Secularism on RTE's "the Frontline" tomorrow

We're still waiting for you to explain the free and critical thinking and informed decision that could be behind opposing gay marriage. "everyone else thinks so too" isn't part of it

Mark Hamill

Zamboni wrote: »

Is it a fact that people against gay marriage are indecent human beings?

Is there a reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't amount to being a homophobic bigot?

oldrnwisr

Zamboni wrote: »

If there was a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow, I doubt it would pass.

Really?

Poll: 73% of public back allowing same-sex marriage in Constitution

Red C Report (referenced in article above)

Zamboni wrote: »

It appears we are all for free and critical thinking and informed decisions (as long as you think the same way we do).

Strange then that I haven't seen any free-thinking argument against gay marriage.

joseph brand

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there a reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't amount to being a homophobic bigot?

It's a good way of hiding the fact that the person is 'in the closet'. :pac:

Knasher

Zamboni wrote: »

There is no "Please Explain" on a vote form.
If there was a referendum on gay marriage tomorrow, I doubt it would pass.
Would that mean that the majority of Irish people are indecent humans?

It appears we are all for free and critical thinking and informed decisions (as long as you think the same way we do).

Not at all, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but I don't think it is unfair that if you choose to share them that you are also expected to share the reasoning behind them. Otherwise all that can be said is what is being said, that we disagree with you and we would like to know why.

I am absolutely in favor of informed decisions, and the only way I have of reaching them is through an examination of the pertinent facts, if somebody with the same goal has reached a different decision, then the assumption must be that they have either different facts or used the same facts to reach a different conclusion. If it happens that I am then one who is uninformed or misguided then the quickest way for me to ascertain that is to ask how you reached your conclusion. And to reciprocate through debate. Why is that an unreasonable thing to ask for?

If the gay marriage referendum comes and the people refuse to debate or discuss the reasoning behind how they are going to vote, regardless of what side of the debate they are on, then frankly yes they are being unreasonable and indecent.

Zamboni

bluewolf wrote: »

We're still waiting for you to explain the free and critical thinking and informed decision that could be behind opposing gay marriage. "everyone else thinks so too" isn't part of it

Hey Bluewolf,

So I might try and get out of this nice hole I've dug for myself due mostly to the fact that I am crap at articulation.

I was trying to make a point earlier that it appears atheists (well, posters here anyway) have a similar stance on various topics ranging from IVF to gay marriage. The only reason I brought up the gay thing was it appeared earlier in this thread.

Then I got dragged off because MM said this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77567572&postcount=79

Now I (secretly) love MM but I do think it is wrong to imply that people are indecent human beings for merely holding an opinion.
If thought crime was feasible, I'd suggest we'd be all fvcked.

And as you correctly pointed out, there is a difference between having an idea and using it against someone.

I suppose, overall in, I was just touching in the idea that a lot of atheists seem to have similar opinions on a host of topics and I wonder if this is due to a genuine critical evaluation of issues or if its just picking up a pitchfork and joining the crowd?

eoin5

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there a reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't amount to being a homophobic bigot?

You could be against marriage in general I guess, not sure after that.

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

I was trying to make a point earlier that it appears atheists (well, posters here anyway) have a similar stance on various topics ranging from IVF to gay marriage. The only reason I brought up the gay thing was it appeared earlier in this thread.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that the opponents of such stances are usually so because of their religious position. Take last night's Frontline, for example. Any opponent of gay marriage spoken to used their religion to justify their stance.

I do see where you're coming from asking the question, but people will be very hard pushed to find a non-religious reason other than "it makes me uncomfortable", or "it's always been a man and women". None of which really constitute a reason to deny the right - I mean it's not compulsory gay marriage, right?

Knasher

Zamboni wrote: »

I suppose, overall in, I was just touching in the idea that a lot of atheists seem to have similar opinions on a host of topics and I wonder if this is due to a genuine critical evaluation of issues or if its just picking up a pitchfork and joining the crowd?

Thats a fair enough observation. Atheists tend to occupy the same end of the political spectrum. So there is a certain uniformity of opinion in comparison to society in general. I suspect that it is a little artificial, largely owing to our position in society, and that as we move to a more diverse society the atheist community will diversify on opinion more.

