Alcohol and Good Friday (reloaded)

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The question was would you support Islamic or Jewish traditions being legally enforced here. You say that christian bar workers might want the day off to recognise the holy day so why don't we force all businesses to close on Saturday to recognise the Jewish Sabbath? They're not supposed to work after all

If there was a Jewish majority (important word there), I would have no problem for that rule to be in place. If I was living in Israel I would see it quite normal for businesses to close from 6pm Friday until 6pm Saturday.

And javaboy, secular means separation of church and state in my definiton of it. If people wish to run based on religious goals, there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to run. It is up to the people to smack them down if they do not find their goals favourable. However if the Catholic Church are given a direct position of power, I would see that as violating the terms. There needs to be a balance between democracy and secularism allowing for freedom in legislature as well as freedom in public life so that the State can accomodate changes in public opinion fluidly. I support rights afforded to people of minority religions, and the right of these people to freely speak about their religion in public. However, I think in other countries people are starting to change secularism into something to suit the unbelieving population, rather than all people within a country.

I also don't believe that secularism should be left unquestioned if it attempts to go across it's boundaries to impact religious people adversely as in France and the religious symbols ban, in the UK and Turkey.

javaboy

Jakkass wrote: »

And javaboy, secular means separation of church and state in my definiton of it. If people wish to run based on religious goals, there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to run. It is up to the people to smack them down if they do not find their goals favourable.

Ok let's imagine we have a 90% majority of religion X in a hypothetical country and the other 10% are atheists.
The X followers all vote for candidates who follow religion X and none of the atheist candidates get elected.
The elected followers of religion X decide that it should be law that people attend a religious celebration every Sunday.

By your definition that hypothetical country could still call itself secular. Do you not see something wrong with your definition?

Sam Vimes

I'm afraid that you don't know what separation of church and state means Jakkass. In a secular state it doesn't matter if every single person living in the country follows a particular religion, laws are still not made based on religious dogma. A state where laws are made based on religious dogma is called a theocracy

It's not just a case of the church isn't forcing them so it's ok, members of that church who are in government are still enforcing their religious practices on people who do not follow that religion. In a secular state religion is supposed to be a private matter between you and your god and it's not supposed to enter the parliament

Think about it this way: you support the separation of church and state but think it's ok to enforce religious rules if the majority want it

But the government are put there by the majority and generally do what the majority want, that's the whole idea of democracy

So if the government enforce a religious rule whenever the majority wants it then where exactly is the separation of church and state?

rlogue

Flukey wrote: »

Good man Rlogue. So, tell me, was the Eritrean One freed, and if so what is he doing these days? There are a lot of that crew still around. It is good to see you old friend and to see you are still doing your bit. It's people like you and I and the many others of that board that make those little corners of the internet the interesting places that they are.

Hiya Flukey,

I could not agree more with you! If we all agreed with each other these boards would be a very dull place indeed.

The Eritrean One was freed eventually but I think the board ran out of steam and I just could not keep on baiting Bill Fallin and his mates while trying to raise a family and run my own business at the same time.

Wishing you a very happy Easter,

Crusty

philologos

javaboy wrote: »

Ok let's imagine we have a 90% majority of religion X in a hypothetical country and the other 10% are atheists.
The X followers all vote for candidates who follow religion X and none of the atheist candidates get elected.
The elected followers of religion X decide that it should be law that people attend a religious celebration every Sunday.

By your definition that hypothetical country could still call itself secular. Do you not see something wrong with your definition?

In the former case it wouldn't as traditional rights such as freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience would be violated. Besides, I'd rather worship with people who are committed to Christianity in Ireland instead of people who were coerced to go there.

javaboy

Jakkass wrote: »

In the former case it wouldn't as traditional rights such as freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience would be violated. Besides, I'd rather worship with people who are committed to Christianity in Ireland instead of people who were coerced to go there.

Forcing people to respect a religious event they do not follow (no drink on Good Friday) and forcing somebody who doesn't follow a religion to go to mass are both violating people's traditional rights. The only difference is degree.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Is it not a violation of their our human rights ?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 2 says you're entitled to the rights in that declaration no matter what religion you are

Article 16 says you're allowed marry and have kids regardless of religion - not sure if this covers same sex stuff though.

