Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Snakeblood

Copper23 wrote: »

Well, isnt it the whole basis for this thread that the OP started?

- Church don't support his bid due to his lifestyle. (is it that surprising?)
- Everyone gets down on the church again for being stuck in the middle ages, etc, etc...
- AH members start posting that they'll vote him in just to spite some article they read on the internet.
- Implication now made that a vote against Norris is now somehow due to some sort of prodigiousness.

Did you read the OP? It was a lunatic fringe church that was pointed out.

Who has gotten on your case to vote?

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

Electing someone on the basis of their homosexuality is about as useful as electing some on the basis of being heterosexual.

It would send a message that things are a bit different. I don't think it would be terribly useful unless we were hoping for gay tourism dollars or something.

oppenheimer1

lynski wrote: »

What homosexual sex scandals?? the RCC priests raping children is pedophilia and has NOTHING to do with hetero or homo sexuality, much as many so-called christians would have us believe.
I have read most of the posts here and i am curious, is that a verified article from magill? because it seems a text doc on a google site. It does not seem to be a full article at all and I would not put a lot of credence in it to be honest.

The sex crimes committed by the priests in the RCC were by and large men abusing boys. Thats a homosexual (and paedophillic) act by any definition -> Homosexual sex scandal. Really their profession doesn't come into it other than it allowed them access to children.

Cheap Thrills!

Morlar wrote: »

What is the purpose of publishing this persons name and home address on an internet forum ?

Why not?

The information is already in the public domain, anyone can check WhoIS

I was curious to see who the coward behind the malicious websites was and now I know, some throwback hick who tried to cover their tracks with a generic email address.

david75

prinz wrote: »

Electing someone on the basis of their homosexuality is about as useful as electing some on the basis of being heterosexual.

As for the President representing a break with the RCC, one of our first was a Protestant.

And not electing them because of their homosexuality is useful? even though this is the likely outcome in this case.

AnonoBoy

Copper23 wrote: »

Well, isnt it the whole basis for this thread that the OP started?

- Church don't support his bid due to his lifestyle. (is it that surprising?)

It's a crazy right wing Christian sect from Mayo who drive up to Dublin 3 days a week to protest about gays outside the Dail, not the Catholic Church.

Irish Times article - search for Enoch Burke in that article.

- AH members start posting that they'll vote him in just to spite some article they read on the internet.

Some said that. A lot said people should vote for the best person regardless of sexuality.

Implication now made that a vote against Norris is now somehow due to some sort of prodigiousness.

What do you mean by that?

lynski

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The sex crimes committed by the priests in the RCC were by and large men abusing boys. Thats a homosexual act by any definition -> Homosexual sex scandal. Really their profession doesn't come into it other than it allowed them access to children.

Men abusing boys = pedophilia, men abusing young men = homosexual abuse THERE is a difference. there is a case to be made that their abuse of other people is more of a power thing then a sexual thing anyway, but that is for another day.

also their profession was at the core of the scandal, they would never have gotten away with it, gotten moved on to facilitate their appetites in new when the heat got too much in one place, there would not have been a scandal there would have been some cases if they had been plumbers or builders or teachers, Their profession is at the core of their crimes and the hypocrisy and the culture of the RCC is the reason for the longterm suffering of the children under their 'care'.

thebullkf

ok folks ..


out of the posters here.



who would vote for him?


For?



Against?




i'm against.

mikemac

Against

Michael D has my vote

Sure who is going to nominate Norris?

A candidate must, however be nominated by one of the following:
At least twenty members of the Oireachtas (national parliament).
At least four county or city councils.
Themselves (in the case of an incumbent or former president that has served one term)

Nodin

feelingstressed wrote: »

Against

Michael D has my vote

Sure who is going to nominate Norris?

