TDs have voted to make it compulsory to stand during the Dail prayer

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Funny I heard brid Smith say the reason she did it is because we have so many people with different religions now in Ireland and they need to be recognised too.

So while you all think they are great it seems it's mostly about pleasing our muslin brothers.

And, y'know, the Buddhists, Baha'i, Wiccans, Jews, Hindus...

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Aye but she said particularly Islam as it's growing fast.

So? That's not a reason for making it mandatory to stand for Christian prayer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then they went and ruined it by holding up banners.

I'm starting to think that this new compulsion to stand for prayers was just conjured up to spite the People's Front Against Austerity/Anti-Austerity People's Front etc.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Aye but she said particularly Islam as it's growing fast.

Sounds like she justified her "particularly" then. What, I ask as if not knowing, is the problem?

Allinall wrote: »

They're getting docked money for breaking the rules of the club they're a member of. If they can't square it with their conscience to follow the rules, Ghent they should resign.

It's utterly hypocritical to remain and take money off taxpayers whilst sticking two fingers up to the institution they were privileged to be elected to.

Also, it wasn't the government that deemed it a good idea.

So basically what you're saying here is that non-Catholics are not entitled to have any representation in the Dail?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So there can be no analogue of civil disobedience in our Oireachtas? We must be careful to follow the proper channels and processes and adopt the correct acceptable tone when challenging total ****ing horse****. That it?

I have sympathy with Coppinger's position. (Not to specify Coppinger in particular; what I say is equally applicable to any member who opposes the standing order on prayer and protests against it in this way.)

But I'm not sure there can be an "analogue of civil disobedience" in the Oireachtas. Civil disobedience is the peaceful protest of a citizen oppressed by an unjust law. But Coppinger's situation here isn't that of a citizen affected by a law imposed upon her; she's a legislator who shares responsibility for making the law in the first place.

Obviously she doesn't get to make the law on her own; she's part of a legislative assembly. What she needs to do is to win support from other members, whether by argument or by alliance or by trading. She was unable to do that. A legislator protesting against a newly-made law is a legislator protesting against the fact that she was unable to secure sufficiently wide acceptance for her views. I'm not sure that's quite an impressive or admirable stance as civil disobedience is normally intended to be.

I also think - forgive me if I harp on a point that I've made before, but I think it's an important one - that the form of protest she has chosen calls attention to the wrong point. The problem here is not that members who may not be Christian, or may not be believers, are required to stand while prayers are said; the problem is that the prayers are said at all. But the protest that she makes is not standing, and the protest she has said she will make is that she will refuse to stand. She's calling attention to completely the wrong thing, and she's presenting the problematic aspect of this law as an imposition on herself and on other unbelieving or secularist members, rather than an imposition on the republic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have sympathy with Coppinger's position. (Not to specify Coppinger in particular; what I say is equally applicable to any member who opposes the standing order on prayer and protests against it in this way.)

But I'm not sure there can be an "analogue of civil disobedience" in the Oireachtas. Civil disobedience is the peaceful protest of a citizen oppressed by an unjust law. But Coppinger's situation here isn't that of a citizen affected by a law imposed upon her; she's a legislator who shares responsibility for making the law in the first place.

Obviously she doesn't get to make the law on her own; she's part of a legislative assembly. What she needs to do is to win support from other members, whether by argument or by alliance or by trading. She was unable to do that. A legislator protesting against a newly-made law is a legislator protesting against the fact that she was unable to secure sufficiently wide acceptance for her views. I'm not sure that's quite an impressive or admirable stance as civil disobedience is normally intended to be.

I also think - forgive me if I harp on a point that I've made before, but I think it's an important one - that the form of protest she has chosen calls attention to the wrong point. The problem here is not that members who may not be Christian, or may not be believers, are required to stand while prayers are said; the problem is that the prayers are said at all. But the protest that she makes is not standing, and the protest she has said she will make is that she will refuse to stand. She's calling attention to completely the wrong thing, and she's presenting the problematic aspect of this law as an imposition on herself and on other unbelieving or secularist members, rather than an imposition on the republic.

By and large, our legislative process seems to work fine- not great- but fine. The instant the matter of religion- and particularly Christianity- is introduced, we get very strange outcomes. We can have no faith that the system is fit for purpose in this scenario.

In any scenario where the "correct procedure" results in an obviously irrational and unjust outcome, it makes little sense to operate solely within said procedure ("solely" is important here). There's no reason to assume that alone will work, and the evidence (e.g. blasphemy law, the equal status act, the legislation arising out of the 8th amendment) suggests that there is an inherent bias present which will undermine that approach.

In short, you don't win a rigged game by following the rules.

masculinist wrote: »

So what happens when we have a Muslim TD ? Is he going to stand for prayers to a ''false religion'' or are the shower of limp wristed gombeens in the Dail going to get down on their bellies and face Mecca after handing out headscarves to the female members of the house?

This decision of the house can only end up in tears and is a thin end of a wedge to reintroduce a connection between religion and state. And because of their utter stupidity - it might not be the religion they expected.

They are not reintroducing a connection between the state and religion.

Take a look at our constitution. :mad:

It hasn't gone away, you know.

duloxetineteva wrote: »

What has not gone away, What is the state religion.

The influence of the nonsense that is Christianity on our state hasn't gone away.

I would've thought that was pretty obvious, but there ya go......

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Christianity.

Wrong!

duloxetineteva wrote: »

There is no state religion, and no constitutional issue in not allowing religion in the Dail.

I broadly agree, but that doesn't really answer my question or address the point you first replied to.

Sure, there's no official state religion, so my first reply to you is an overstatement, but you introduced that topic when Zebra was talking about overt references to religion in the constitution, not state or official religion.

Brid Smith should be Taoiseach surely. Shes the peoples champion?