Article 18 says you're allowed change your religion - and we all know that no matter what we do to try and leave the church we're all still seen as one in the eye of God! But the roman catholic churches here in Ireland take the cake and eat it with the freedom of religion part.


I'm pretty sure you could apply some of that to forcing people to live and abide by religious laws (who are not or do not want to be part of that religion) .

Red Sleeping Beauty

Mind you it can be confusing reading that and then automatically thinking that every country in the world violates it by way of various laws such as immigration or these new terrorism blah blah laws....

Anyway, back to the point - in this country you've to live by a law (or rather a part of a law, the intoxicating act 1927, 2008) that adheres to something the church wants.

philologos

Alan Rouge: I don't see how it violates any rights at all. The State chooses to respect and honour a day that has been held as being special, or sacred in Irish culture. Again, I don't see how that violates your rights or those of anyone elses.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Alan Rouge: I don't see how it violates any rights at all. The State chooses to respect and honour a day that has been held as being special, or sacred in IrishChristian culture. Again, I don't see how that violates your rights or those of anyone elses.

FYP

You keep saying you don't see it but people keep showing it to you. All you have to do is read the posts in this thread. In a secular state it doesn't matter if the majority want a religious based law, they don't get it because that would make the country a theocracy. Simple as that

rainbow kirby

Jakkass wrote: »

Alan Rouge: I don't see how it violates any rights at all. The State chooses to respect and honour a day that has been held as being special, or sacred in Irish culture. Again, I don't see how that violates your rights or those of anyone elses.

It violates the rights of non-religious people not to have the faith of others rubbed in their faces. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

philologos

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It violates the rights of non-religious people not to have the faith of others rubbed in their faces. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

Nobody is forcing you to adopt Christianity by closing places selling alcohol for a day.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody is forcing you to adopt Christianity by closing places selling alcohol for a day.

No but they are forcing you to recognise their day by closing places that sell alcohol for a day. How do you not get this?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No but they are forcing you to recognise their day by closing places that sell alcohol for a day. How do you not get this?

I don't see how you have to recognise the day either. You don't have to remember Good Friday or think of Christ if you don't want to. Banning alcohol sales for one day does not force anyone into participation.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how you have to recognise the day either. You don't have to remember Good Friday or think of Christ if you don't want to. Banning alcohol sales for one day does not force anyone into participation.

Nobody has ever suggested that we are being forced into christianity. That is a straw man argument.

We are simply saying that your religious beliefs are infringing on my rights to buy alcohol whenever I want. Please try to understand this

Sam Vimes

The government places other restrictions on alcohol purchase such as age and opening hours but these are fine in a secular state because the motive for those laws is not religion

Red Sleeping Beauty

Jakkass wrote: »

Alan Rouge: I don't see how it violates any rights at all. The State chooses to respect and honour a day that has been held as being special, or sacred in Irish culture. Again, I don't see how that violates your rights or those of anyone elses.

Don't worry, I didn't expect you to see how it affects people that don't want to be affected

witnessmenow

FFS pubs close 2 days a year, can you not manage?

I'm not catholic but isn't very convenient that people are complaining about these catholic traditions shouldn't be part of society now, i dont hear you complaining when you get a day off work because of old catholic traditions?

I went out with a girl who's family owned a pub(lived next door to it) The only time their wasnt one of the family working in was christmas day, good friday and when somebody they knew died.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Hey buddy, there's a recession - everyone's getting plenty of days off now!!

Sam Vimes

witnessmenow wrote: »

FFS pubs close 2 days a year, can you not manage?

I'm not catholic but isn't very convenient that people are complaining about these catholic traditions shouldn't be part of society now, i dont hear you complaining when you get a day off work because of old catholic traditions?

I went out with a girl who's family owned a pub(lived next door to it) The only time their wasnt one of the family working in was christmas day, good friday and when somebody they knew died.

