The Bishops invite to the Pope.Being Catholic in Fine Gael.What's the story.??

CDfm

Sand wrote: »

Eh - wouldnt non-churchgoers at a church gate collection be churchgoers by definition. Doesnt really do much for the credibility of the article if its reliant on it is fiction and wishful thinking.

The Labour Party has church going supporters and does church gate collections.

Sunday, 30 October 2011

Church Gate Collection Thanks


The Westport Branch of the Labour Party would like to thank everyone
who gave so generously at their recent church gate collection in
Westport. In particular Cllr Keith Martin would like to thank the
person who donated a 90-year-old Colombian silver dollar to his
collection bucket. The coin, which is almost a troy ounce of solid
silver, will be sold to a coin dealer and the proceeds will go towards
the running costs of the Westport Branch of the Labour party.
The coin features the image of Simon Bolivar who is regarded in
Hispanic America as a hero, visionary, revolutionary, and liberator.
During his lifetime, he led Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru,
and Venezuela to independence from Spain, and helped lay the
foundations for democratic ideology in much of Hispanic America.
The coin was donated on the evening of Michael D Higgin's election as President.

http://councillorkeithmartin.blogspot.com/2011/10/church-gate-collection-thanks.html

Councillor Keith Martin is probably indicative of local support .

The vast majority of Irish people simply do not care about the Vatican closure though from what Ive seen and heard if people were forced to come up with a view theyd probably view it positively given the malign influence of the church on our country - practically right back to the 12th century when they plotted to grant Ireland lock, stock and barrel to the Kings of England as a papal fief.

Thanks lads!

But these people do

At a recent Fine Gael meeting, more than 30 backbenchers spoke in favour of a motion for the embassy closure to be reviewed. And a survey by the Irish Independent revealed 13 TDs who were still publicly stating their opposition to the closure, as well as several others calling for a review.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/labour-dig-in-on-gilmore-embassy-closure-3016504.html

And some Labour TD's and Senators do and they are the ones that are saying it.

Can you provide a link from the media or a politician to support your points ?

Sand

The Labour Party has church going supporters and does church gate collections.

Look, it says that Labour TDs were getting it in the neck at church gate collections from churchgoers and non-churchgoers alike...

As I noted - people encountered at a church gate collection could not, practically by definition, not be considered non-churchgoers. The article reads like wishful thinking, based on dodgy prejudices.

The Vactican embassy issue is a *huge* issue for a *tiny* number of people. Nobody in the vast majority of the Irish population really cares that the Vatican has a stick up its ass about accepting an envoy based in Rome proper. Jesus Christ suffered crucifixtion - the Vatican can get over this.

Councillor Keith Martin is probably indicative of local support .

Given how discredited politics is in general (ironically due to its pursuit of minority interests at the expense of the majority) I doubt any politician is indicative of much of the local mood.

Can you provide a link from the media or a politician to support your points ?

No, theyre my points. If someone in the media or a politician was already making them then I wouldnt need to make them.

CDfm

OK Sand, if you dont have a source how about this.

What is the church affiliation then, according to the US department of state

The country is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. According to official government statistics collected during the 2002 census, the religious affiliation of the population is 88.4 percent Roman Catholic, 2.9 percent Church of Ireland (Anglican), 0.52 percent Presbyterian, 0.25 percent Methodist, 0.49 percent Muslim, and less than 0.1 percent Jewish. Approximately 4 percent of the population were members of other religions or had no specific religious belief.


http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2004/35461.htm

This is now circa 86 % of the population in the 2010 census so if you say 80% it is 4 out of 5 .

Church attendance in Ireland increases.

November 02, 2009

A new poll conducted by RedC on behalf of The Iona Institute shows that weekly church attendance has increased from 42 percent to 46 percent in the last 18 months while the number who go at least once a month has jumped from 54 percent to 65 percent.

http://ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=110

It is hard to get around the figures but I imagine the discussion we are having is happening within the parties.

I am only trying to look at it as the politicians might.

Nodin

I'd suggest you contemplate the word "nominally" in regard to the 88% catholic figures.

As regards Polls on mass going, I'm sure its still high in rural areas, but using anything from the iona institute on the subject is akin to using klan reports on race relations.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest you contemplate the word "nominally" in regard to the 88% catholic figures.

