Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

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:.

DamagedTrax

norris is a pompous closed minded bigot.

and before anyone attacks me, i lived directly across the road from the guy and had to deal with his BS for a long time so i know exactly what im talking about.

for someone who has probably lived with a lot of prejudice thru the years he shows a complete lack of any understanding of anything that does not fall in line with his own views.

just look at his arguements on club closing times (im sorry dude but i lived on the same road as you and the noise never affected my beauty sleep!).. and funnily enough he wasnt too bothered about noise on the occasions that the music was playing loud in his place till all hours...

or his ideas on closing his street off to the public.. seriously? a big set of gates at the bottom of his lordship's street? get real.. im sorry if the rest of us pleps offend you norris but im not exactly enamoured with my current area.. doesnt mean i go crying to get a gate built! and yes you can bleat on and on about the history of the street et all.. but we all know your real reasons.

gahhhh... rant over, that feels better

oppenheimer1

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.

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:

Thats fair comment.

I'd disagree with his outlook being distinctly 21st century considering he was a man that wanted to create his own little private gated fiefdom out of north great georges st.

Ickle Magoo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Thats fair comment.

I'd disagree with his outlook being distinctly 21st century considering he was a man that wanted to create his own little private gated fiefdom out of north great georges st.

His outlook on public issues was what I was referring to.

JonJoeDali

Jakkass wrote: »

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:

Smells like relativism to me.

JonJoeDali

Wertz wrote: »

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.

Are they facts or assertions you're spewing there? Perhaps you'd like to engage some researchers and statisticians to separate the correlation from the causation for you.

philologos

JoeJoeDali - Not at all. I personally believe there is an absolute morality, what I don't believe in is that human government can adequately serve God, it never has and it never will, in fact more often than not it doesn't serve God. Even when Moses received divine decrees from God, Israel wasn't able to rule itself, it could only inadequately implement these decrees.

When Jesus served people, He told them that He was a ruler of a different kingdom, not one that is on this earth, but a kingdom that is within. Our earthly rulers, and our earthly governments will never be able to serve God in their fullness. God is too good to be put into our limited governance. Rather I am happy to let God govern my life out of my free will, and out of others free will. This is how God is best served, not from the parliaments, but from people acting in society on a daily basis.

As I see it, the past history of collusion between the RCC and the Government has shown us that churches are better run independently from the State.

I can happily regard people as acting wrongly or inappropriately, while still recognizing their liberty of choice to a degree.

So if I regard people as living a lifestyle away from God, how best can I convince them that God's way is best?
1) Impose it legally against their will.
2) Argue and encourage them to consider Christianity for themselves according to their will.

The second as I see it is clearly better. People who love God freely, are going to serve Him better than people who were forced into it unwillingly.

Wertz

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Are they facts or assertions you're spewing there? Perhaps you'd like to engage some researchers and statisticians to separate the correlation from the causation for you.

Nah just plain old fashioned logic and a dose of conjecture. That okay with you father?

bluecatmorgana

I'd vote for him but I dont agree with him calling people who fought in the Easter Rising "terrorists".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7043719.ece

ItsAWindUp

They're just angry hate filled ignorant people, who's own lives are so monotonous and crap, that they insist on focusing their anger on what they see is a weak target. I'd even vote for him if only to piss these bigots off.

JonJoeDali

Wertz wrote: »

Nah just plain old fashioned logic and a dose of conjecture. That okay with you father?

Of course religion is totally irrational...