It's not about going to the pub on good friday. I'm not even in the country and I could have gone down on my day off to the pub here but I didn't bother. The point is that this is not a christian country and christian values should not be forced on non christians

If someone wants to give me a day off work I'm all for it and if the day off wasn't for good friday it'd be for something else. I see a distinction between a day off that everyone wants that just happens to be associated with a religion and religious believers forcing something on us that only they want

Also, no one was forcing your girlfriend's parents to open every day of the year and if good friday and christmas didn't exist they'd most likely open on those days too

witnessmenow

Plenty more opportunities to make up for the drinking time lost on Friday too.

Realistically an average person wouldn't go out before 8 at the earliest, a few nightclubs would have opened at 12, so all this fuss over 4 hours, crazy.

witnessmenow

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not about going to the pub on good friday. I'm not even in the country and I could have gone down on my day off to the pub here but I didn't bother. The point is that this is not a christian country and christian values should not be forced on non christians

If someone wants to give me a day off work I'm all for it and if the day off wasn't for good friday it'd be for something else. I see a distinction between a day off that everyone wants that just happens to be associated with a religion and religious believers forcing something on us that only they want

Also, no one was forcing your girlfriend's parents to open every day of the year and if good friday and christmas didn't exist they'd most likely open on those days too

Do people get days off for good friday? no one ever told me :P

I was taking more about Christmas and the like.

Sam Vimes

witnessmenow wrote: »

Do people get days off for good friday? no one ever told me :P

I was taking more about Christmas and the like.

The government has just decided that we must pray to allah for 4 hours tomorrow. Do you support this move?

philologos

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It violates the rights of non-religious people not to have the faith of others rubbed in their faces. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

Actually, interestingly, just to come back on this point. In secular countries people still have the right to witness the Gospel on the street and to evangelise. What do you think about this? Promotion of faith is legal in Ireland and it only takes a walk out on Dublin streets to see it.

allabouteve

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, interestingly, just to come back on this point. In secular countries people still have the right to witness the Gospel on the street and to evangelise. What do you think about this? Promotion of faith is legal in Ireland and it only takes a walk out on Dublin streets to see it.

Haven't read the whole thread, so excuse me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick...but.
Theres a big difference between hearing someone ranting about their god(s) on the street, and being told what I can and can't spend my money on.

philologos

allabouteve wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread, so excuse me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick...but.
Theres a big difference between hearing someone ranting about their god(s) on the street, and being told what I can and can't spend my money on.

Read the quoted post. It was said that people don't want God shoved in their face. However people are witnessing God in the open on the streets, people have to hear it. Surely there should be a lot more offence at this, than banning alcohol sales for a single day.

Then again, I respect the rights of evangelists no matter what religion they profess. Freedom of speech, and freedom of religion for all.

JC 2K3

There's nothing wrong with promotion of religion in public,free speech and all that.

What's wrong is imposing a restriction on people for entirely religious reasons, no matter how small.

witnessmenow wrote: »

FFS pubs close 2 days a year, can you not manage?

I'm not catholic but isn't very convenient that people are complaining about these catholic traditions shouldn't be part of society now, i dont hear you complaining when you get a day off work because of old catholic traditions?

Why do people not read threads and make the same point that's been made and dealt with several times beforehand?

javaboy

witnessmenow wrote: »

Plenty more opportunities to make up for the drinking time lost on Friday too.

Realistically an average person wouldn't go out before 8 at the earliest, a few nightclubs would have opened at 12, so all this fuss over 4 hours, crazy.

It's not about lost drinking time. As a few people have said already, they wouldn't have been in the pub on Friday even if they were open. It is the principle of the thing. It could just as easily be a restriction on the sale of mars bars for one day and I would still object.

witnessmenow

Sorry for not going through all 24 pages of this thread.

Would my point/opinion be any more valid if I found someone who said something similar to me, quoted them and added "+1"?

Mrmoe

Jakkass wrote: »

However people are witnessing God in the open on the streets, people have to hear it. Surely there should be a lot more offence at this, than banning alcohol sales for a single day.

This is true as I could do the exact same thing and go out on to the street and preach conflicting ideas to those being preached by the religious zealots. By banning alcohol there is no choice. Drinking alcohol on Good Friday is part of my religion. So where exactly is the freedom of religion there now?