As regards Polls on mass going, I'm sure its still high in rural areas, but using anything from the iona institute on the subject is akin to using klan reports on race relations.

I posted the church attendance estimates.

I couldn't think of anywhere else to get an adjustment from.

CDfm

We have seen everyone talk but not the Civil Service or have we ????.

The next best thing is a former Civil Servant who interviewed with RTE & the Examiner.

Former diplomat says Ireland shouldn’t have closed Vatican embassy

23 hours ago 2,114 Views 63 Comments
Share2 Tweet17
Sean Donlon, the former Irish ambassador to the US, says shutting the embassy in the Holy See is a bad idea.

Image: Photocall Ireland

A FORMER AMBASSADOR and one of Ireland’s most prominent former civil servants has criticised the government’s decision to close Ireland’s embassy to the Holy See.
Seán Donlon, a former secretary-general at the Department of Foreign Affairs who has also served as Ireland’s ambassador to the United States, said the closure meant Ireland would miss opportunities to have input in Church policies.


http://www.thejournal.ie/former-diplomat-says-ireland-shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-closed-vatican-embassy-354087-Feb2012/

And the Examiner

Rather than swallow the line about cost savings, Mr Donlon instead recognises the "consistency of approach" behind both the speech and the embassy closure. He sees a direct line from one to the other.

Nonetheless, he thinks the closure a step too far, believing that when relations between two states are at a low ebb, communications should increase.

He points to what happened after Bloody Sunday on Jan 30, 1972. The following day, Jack Lynch and his cabinet recalled Ireland’s ambassador to London, Dr Donal O’Sullivan. The London embassy remained open, and avenues of communication were maintained. Dr O’Sullivan was sent back to London on Mar 24, the point made.

"In times of difficulty in relations between two countries, that’s when you need an embassy," Mr Donlon says. "We had 20 or 25 very difficult years in dealing with the British but we didn’t ever close our embassy.

"For two months after Bloody Sunday, we withdrew our ambassador from London for consultations, but we kept full embassy staff, building, and normal activity. And we sent the ambassador back after two months."

Embassies do not just provide consular assistance to citizens. Presence on the ground in key states is crucial when it comes to successfully representing Ireland’s political, economic and cultural interests, he says. "If you’re on the spot, essentially what you can do as compared to when you’re not on the spot is, you can monitor and assess in detail what’s happening on all these fronts, and if necessary, you can influence policy before it’s formed."

http://www.examiner.ie/news/closure-a-step-too-far-183591.html

Mr Gilmores reply

Asked about Mr Donlon’s comments, Mr Gilmore replied: "People are entitled to express their opinion on it. It’s a democratic, free country and long may that continue — I’ve no problem at all with people expressing their point of view on it."

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/politics/gilmore-denies-secular-crusade-in-rome-183745.html#ixzz1mM0HCTCq

What interests me here is that this comes very close to saying that he rejected the Departments advice.

CDfm

Pope would be treated with respect on visit, Taoiseach tells Dail


National News Home




Wednesday February 15 2012

THE Pope will be treated with respect if he comes to Ireland, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said as he insisted the closure of the Vatican embassy was not about religion.
Under pressure from Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin to reverse the decision, Mr Kenny said Pope Benedict would be welcomed in a manner befitting his position.
"If the Government receives an indication of the intention of the Pope, who has been invited by the bishops, to travel to Dublin to the Congress, the Government will receive the Pope with proper decorum and respect of both his position and his status," he said.
Pope Benedict has been asked to attend the 50th Eucharistic Congress in June.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pope-would-be-treated-with-respect-on-visit-taoiseach-tells-dail-3021461.html

The reason that the Holy See and Italy do not share envoys is probably because Italy Annexed the Papal States c 1870 and a concordant was reached c 1929 called the Lateran Treaty recognising the Holy See and guaranteeing its sovereignty and indepenance from the Italian State.

Included is the perpetual neutrality pact.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/treaty.htm

I would not normally use Wiki as a source but it should not matter here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

The proposal of shared ambassadors/embassies is a can of worms.

Is there a history teacher in the cabinet ???

Godge

CDfm wrote: »

We have seen everyone talk but not the Civil Service or have we ????.

