I need to make a comment on the misdeeds of the Catholic church because I am a Catholic? Why? If a Muslim rightly points out issues of religious discrimination and treatment do you say to them, "What about jihad? What about 9/11, what about x"? If it were a Muslim who became PM (an interesting prospect as Smacl says) and a fellow Muslim said it was interesting, or whatever, given the past treatment of Muslims would you criticise them for not mentioning x, y and z? Would you equivocate, downplay and "explain" their past treatment? A certain group of people would do exactly that, you are in terrible company.
    Yes, it is noteworthy if the UK has a Roman Catholic PM - and it will be interesting to see how his Unionist allies react. However - it was you who decided to interject a comment about historical "discrimination" and, while not denying there was, simply pointed out that such discrimination did not exist in a vacuum. From a strictly security of the realm perspective there were serious issues with Papal interference.
    The reason why it is noteworthy is the previous treatment of Catholics.

    It's amazing really what you are doing here. A Catholic observes that it is interesting and noteworthy that a fellow Catholic is now PM of Britain given the historic treatment of Catholics and you seek to "explain" and downplay the suffering and experience of my fellow religious. Well more than that really, you are bordering on outright justification here. Horrendous.

    I can only hope that, on reflection, you will realise that you have misspoke here (it happens to everyone) and have gone about this in totally the wrong way (again, this happens us all). Despite our disagreements I certainly have respect for your opinions, but this has been a rather poisonous display which I hope is the product of misspeaking, rather than a true reflection of your thoughts.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »
    With your comments you are engaging in what was and is one of the common traits of the bigot, holding an entire group of people responsible for actions and statements of their leaders.

    Mod: Carded for breach of charter and personal attack. You may not refer to other posters in this forum as bigots, link. Any response to the feedback thread or via PM only. Thanks for your attention.


Advertisement