Michael D? I've nothing against the man....but you can't release him and his crappy poetry on innocent people....

oppenheimer1

lynski wrote: »

Men abusing boys = pedophilia, men abusing young men = homosexual abuse THERE is a difference. there is a case to be made that their abuse of other people is more of a power thing then a sexual thing anyway, but that is for another day.

also their profession was at the core of the scandal, they would never have gotten away with it, gotten moved on to facilitate their appetites in new when the heat got too much in one place, there would not have been a scandal there would have been some cases if they had been plumbers or builders or teachers, Their profession is at the core of their crimes and the hypocrisy and the culture of the RCC is the reason for the longterm suffering of the children under their 'care'.

I don't want to drag the thread OT, but needless to say I those priests were both homosexuals and paedophiles. The two behaviours are not mutually exclusive.

mikemac

Well who are you planning to vote for so? If you are going to comment on my choice

philologos

thebullkf wrote: »

out of the posters here.

who would vote for him?

Needless to say, I'll probably not vote. The office of president isn't really all that important surely?

JonJoeDali

prinz wrote: »

Electing someone on the basis of their homosexuality is about as useful as electing some on the basis of being heterosexual.

You can vote for or against someone on the basis of them being a cat lover. It's your constitutional right.

So, voting against a homosexual in the Aras is as good a reason as any other. We all have one vote.

JonJoeDali

So, we have the choice between Michael D (an anti-Israeli poet) and David Norris (a self-proclaimed Anglican fairy). Give me another Mary any day of the week.

lynski

In answer to the ops question, and my apologies for getting distracted by the rcc apologists, I would not only vote for Norris I would actively campaign for him. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his fitness as a candidate, again apologies if my previous posts gave the impression it was important to me, it is not, but i get very annoyed my people who hate others for superficial things.

Here is the text of the email i sent to Eamon Gilmore urging him to make David Norris their candidate:

Dear Mr. Gilmore,
I am writing to you to urge you to nominate a candidate for the next Presidential election who embodies all the qualities an Irish president should have, in my opinion; integrity, honest, openness, bravery, intelligence, scholarship, erudition, freedom from party politics and a deep love and respect for all the Irish people. The candidate I would support, and volunteer to work for, is Senator David Norris. I hope the Labor party has the foresight to nominate him as your candidate.

JonJoeDali

lynski wrote: »

In answer to the ops question, and my apologies for getting distracted by the rcc apologists, I would not only vote for Norris I would actively campaign for him. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his fitness as a candidate, again apologies if my previous posts gave the impression it was important to me, it is not, but i get very annoyed my people who hate others for superficial things.

Here is the text of the email i sent to Eamon Gilmore urging him to make David Norris their candidate:

Dear Mr. Gilmore,
I am writing to you to urge you to nominate a candidate for the next Presidential election who embodies all the qualities an Irish president should have, in my opinion; integrity, honest, openness, bravery, intelligence, scholarship, erudition, freedom from party politics and a deep love and respect for all the Irish people. The candidate I would support, and volunteer to work for, is Senator David Norris. I hope the Labor party has the foresight to nominate him as your candidate.

I reckon you fancy him and you'd be his No. 1 fan boy if only he gave you the chance.

Ickle Magoo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't want to drag the thread OT, but needless to say I those priests were both homosexuals and paedophiles. The two behaviours are not mutually exclusive.

There were priests that abused girls too - some even abused both. I'm not sure sexuality had much to do with it, probably more to do with power, sexual repression and opportunity tbh.

I'd vote for Norris, he's funny, engaging, he seems to have an outlook better suited to the 21st century and a higher intellect than most of those charged with running the country. That his election would upset so many archaic knuckle-draggers would just be an added bonus. :cool:

JonJoeDali

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There were priests that abused girls too - some even abused both. I'm not sure sexuality had much to do with it, probably more to do with power, sexual repression and opportunity tbh.

The facts are that boys were 7 times more likely to be abused than girls.

lynski

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I reckon you fancy him and you'd be his No. 1 fan boy if only he gave you the chance.

If i changed gender maybe and i am a little too long in the tooth and a little to pregnant to be mistaken for a boy. but yes i have been a fan for a long time.