That's not to say we are completely uniform though, free will and how to best marinate a baby are always contentious topics.

seamus

I think it's probably more to do with that nasty word libertarianism. With an atheist viewpoint comes the realisation that in the absence of a higher power and a universal set of moral laws, everyone should be allowed do whatever the hell they like so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

There are plenty of topics where atheists strongly diverge because they're not traditionally rooted in religious morals or otherwise fall into moral grey areas; Abortion and animal rights are two examples.

MagicMarker

To clarify, I don't think someone who is against gay marriage cannot be a decent person. I just think they're lacking somewhat in the area of decency.

I'm sure even Hitler was a good laugh after a couple of pints.

darjeeling

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

David Quinn's slimey nature was highlighted for me when he brought up China, highlighting it as being "Secularist and Communist"... I'm sure he was making the association to plant that seed in peoples minds that secularism leads to communism, human rights atrocities and whatever else people would care to infer.

He also described the UK as more secular than Ireland. I think he's mixing up secular with atheist, and I think that misunderstanding is not uncommon on the religious side in this debate.

The UK is less religious than Ireland, but also constitutionally less secular. It has bishops sitting in the House of Lords by virtue of their office, and the head of state as Supreme Governor of an established church.

China may or may not be less religious than Ireland, but, given its history of religious persecution, it cannot be described as secular in any Western democratic sense.

To pick a more appropriate reference, America is probably more religious than Ireland yet much more secular, as Congress is prohibited from making any law to establish a religion or prevent free religious expression.

If religious people are being persuaded that secularism is synonymous with atheism, they are going to oppose it. If instead they can be shown that secularism can actually guarantee the freedoms of religion, they may be more supportive.

As an aside, it may not be the most helpful thing that 'Atheist Ireland' is campaigning for secularism, as I'm sure most or all of its members would be opposed to living in an atheist state. Maybe 'Atheism Ireland' would be a better name?

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm sure even Hitler was a good laugh after a couple of pints.

Unlikely, since Adolf was a teetotaller.

That said, there was an interesting talk some years ago on BBC R4 given by Michael Charlton recounting the time he interviewed Albert Speer, Hitler's architect at some point during the 1960's. Said that Speer maintained that Hitler spent a lot of time being urbane and pleasant, and not behaving like the ranting, raving, strutting nutter that the History Channel tends to portray him as.

Cool! Just seen that Charlton's series is available for download here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/archive/1028064.stm

Recommended(*)

(*) shocked to see it's 12 years ago...

robindch

Zamboni wrote: »

[...] I wonder if this is due to a genuine critical evaluation of issues or if its just picking up a pitchfork and joining the crowd?

Making the reasonable assumption there's a consistent, discoverable reality out there and that this can be understood by prioritizing honesty and facts above anything else, it's reasonable to conclude that this if lots of people adopt this approach, they should converge to the same general set of beliefs concerning the world.

Also, not having a supremacist ideology to defend, atheists tend not to reach to their pitchforks to resolve conflicts.

Galvasean

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I dont fathom gay men who remain catholic. i really dont.

A friend of mine is gay and Catholic. I don't understand his position at all. He doesn't go to mass and is sexually active too, but tows the, "I'm still Catholic!!" line.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How about "this is the 21st century - time to jettison all that old hat hocus pocus".

Forgetting of course that in a century or two, your view will be old hat too.

Anti is back!!!!

*hugs*

Dades wrote: »

I mean it's not compulsory gay marriage, right?

RIGHT?!?!?!? :eek:

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

That said, there was an interesting talk some years ago on BBC R4 given by Michael Charlton recounting the time he interviewed Albert Speer, Hitler's architect at some point during the 1960's.

on the subject of speer - gitta sereny's biography of him is one of the best biographies i've ever read. highly recommended.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the subject of speer - gitta sereny's biography of him is one of the best biographies i've ever read. highly recommended.

Her Into That Darkness is excellent, if harrowing, reading too. Have added her Speer book to my Amazon wishlist -- ta.