The next best thing is a former Civil Servant who interviewed with RTE & the Examiner.


And the Examiner

Mr Gilmores reply


What interests me here is that this comes very close to saying that he rejected the Departments advice.

I am a former civil servant too.

The post of Ambassador to the Holy See was always regarded as the best retirement home for diplomats. A great climate, a great city, no real work, plenty of lunches and parties, a great residence with a pool overlooking the city. All the real work was done by the Embassy to Italy (looking after Irish citizens, lobbying the Italian government, promoting Ireland and Irish business in Italy etc.).

The Department of Foreign Affairs always put the Embassy to the Holy See at the top of the list for cuts when Finance demanded them because they knew that an FF government would not cut it and that would make it hard to justify going further down the list - surprised that it wasn't at the top of the list again this time.

Godge

CDfm wrote: »

Church attendance in Ireland increases.


It is hard to get around the figures but I imagine the discussion we are having is happening within the parties.

I am only trying to look at it as the politicians might.

Church attendance in Ireland increases?

Irish Catholic does not appear to think so.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/where-now-weekly-mass-attendance-michael-kelly

"Decline in Church attendance in Ireland happened long before revelations about abuse and the subsequent cover up. Polls show that in 1981 a staggering 88 per cent of Irish people attended Mass at least once-a-month with 82pc attending weekly. By 2006 that figure had slipped to just 48pc for weekly Mass attendance while that figure climbs to 67pc when those who attend at least once-a-month are factored in. Subsequent polls have been fairly consistent putting weekly Mass attendance somewhere between 45pc and 48pc. "

CDfm

Godge wrote: »

I am a former civil servant too.

The Department of Foreign Affairs always put the Embassy to the Holy See at the top of the list for cuts when Finance demanded them because they knew that an FF government would not cut it and that would make it hard to justify going further down the list - surprised that it wasn't at the top of the list again this time.

LOL

I thought Sean Donlon articulated it well.

Thanks for the insider view, is it likely that the Minister acted contrary to department advice ?

Godge wrote: »

Church attendance in Ireland increases?

Irish Catholic does not appear to think so.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/where-now-weekly-mass-attendance-michael-kelly

"Decline in Church attendance in Ireland happened long before revelations about abuse and the subsequent cover up. Polls show that in 1981 a staggering 88 per cent of Irish people attended Mass at least once-a-month with 82pc attending weekly. By 2006 that figure had slipped to just 48pc for weekly Mass attendance while that figure climbs to 67pc when those who attend at least once-a-month are factored in. Subsequent polls have been fairly consistent putting weekly Mass attendance somewhere between 45pc and 48pc. "

I thought it was circa 44%.

There is a meeting of the Labour Party tomorrow night.

Are there any other deadlines around this story or parts that I might be missing.

I was surprised at the Labour internal divisions and it was from local papers I spotted it first.

raymon

Looks like this thread has become the Embassy Closure thread.

I think this is a storm in a teacup myself.

I heard Michael Martin whinging about the embassy closure today on newstalk. He should have closed this embassy years ago.

Let's keep this embassy closed. I can't afford any more taxes to subsidise this unnecessary extravagance.

Our country is bankrupt.

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

Looks like this thread has become the Embassy Closure thread.

That was not the intention and if I had wanted to discuss the embassy issue ,which I really don't , I would have started a thread on it.

I wanted to discuss FG & Catholic church members/supporters and take it from there. Grassroots to government.

As it happens, for me it threw up the Labour Party and its issue's and the central control of both parties and how the TD's might or might not be responsive to constituency "pressure" /representation.

So under the whip system it seems that neither party budged and the leaders asserted their sole authority autocratically.

Is Eamon Gilmore anti-catholic ?

Dunno.

Will it be a voter issue in the future ?

Who knows.

Though it seems to me that the debate has thrown up more issues about the Labour Party than FG. I wasn't expecting that.

Am I wrong to expect open debate ?

BluntGuy

CDfm wrote: »

Is Eamon Gilmore anti-catholic ?

"Anti-Catholic" seems to be defined differently depending on who you talk to. What would you suggest the definition of this term is, would you suggest Eamon Gilmore fits this description, and hence do you think the claims of people suggesting that this is part of a "secular agenda" are valid?