JonJoeDali

lynski wrote: »

yes i have been a fan for a long time.

Fair play to ye. Do you have a picture of him stapled to your bedroom ceiling so you can think of him before going to sleep?

Ickle Magoo

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The facts are that boys were 7 times more likely to be abused than girls.

A million times less likely to get pregnant, you see...

lynski

lol, no that is reserved for a more delicious specimen.....

mfceiling

I'll be voting norris too.
Someone who can speak properly with the correct turn of phrase and proper grammar.
Bertie with your de, de, de, de and dat's dat an all dat..........well you can fcuk off back under the rock from which you crawled

JonJoeDali

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

A million times less likely to get pregnant, you see...

Sure. If only young boys could be impregnated. Then Utopia will be upon us and the great strive for "equality" behind us.

JonJoeDali

mfceiling wrote: »

I'll be voting norris too.
Someone who can speak properly with the correct turn of phrase and proper grammar.
Bertie with your de, de, de, de and dat's dat an all dat..........we;; you can fcuk off back under the rock from which you crawled

Outside of the thin demographic sliver that you align yourself with (metropolitan, liberal, iPhone-owning), you're in a minority.

Champagne socialist Labour party members who occupy easy University of Dublin seats and like to dabble in a bit of whatever you're having yourself aren't as appealing as you like to think.

Ickle Magoo

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Sure. If only young boys could be impregnated. Then Utopia will be upon us and the great strive for "equality" behind us.

I have no idea what that means. Girls as young as 8 or 9 can get pregnant, the boys can't. If you are a priest twisted with sexual repression or paedophilic urges that doesn't want to be found out then abusing the trust and power you hold with alter boys entrusted to your care is infinitely easier and less risky that trying to corner a young girl.

Morlar

Nodin wrote: »

Its already in the public domain.

I asked what was the purpose of publishing this persons name, address and phone number.

mfceiling

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Outside of the thin demographic sliver that you align yourself with (metropolitan, liberal, iPhone-owning), you're in a minority.

Labour party members who occupy easy University of Dublin seats and like to dabble in a bit of whatever you're having yourself aren't as appealing as you like to think.

I'm neither liberal, metropolitan nor do i own an iphone but i can tell you one thing.........there will be more than a minority voting for norris.

Copper23

AnonoBoy wrote: »

What do you mean by that?

Thats the part of my post where the spell checker took over and ruined my point.. haha.

JonJoeDali

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Girls as young as 8 or 9 can get pregnant, the boys can't.

Thanks for that.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you are a priest twisted with sexual repression or paedophilic urges that doesn't want to be found out then abusing the trust and power you hold with alter boys entrusted to your care is infinitely easier and less risky that trying to corner a young girl.

Eh, no.

When one day you have kids (one day I'm sure you'll be able to re-engineer mother nature), best not leave them with your brother/uncle/best mate. They have a nasty habit of kiddy-fiddling.

Bye now.

Rabble Rabble

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm neither liberal, metropolitan nor do i own an iphone but i can tell you one thing.........there will be more than a minority voting for norris.

There are right wing iPhone owners. Android is communists, science fact!

anyway this bit ( from Norris) is true

"In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

Quite. Cant agree more. Had my ass felt when I was about 12 by a male teacher, and it had less effect than not being picked for the football team later on that day, being picked last, with the fat guy. I was, at the very least, a mediocre player and should have been picked in the middle.

Also a deaf gay guy propositioned me ( in text of course) on a bus. I wrote that he should **** off, and he did. Hand removed from leg.

Elizabeth Fitzl I am not.

Ickle Magoo

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Eh, no.

When one day you have kids (one day I'm sure you'll be able to re-engineer mother nature), best not leave them with your brother/uncle/best mate. They have a nasty habit of kiddy-fiddling.

Bye now.