Just relistened to the Charlton above. Great stuff.

CerebralCortex

Ghost Buster wrote: »

That was the one moment where my cuppa came close to being launched telly-wards. He insists that he is catholic but that the bible can be dismissed as it was written by men. So where does he get his catholicism from. Does he have a direct line to God?
I dont fathom gay men who remain catholic. i really dont.

Like this twat for example.

sephir0th

Just watching this now. Once again, people don't understand what secularism means.

Tigger

gay people are people and should have all the rights i ewnjoy as a non-gayperson

anyone who disagrees is unevolved, my opinion.
some can be excused as they don't believe in evolution but i'm surprised that an athiest dosen't get that there are black people white pepple and all in between , gay people straight people and all in between

condra

The Catholic and Muslim parents don’t want their kids mixing, yet join hands to denounce gay marriage.

What a messed up world we live in. Everyone so intolerant, suspicious, biased, and set in their ways.

Nobody wants to compromise, except the secularists, who realise how much better life could be if everyone was just a bit more TOLERANT.

Damn.
It’s not just religion. People are racist, backwards, control freaks.

We’re doomed.

recedite

darjeeling wrote: »

The UK is less religious than Ireland, but also constitutionally less secular. It has bishops sitting in the House of Lords by virtue of their office, and the head of state as Supreme Governor of an established church.

The UK is more secular in practice though. Even though it maintains these vestiges of a State Religion, they are largely ceremonial.
Ireland, as a Republic, has a Constitution which does not endow any particular religion. However, that Constitution strongly favours religion over no religion, and many of values in it were guided by Archbishop McQuaid.

If religious people are being persuaded that secularism is synonymous with atheism, they are going to oppose it. If instead they can be shown that secularism can actually guarantee the freedoms of religion, they may be more supportive.

Good point; worth bearing in mind.

As an aside, it may not be the most helpful thing that 'Atheist Ireland' is campaigning for secularism, as I'm sure most or all of its members would be opposed to living in an atheist state. Maybe 'Atheism Ireland' would be a better name?

Well, I always read that as Irish Atheist, but now that you mention it, the title could also be read as Irish Atheist State

darjeeling

recedite wrote: »

The UK is more secular in practice though. Even though it maintains these vestiges of a State Religion, they are largely ceremonial.

I would say it's not just ceremonial when 26 C of E bishops enjoy a privileged position in the House of Lords where they get to legislate on all sorts of hot-button social issues.

Oh, and the monarch can't be a Catholic by law, though they can now marry one. Progress, I'm sure.

recedite

House of Lords is like our Seanad - just a lot of hot air, most of them don't even attend. The monarch was forced to hand over power to the Parliament back in Cromwell's time, and after Cromwell's Republic fell, the monarch never regained real power again.
On a practical level; Given that Ireland and UK have something of a shared history, we both started off with all schools and hospitals being run in the 19th Century by a mixture of religious organisations, charities and private philantropists.
In the 20th C "the State" moved to take over these functions, but more so in the UK than here. The fact that we have only started to wrest control of primary education from the religious in the last decade or two says it all.

Morbert

robindch wrote: »

Pat: "So what do you think about the two gay guys next to you -- they don't have horns".

Nice one, Pat!

Though I think she did have a point. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Catholocism in this country is almost entirely notional.

Latae sententiae for all! Hurrah!

beerbuddy

Penn wrote: »

The church-run schools in England which tend to get better results tend to do so due to being able to be more selective with accepting students, such as accepting fewer children from rougher areas etc.

Catholic or Church of England ?
Catholics are mostly middle class in England now and church of England are the same so what do you expect.

beerbuddy

Penn wrote: »

The church-run schools in England which tend to get better results tend to do so due to being able to be more selective with accepting students, such as accepting fewer children from rougher areas etc.

Catholic or Church of England ?
Catholics are mostly middle class in England now and church of England are the same .

MagicMarker

beerbuddy wrote: »

Catholic or Church of England ?
Catholics are mostly middle class in England now and church of England are the same .