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

That was not the intention and if I had wanted to discuss the embassy issue ,which I really don't , I would have started a thread on it.

I wanted to discuss FG & Catholic church members/supporters and take it from there. Grassroots to government.

As it happens, for me it threw up the Labour Party and its issue's and the central control of both parties and how the TD's might or might not be responsive to constituency "pressure" /representation.

So under the whip system it seems that neither party budged and the leaders asserted their sole authority autocratically.

Is Eamon Gilmore anti-catholic ?

Dunno.

Will it be a voter issue in the future ?

Who knows.

Though it seems to me that the debate has thrown up more issues about the Labour Party than FG. I wasn't expecting that.

Am I wrong to expect open debate ?

Is it relevant that Gilmore or Kenny is anti Catholic , or pro Hare Krishna ?
Is it relevant that the Pope is pro Fine Gael or prefers Sinn Fein ?

Im just not seeing where this thread is going.

irishh_bob

BluntGuy wrote: »

"Anti-Catholic" seems to be defined differently depending on who you talk to. What would you suggest the definition of this term is, would you suggest Eamon Gilmore fits this description, and hence do you think the claims of people suggesting that this is part of a "secular agenda" are valid?

it certainly does seem to be defined very differently depending on who your talking to

i think its reasonable to hang the anti catholic label on the likes of ian paisley , thier is fifty years of evidence to back up such a claim

i think its at best hysterical and at worst a pretty nasty slur to hang the anti catholic label on eamon gilmore

to the small noisy minority who are fronting this worthless campaign to have the embassy reoppened , anti catholic seems to be a cap that fits for anyone who dares to make any changes to the traditional possition of this states relationship with the popes place , if the goverment caves in on this one , id see it as almost up there with the kind of idiots who tried to placate the muslims who were going nuts over that cartoon buinsess a few years ago , not in the same league but the principal is similar , its about wanting protected priveledge at all costs

CDfm

BluntGuy wrote: »

"Anti-Catholic" seems to be defined differently depending on who you talk to.

Well he has not been anti-catholic enough to stop church gate collections

What would you suggest the definition of this term is, would you suggest Eamon Gilmore fits this description, and hence do you think the claims of people suggesting that this is part of a "secular agenda" are valid?

I really don't know, sometimes people make assumptions on the politics forum that do not have a basis in fact. That's why I try to use the links rather than what I thought myself & what harm could it do on the embassy issue.

If it was education and my kids are out of school & it does not affect me I would want to know if it was a centralised state system, a community based model or an Educate Together type model ?

LGBT rights is another issue where the Labour Party are recruiting and which I support and where more open discussion is needed.

Gender rights especially fathers rights is an area that no party think is a vote getter.

So we do not know what a secular agenda is and we do not know if it is just the latest buzzword. The Labour Party don't seem to know either and as a voter I would like the facts and not hyperbole.

raymon wrote: »

Is it relevant that Gilmore or Kenny is anti Catholic , or pro Hare Krishna ?
Is it relevant that the Pope is pro Fine Gael or prefers Sinn Fein ?

Not anti catholic enough to stop church gate collections



The thread is not about my opinions but other peoples as they appear in the media.

On the embassy, Enda Kenny has used his clout pre the Labour Party oireachtas members meeting tonight to take the issue off the table.

Thursday, February 16, 2012



Taoiseach rejects calls to reverse Vatican embassy closure

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - 11:10 AM

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has rejected fresh calls for a u-turn on the decision to close the Irish Embassy in the Vatican.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-rejects-calls-to-reverse-vatican-embassy-closure-539899.htm

Im just not seeing where this thread is going.

I have not been doing the usual debating my own point of view but seeing if it is possible to discuss things using the points of view of the "stakeholders".

Is it relevant that Gilmore or Kenny is anti Catholic ,or pro Hare Krishna ?

The Hare Krishna's don't have any electoral sway.

Is it relevant that the Pope is pro Fine Gael or prefers Sinn Fein ?

Labour Party TD's thinks it matters that their party might be percieved as anti-catholic.

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

.


The Hare Krishna's don't have any electoral sway.

Are you sure that somebody who put a tick beside the catholic box in the census , or who turns up at mass occasionally would vote along religious lines.


Do you have any media references for this in a Republic of Ireland context.