It's a common phrase, much like "if one"...basic english tbh - and you would do well not to assume everyone posting is A) young or male. :rolleyes:

philologos

By the by, this article in the Irish Times may be of some interest. It certainly offers quite a reasonable perspective on the future of Irish society as a pluralist one.

JonJoeDali

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, this article in the Irish Times may be of some interest. It certainly offers quite a reasonable perspective on the future of Irish society as a pluralist one.

1) Irish Times is a load of ideological twaddle written by sh*t journos who can't be fired cos they're permanent& pensionable. It's bought by snooty aspirational types. The Irish Times are also up to their eyes in debt and hopefully the pimple will burst any day now.

2) Not everyone subscribes to your wet dreams for a "pluralist Irish society"

Rabble Rabble

mfceiling wrote: »

I'll be voting norris too.
Someone who can speak properly with the correct turn of phrase and proper grammar.
Bertie with your de, de, de, de and dat's dat an all dat..........well you can fcuk off back under the rock from which you crawled

thats the only reason to not vote for Norris. He is too upper middle class - a liberal Irish Cameron.

But thats a minor thing: were I in Ireland I would vote for him.

by the way, nearly all Irish people, including Norris, mispronounce the TH.

( The exception is regional, not class - Northern Irish dont. I include Donegal, et al.)

Cheap Thrills!

Morlar wrote: »

I asked what was the purpose of publishing this persons name, address and phone number.

I answered this a couple of pages back.
See post #155

philologos

JoeJoeDali - It's written by one of the lecturers at the Irish Bible Institute, so it comes from a Christian perspective. It also discusses a bit about the Evangelical Alliance's position on the Civil Partnership Bill.

Misanthrope

I hope he likes Rugby.If he doesn't they better have plenty prawn (or dare I say shrimp) sandwiches.

Although I wonder what our last 2 presidents did at those games.

We should have made Paddy Hillary president for life.

Norris will be a good choice I'd say.Unfortunately for the the tabloid scum they'll never be able to have that dream headline...

"Norris in Aras Gaybo Romp Shocker!!":eek:

thebullkf

JonJoeDali wrote: »

You can vote for or against someone on the basis of them being a cat lover. It's your constitutional right.

So, voting against a homosexual in the Aras is as good a reason as any other. We all have one vote.

so you're against?

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

JoeJoeDali - It's written by one of the lecturers at the Irish Bible Institute, so it comes from a Christian perspective. It also discusses a bit about the Evangelical Alliance's position on the Civil Partnership Bill.

Jackass having wet dreams for a pluralist ireland - well, I never thought I'd see the day! :eek: :pac:

JonJoeDali

Jakkass wrote: »

JoeJoeDali - It's written by one of the lecturers at the Irish Bible Institute, so it comes from a Christian perspective. It also discusses a bit about the Evangelical Alliance's position on the Civil Partnership Bill.

David Norris, being an Anglican, would have lots in common with these minority organisations that you speak of. Fair play to him.

zacseph

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

I answered this a couple of pages back.
See post #155

Darn it!! He's not on facebook!! (I kid... i have no desire to be his friend)

But seriously, I agree - why the heck not have his details visible? If he's going to start all this BS and insane ideas, at least have the self respect to let people know what he believes!! Unless of course, he's wrong... and he knows most of the nation would disagree with his views, and therefore decides to hide away... just sayin... :rolleyes:

Edit: Oh... wait... he is on facebook!! Lol!! http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68693185&postcount=2

Wertz

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The facts are that boys were 7 times more likely to be abused than girls.

Versus the fact that boys were probably 10 times more likely to be taught by priests/brothers than girls were and the levels of abuse by nuns usually only reached the physical/psychological point.

recylingbin

Imagine how much he'll melt the head of foreign dignatries with his stories about Ezra.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Jackass having wet dreams for a pluralist ireland - well, I never thought I'd see the day! :eek: :pac:

I wouldn't quite describe it in those terms (:pac:), but I think the churches do need to take a step back from governance. This is as much in the interest of the churches, as in the interest of the State.