Considering 70% in England are Christian, and the vast majority of those are either Catholic or CoE, I'm going to assume you just made this up.

sephir0th

Morbert wrote: »

Though I think she did have a point.

She was one of the few who made a valid point!

darjeeling

MagicMarker wrote: »

Considering 70% in England are Christian, and the vast majority of those are either Catholic or CoE, I'm going to assume you just made this up.

I'll use this as an excuse to post up the most recent figures from the UK.

The '72% Christian' figure was from the 2001 UK census, and contrasted with the British Social Attitude survey in the same year (43% Christian, 41% no religion). The BSA put the differences at least partly down to the simplistic census question.

The most recent British Social Attitude survey of 2011 reveals 50% of UK citizens are religious.

Figures are :
Religion | % of respondents
Anglican | 20%
Roman Catholic | 9%
Other Christian denomination | 6%
Christian, no denomination | 9%
All other religions | 6%
No religion | 50%


Amongst 18-24 year olds, 64% say they have no religion; only 28% of over 65s have no religion.

Only 14% of people who are or were raised religious say they attend religious services each week (i.e. 11% of the population as a whole).

Comparing BSA surveys from different years reveals trends over time. Anglicanism has been the biggest loser, falling from 40% in 1983 to 20% today, while non-belief has gained most, up from 31% to 50% in the same time. Tracking people as they grow older shows they remain roughly as religious as they always were. If this pattern continues, the largely irreligious younger generations will likely remain non-believers, with big implications for UK society in a few years' time.

.

robindch

darjeeling wrote: »

If this pattern continues, the largely irreligious younger generations will likely remain non-believers, with big implications for UK society religions in a few years' time.

FYP

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

FYP

Well, I think the decline of religion will continue to shift debates over faith schooling, sexual equality, euthanasia and more.

jank

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Like this twat for example.

Why should you care if a person who is homosexual can also be a catholic or a devot christian? Many people cant fathom atheism, doesnt mean they are right or wrong.
The world is not as black and white as lots here would love to proclaim.

beerbuddy

recedite wrote: »

The UK is more secular in practice though. Even though it maintains these vestiges of a State Religion, they are largely ceremonial.
Ireland, as a Republic, has a Constitution which does not endow any particular religion. However, that Constitution strongly favours religion over no religion, and many of values in it were guided by Archbishop McQuaid.



Good point; worth bearing in mind.


Well, I always read that as Irish Atheist, but now that you mention it, the title could also be read as Irish Atheist State

Sorry i nearly fell off my chair when i read this.

Firstly Anglican bishops are appointed to house of Lords.
Queen is the Defender of the faiths or faith cant remember which,
Also due to the act of succession Tony Blair was not able to become catholic until the end of his office.Cant have a catholic advising the head of the church of england on religious matters.
No Catholic can marry king ,queen but an Athiest or Muslim can and so forth

beerbuddy

recedite wrote: »

House of Lords is like our Seanad - just a lot of hot air, most of them don't even attend. The monarch was forced to hand over power to the Parliament back in Cromwell's time, and after Cromwell's Republic fell, the monarch never regained real power again.
On a practical level; Given that Ireland and UK have something of a shared history, we both started off with all schools and hospitals being run in the 19th Century by a mixture of religious organisations, charities and private philantropists.
In the 20th C "the State" moved to take over these functions, but more so in the UK than here. The fact that we have only started to wrest control of primary education from the religious in the last decade or two says it all.

Sorry but 19th centuary uk institutions were not domoinated by or Ireland as a matter of fact it would have been the workhouse which was state cointrolle

Please dont look at the past as having a similar state makeup as today.

The state didnt care even in the 20th centuary and just dumped people in the laundries or workhouse.It had nothing to do with religion.

Morag

Bullshít.

They put people in laundries for breaking the religious moral codes.
Those codes were preached to the people and they were told they had to enforce them or risk going to hell and they would be ostracised by the community.
You can not detach what happened from the religious ethos of the country and the power of the church with in the state.

jank

Sharrow wrote: »

Bullshít.

They put people in laundries for breaking the religious moral codes.
Those codes were preached to the people and they were told they had to enforce them or risk going to hell and they would be ostracised by the community.
You can not detach what happened from the religious ethos of the country and the power of the church with in the state.