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

Are you sure that somebody who put a tick beside the catholic box in the census , or who turns up at mass occasionally would vote along religious lines.


Do you have any media references for this in a Republic of Ireland context.

I don't know.

I don't post much on the politics forum and the last time I did was with you.

Irish people are very tolerant, socially liberal even when personally conservative. Even my retired parents would vote for gay marriage and still go to see the Pope if he came to Ireland.


Politicians and political parties don't put the matters to the people.There is a lot of niche interest group politics going on that should be disclosed & discussed but isn't and smoke and mirrors over marginal seats and local politics.

This is real parish pump stuff .

An example from the North, I saw it reported in an obituary of Gusty Spence that Ian Paisley spread a rumour for political purposes that Sir James Kilfedder had close links with Fine Gael causing him to lose the West Belfast seat in 1966.

Billy Spence, brother of Gusty was Kilfedders election agent .Gerry Fitt , catholic & Labour and subsequently of the SDLP won the seat. The Shankill Loyalists sent a letter to Rev Paisley.

Dr Galen

I'm not seeing much discussion here tbh. I had hoped that the news articles would provoke some sort of discussion. We'd need to be seeing some proper discussion and debate of the issues at hand, or else this thread will end up being closed

Cheers

DrG

CDfm

Me too Dr G, I haven't even seen any praying for debt forgivess jokes.

Maybe the concept of having a "policy" & references thing could work on some topics.

marty1985

What impact will this debacle have on further issues such as the drafting of a new constitution? It seems the label of anti-catholic or anti-church could stick and complicate further things down the road. It's a shame secularism is not properly understood (by religious and non-religious alike) because it could also become a dirty word.

I'm not bothered about the embassy, but surprised and interested by what has been going on. I don't think Gilmore comes out of this looking well.

marienbad

marty1985 wrote: »

What impact will this debacle have on further issues such as the drafting of a new constitution? It seems the label of anti-catholic or anti-church could stick and complicate further things down the road. It's a shame secularism is not properly understood (by religious and non-religious alike) because it could also become a dirty word.

I'm not bothered about the embassy, but surprised and interested by what has been going on. I don't think Gilmore comes out of this looking well.

I don't think secularism is misunderstood at all, but it suits some groups to lump secular/anti-catholic/liberal/atheist/ the left etc all into the one bunch and make it easier to discredit any arguments when the real issues come up for decision.

This has been the way in the past, no reason to change now. Dis-information and not information is the name of the game.

marty1985

Really? You don't think secularisation is misunderstood at all?

Personally, I'm in favour of secularisation while I also believe that the secularisation "theory" is demonstrably false, and that's why secularisation has been defined in several ways - usually in attempt to escape inconvenient facts that show the theory to be flawed. But the secularisation theory is not being discussed here, so I needn't get into that.

I agree that the lines seem to be blurred between the groups you mentioned, but that's understandable. For example, a group campaigning for a more secular society go by the name Atheist Ireland. The two are not interchangeable, obviously.

I think I have seen some anti-Catholicism though, we all have. I think the attitude has become so ingrained as to be invisible. Anti-Catholicism is just different from other prejudices because it is targeted at an institution, and it's legitimate to target an institution right? Except, it's disingenuous to pretend that the institution is not fundamental to the Catholic Church. If the pope is a living symbol of the faith of Catholics and not just the head of an institution, and if we are to label him evil and wicked, what then are we to make of the people who follow him as a spiritual leader? Anti-church sentiment leads directly to contempt for practicing Catholics, those "flesh eaters".

But of course, a lot of criticism leveled at them is fair. But an awareness of anti-Catholicism is important, as well as a need to recognise that the charge of anti-Catholicism is as open to misuse as any other accusation of bigotry.

CDfm

marty1985 wrote: »

Personally, I'm in favour of secularisation while I also believe that the secularisation "theory" is demonstrably false, and that's why secularisation has been defined in several ways - usually in attempt to escape inconvenient facts that show the theory to be flawed. But the secularisation theory is not being discussed here, so I needn't get into that.

I don't understand what is meant by secularisation in the Irish context. I really don't.