Our churches are simply better independent. We can do much more independently than we could ever do when tied to State bureaucracy. Indeed, a pluralist society works better for churches which wish to share the Gospel to a larger audience. Note 'share' not 'impose'.

The author also makes clear:

Some religious people appear to be fighting to hold onto control of the steering wheel to turn the ship around back into Christendom waters.
....
More extreme voices seem to want to throw religious people off the ship altogether or at least keep them confined to their quarters where they can talk to themselves but not bother anyone else with their views.
The problem with such attitudes is that they are simultaneously inconsistent and patronising.

Neither the approach whereby there is a top down imposition of Christianity or the position where by there is a top down imposition of intolerance to Christian voices are desirable.

Indeed, I'd argue that there is no reason why Christian voices shouldn't be heard on political issues, but the opportunity must be made to those who disagree to be heard also.

philologos

JonJoeDali wrote: »

David Norris, being an Anglican, would have lots in common with these minority organisations that you speak of. Fair play to him.

From reading both the article, and the Evangelical Alliance press release they both lean towards a conservative view of the family, that it is based on marriage, the union between a man and a woman. However, it recognises that people are ultimately going to disagree with Christianity, and the best way to promote Christianity isn't by imposition, but it is by sharing.

I'd agree. Imposition only encourages nominalism, it doesn't encourage a living faith in God. Perhaps I'm off the mark, but I think I'm being fair. Personally, I'd rather more people come to believe rather than having a power trip courtesy of State privileges.

Or perhaps you're saying that because Norris is of a Protestant denomination that he must have a lot in common with these? - Not true by far. Personally, I'm a member of the same denomination as David Norris, but I come to different conclusions about sexuality. This is normal, there are more viewpoints within Anglicanism than there are members :pac:

thebullkf

lynski wrote: »

In answer to the ops question, and my apologies for getting distracted by the rcc apologists, I would not only vote for Norris I would actively campaign for him. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his fitness as a candidate, again apologies if my previous posts gave the impression it was important to me, it is not, but i get very annoyed my people who hate others for superficial things.

Here is the text of the email i sent to Eamon Gilmore urging him to make David Norris their candidate:

Dear Mr. Gilmore,
I am writing to you to urge you to nominate a candidate for the next Presidential election who embodies all the qualities an Irish president should have, in my opinion; integrity, honest, openness, bravery, intelligence, scholarship, erudition, freedom from party politics and a deep love and respect for all the Irish people. The candidate I would support, and volunteer to work for, is Senator David Norris. I hope the Labor party has the foresight to nominate him as your candidate.

norris said the 1916 leaders were terrorists.

he's a good radio guest. not good enough for president.

thebullkf

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm neither liberal, metropolitan nor do i own an iphone but i can tell you one thing.........there will be more than a minority voting for norris.

a majority then:pac:

thebullkf

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There are right wing iPhone owners. Android is communists, science fact!

anyway this bit ( from Norris) is true



Quite. Cant agree more. Had my ass felt when I was about 12 by a male teacher, and it had less effect than not being picked for the football team later on that day, being picked last, with the fat guy. I was, at the very least, a mediocre player and should have been picked in the middle.

Also a deaf gay guy propositioned me ( in text of course) on a bus. I wrote that he should **** off, and he did. Hand removed from leg.

Elizabeth Fitzl I am not.

sweet jeebus....so feeling a young girls box is less serious than raping her?/ (guy/balls)

they're both heinous crimes.

its like reading that someone was "violently" raped.

i don't care if you're tiptoeing wearing gloves while you're doing it-rape is rape.

Norris supported O'Searcaigh saying it (the hoo-haa) was caused by homophobia...

he should and does know better.

O'Searcaigh isn't a young,lonely,isolated male struggling with his sexuality in some ballygobackwards town. he was a national poet,well respected for his work.

alas his legacy is tarnished.- rightly so.

imagine he was president and supported some other Paedophile:rolleyes:.