That is a very convenient catch all theory but really doesn't bare resemblance to the pragmatism of the state. The state simply wanted to "hide" or at least ignore the problem of young unmarried girls who are pregnant out of wedlock. Blame the state as much if not more than blaming religion. This happened in other countries other than Ireland as well, so you cant blame it all on the RCC.

Some religious orders were of tremendous help to these types of girls who were abandoned by the state but that disappears from view and the narrative.

*awaits knuckle cracking and furious retorts to my last point*

Cossax

jank wrote: »

That is a very convenient catch all theory but really doesn't bare resemblance to the pragmatism of the state. The state simply wanted to "hide" or at least ignore the problem of young unmarried girls who are pregnant out of wedlock. Blame the state as much if not more than blaming religion. This happened in other countries other than Ireland as well, so you cant blame it all on the RCC.

Some religious orders were of tremendous help to these types of girls who were abandoned by the state but that disappears from view and the narrative.

*awaits knuckle cracking and furious retorts to my last point*

Nope, the State was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told.

What religious orders were particularly helpful, seeing as you brought it up?

beerbuddy

Sharrow wrote: »

Bullshít.

They put people in laundries for breaking the religious moral codes.
Those codes were preached to the people and they were told they had to enforce them or risk going to hell and they would be ostracised by the community.
You can not detach what happened from the religious ethos of the country and the power of the church with in the state.

So whaty about the poor ???
Workhouses obviously didmt exist.The first laundry opened in Ireland was from the church of England .I dont think that before 1922 the RC would have had that much of a privilaged position seeing as we were occupied.

beerbuddy

MagicMarker wrote: »

Considering 70% in England are Christian, and the vast majority of those are either Catholic or CoE, I'm going to assume you just made this up.

I meant pracicing Catholics and COE.

jank

Cossax wrote: »

Nope, the State was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told.

What religious orders were particularly helpful, seeing as you brought it up?

Again, that is a convenient narrative to have but it is not really that true. Did the RCC have influence over Irish society. Yes, of course. But how much influence is the key question here. To say that the Irish population bowed down like slaves at every whim of the RCC is factually wrong and can be proved by Dev standing up to the RCC by not making Catholicism the official and natural religion of the republic. He did of course recognise the special position of the RCC. So by that fact alone you are wrong with above statement.

Amazing where evidence and facts are such a core vaule of atheists you would do well to actually adhere to them.

Bessborough in Cork. Not sure what "order" of nuns but from what I hear and from my own personal experience they were decent, loving and caring without the dogma. The place is run now I think by the HSE.

Cossax

jank wrote: »

Again, that is a convenient narrative to have but it is not really that true. Did the RCC have influence over Irish society. Yes, of course. But how much influence is the key question here. To say that the Irish population bowed down like slaves at every whim of the RCC is factually wrong and can be proved by Dev standing up to the RCC by not making Catholicism the official and natural religion of the republic. He did of course recognise the special position of the RCC. So by that fact alone you are wrong with above statement.

Amazing where evidence and facts are such a core vaule of atheists you would do well to actually adhere to them.

Bessborough in Cork. Not sure what "order" of nuns but from what I hear and from my own personal experience they were decent, loving and caring without the dogma. The place is run now I think by the HSE.

It's not like the RCC campaigned to have divorce banned (allowed under the initial FS constitution). Cough

It's not like any government was brought down by the RCC in Ireland. Cough.

Or that the then Taoiseach admitted to being a Catholic first and Irish second and that he accepted all Church teachings without qualification. Cough.

Sure there wasn't a bad on contraception in Ireland at all either. Cough.

And that's off the top of my head. I'm sure others could point out similar interjections from the RCC.

beerbuddy

Cossax wrote: »

It's not like the RCC campaigned to have divorce banned (allowed under the initial FS constitution). Cough

It's not like any government was brought down by the RCC in Ireland. Cough.

Or that the then Taoiseach admitted to being a Catholic first and Irish second and that he accepted all Church teachings without qualification. Cough.