I don't think Cardinal Brady would have a hope of describing the Coalition in the stark terms the Archbish of Canterbury used in the UK

Crucially, nobody voted for the Coalition Agreement. As the Archbishop of Canterbury recently said, “With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted …” No doubt a good part of this has been the wasted, failed and expensive consultations that are being dragged out, as part of the Coalition policy of in-fighting. We have ended up with all these pseudo-consultations and Government-rigged reviews (see the membership of the recent UK Bill of Rights Commission) bec au se of unstable Coalition arrangements, relating to in-fighting between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. The ‘national interest’ and democracy have been discarded for now.

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/06/24/coalition-government-experts-in-pseudo-consultation-and-historic-u-turns/

So two political leaders did a deal and no-one voted in the policies and because of the govt whip system they literally rule unchecked by parliament.

I don't care about the embassy but the decision has been a lesson in how undemocratic our democracy has just been.

marienbad

CDfm wrote: »

I don't understand what is meant by secularisation in the Irish context. I really don't.

I don't think Cardinal Brady would have a hope of describing the Coalition in the stark terms the Archbish of Canterbury used in the UK



So two political leaders did a deal and no-one voted in the policies and because of the govt whip system they literally rule unchecked by parliament.

I don't care about the embassy but the decision has been a lesson in how undemocratic our democracy has just been.

A secular society in an Irish context ?? I don't know what that is . Surely it is the same everywhere - neutral in matters of religion and belief. Ideally a complete separation of church and state.

I can't understand how you regard the formation of the government and the decisions made by it as undemocratic or any more undemocratic than any of the previous coalitions. The electorate knew it was getting a coalition - the only decision was which one. As for the argument that no one voted in the policies - when did we ever ? It is not possible or even reasonable to put everything in a manifesto . We elect them to govern and that is what they are doing - for good or ill - depending on your point of view.

On the issue of more and more power being concentrated at cabinet level - I agree - but I suppose that discussion is for another day.

CDfm

marienbad wrote: »

A secular society in an Irish context ?? I don't know what that is . Surely it is the same everywhere - neutral in matters of religion and belief. Ideally a complete separation of church and state.

What are the real policies.

For example, schools , is the plan to take over all the schools.

I have a cousin who is principal of a small country school "owned" by the diocese but not really as it was "owned" by the community. The rules made it so it had to be done that way.

The school would not have existed except for a few families largesse.

Its something I feel quite strongly about .

So wrapping up a policy and calling it secularization when it is in fact statism and not discussing it is a con.

How do we know what is is if it is not discussed ?

I can't understand how you regard the formation of the government and the decisions made by it as undemocratic or any more undemocratic than any of the previous coalitions. The electorate knew it was getting a coalition - the only decision was which one. As for the argument that no one voted in the policies - when did we ever ? It is not possible or even reasonable to put everything in a manifesto . We elect them to govern and that is what they are doing - for good or ill - depending on your point of view.

The electorate did not know what is was getting into and never elected a coallition and its a fallacy that they did.

I didn't vote for a coalition and did not vote for my TD's to be dominated by party whips.

Because of the whip system it is unaccountable to the Dail and we have just seen this in action.

On the issue of more and more power being concentrated at cabinet level - I agree - but I suppose that discussion is for another day.

OK, the chain is electorate votes in TD to go to parliament on its behalf to look after its constituency interests. Dail debates policy. Votes.That's the theory.

What's happening is , party leader decides policy tells TD how to Vote. Coallition 110 seats.

Whatever it is, it is not democracy, the system is supposed to work a little differently to elect a leader and do what you are told.

So this whats wrong with debating the subject of how the government has just avoided parliamentary accountability.

Two guys have just by-passed all the checks and balances of parliament-the concept that is democracy .

So how did we get to this in less than 1 year ?

marienbad

CDfm wrote: »

What are the real policies.

For example, schools , is the plan to take over all the schools.

I have a cousin who is principal of a small country school "owned" by the diocese but not really as it was "owned" by the community. The rules made it so it had to be done that way.

The school would not have existed except for a few families largesse.

Its something I feel quite strongly about .

So wrapping up a policy and calling it secularization when it is in fact statism and not discussing it is a con.

How do we know what is is if it is not discussed ?



The electorate did not know what is was getting into and never elected a coallition and its a fallacy that they did.

I didn't vote for a coalition and did not vote for my TD's to be dominated by party whips.

Because of the whip system it is unaccountable to the Dail and we have just seen this in action.



OK, the chain is electorate votes in TD to go to parliament on its behalf to look after its constituency interests. Dail debates policy. Votes.That's the theory.

What's happening is , party leader decides policy tells TD how to Vote. Coallition 110 seats.

Whatever it is, it is not democracy, the system is supposed to work a little differently to elect a leader and do what you are told.

So this whats wrong with debating the subject of how the government has just avoided parliamentary accountability.

Two guys have just by-passed all the checks and balances of parliament-the concept that is democracy .

So how did we get to this in less than 1 year ?

How do you get from a proposal on schools to ''statism'' ?

As to the issue of democracy , I for one am glad we don't live in a pure democracy, which is little more than mob rule . We live in a republic , and we did'nt get to where we are in one year. The previous governments were much more responsible for turning the Dail into a rubber stamp. This lot just inherited that ethos. They have said we need reform , lets see if they live up to that.

Godge

CDfm wrote: »

The thread is not about my opinions but other peoples as they appear in the media.


I have not been doing the usual debating my own point of view but seeing if it is possible to discuss things using the points of view of the "stakeholders".


.

What is the point of the thread then if we are only going to have a debate by proxy using media links?

CDfm

marienbad wrote: »

How do you get from a proposal on schools to ''statism'' ?

If we saw the policy we could discuss it but the noise level from politicians obscures the news level.

We do not know what the policy is as it is not being discussed.

As to the issue of democracy , I for one am glad we don't live in a pure democracy, which is little more than mob rule . We live in a republic , and we did'nt get to where we are in one year. The previous governments were much more responsible for turning the Dail into a rubber stamp. This lot just inherited that ethos. They have said we need reform , lets see if they live up to that.

John Bruton said something similar though I am surprised at your democracy comments.

Civil servants run this country, says Bruton

By Brian Hutton

Friday January 07 2011

FORMER Taoiseach John Bruton has claimed that Ireland is run by civil servants who use TDs and senators to administer their rule.

How do you think the country is run ?

Godge wrote: »

What is the point of the thread then if we are only going to have a debate by proxy using media links?

I started this thread as I was trying to get a handle on what FG supporters think their party is.

So I tried to kick in media material to verify the Labour is this or FG is that.

I haven't seen any FG or Labour supporters come out and say this is my parties policy, so I was trying to synthesize it . Thought it would get them participating.

It shouldn't be too much a jump to discuss Eamon Gilmore is anti-catholic as some of his party colleagues seem to think that.

marienbad

CDfm wrote: »

If we saw the policy we could discuss it but the noise level from politicians obscures the news level.

We do not know what the policy is as it is not being discussed.



John Bruton said something similar though I am surprised at your democracy comments.



How do you think the country is run ?



I started this thread as I was trying to get a handle on what FG supporters think their party is.

So I tried to kick in media material to verify the Labour is this or FG is that.

I haven't seen any FG or Labour supporters come out and say this is my parties policy, so I was trying to synthesize it . Thought it would get them participating.

It shouldn't be too much a jump to discuss Eamon Gilmore is anti-catholic as some of his party colleagues seem to think that.

Quinn said he would like to see up to 50% of schools removed from the current sytem of patronage. Even the Catholic Church agree that some number should be given up and the public demand seems to be there. What more information do you need ? I believe after consultation we will have more information . What is controversial about that ? There is enough information from the Minister and more to come so I think the noise level you refer to is coming from other quarters. A bit like the Vatican embassy issue really.

In what way are you surprised at my democracy comments ?


As for how I think the country is run - too many vested interests and lobby groups have had too much influence since the foundation of the state, Unions/farming organisations/ Catholic Church /professions et al have all virtually run the country or held it to ransome at one time or other, sometimes individually , usually in tandem and the detriment of the individual and with little or no accountability.

Though it pains me to say it, virtually every improvement has come from Europe

And by the way it is a very big jump to say Gilmore is anti-catholic. He may believe the church has too much influence or whatever , that does not make him anto-catholic as such. This is just the usual brush used to tar anyone that tries to disturb the status quo. Anti-nurse/ anti union/ anti this that and the other - lazy argumentation