Sure there wasn't a bad on contraception in Ireland at all either. Cough.

And that's off the top of my head. I'm sure others could point out similar interjections from the RCC.

I think you are going completely of the point.

recedite

beerbuddy wrote: »

due to the act of succession Tony Blair was not able to become catholic until the end of his office.Cant have a catholic advising the head of the church of england on religious matters.

No, there is no law specifying the religion of the PM, because the post of PM evolved subsequent to the monarchy and its archaic restrictions. The timing of Blair's conversion was a personal decision.

beerbuddy wrote: »

So whaty about the poor ???
Workhouses obviously didmt exist.The first laundry opened in Ireland was from the church of England

CoE never operated in Ireland.

beerbuddy

recedite wrote: »

No, there is no law specifying the religion of the PM, because the post of PM evolved subsequent to the monarchy and its archaic restrictions. The timing of Blair's conversion was a personal decision.


CoE never operated in Ireland.

It was a personal decision because it would be really awkward constitutionally due to the PM's role in advising the Queen in making ecclesiastical appointments. Also, there are laws forbidding Catholics from advising the crown on religious matters. So, those two together would make it constitutionally hard for the PM to be Catholic.To make matters worse the uk has no written constitution

as for your second point you are indeed correct

recedite

beerbuddy wrote: »

there are laws forbidding Catholics from advising the crown on religious matters.

Well, I haven't heard about these.. what laws are they?
You are speculating about something that has never come up yet in the UK.
Sooner or later it probably will come up, and they would just repeal any laws that get in the way of a catholic PM, because that's how it works over there, with a flexible "unwritten" constitution.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

On a practical level; Given that Ireland and UK have something of a shared history, we both started off with all schools and hospitals being run in the 19th Century by a mixture of religious organisations, charities and private philantropists.

Actually we didn't - the National School system was set up in the 19th century with the intention of being something akin to ET today - religious instruction was available but optional, and children of different religions were supposed to be educated alongside each other.

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

Then the churches kicked up and eventually ended up getting their way - think of all the bitterness and bloodshed on this island that might have been avoided if they hadn't?

jank

Cossax wrote: »

It's not like the RCC campaigned to have divorce banned (allowed under the initial FS constitution). Cough

It's not like any government was brought down by the RCC in Ireland. Cough.

Or that the then Taoiseach admitted to being a Catholic first and Irish second and that he accepted all Church teachings without qualification. Cough.

Sure there wasn't a bad on contraception in Ireland at all either. Cough.

And that's off the top of my head. I'm sure others could point out similar interjections from the RCC.

Yes, but what is your point. The fact that the church had to campaign in its fight against divorce totally counter acts your point that the state were slaves to the RCC and to quote you "...was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told.." Hmmm, so why did the have to campaign against it? Surely in your world, the church, if it were that influential would never have even allowed the referendum to take place. Thats how a real theocracy would work.

So, yet again you are wrong.

beerbuddy

recedite wrote: »

Well, I haven't heard about these.. what laws are they?
You are speculating about something that has never come up yet in the UK.
Sooner or later it probably will come up, and they would just repeal any laws that get in the way of a catholic PM, because that's how it works over there, with a flexible "unwritten" constitution.

Read the whole Act of Settlement it is quite amusing to read it as an outsider.
And yes it has come up my point is tony blair had to mind where he stood when he was prime minister as he could infringe on his constitutional duty to advise the queen.The main problem is to determine what is constitutional law and what is not. They cannot repeal the act of succession as it will mean a total redefinition of the state and what it stands for for also it is illegal for MPS to challange the role of the monarch so who will start the debate.

Cossax

jank wrote: »

Yes, but what is your point. The fact that the church had to campaign in its fight against divorce totally counter acts your point that the state were slaves to the RCC and to quote you "...was in thrall to the RCC and was happy to do whatever they were told.." Hmmm, so why did the have to campaign against it? Surely in your world, the church, if it were that influential would never have even allowed the referendum to take place. Thats how a real theocracy would work.

So, yet again you are wrong.

What referendum? You're just making assumptions now.

The RCC didn't want divorce to be legal in the Free State (which it was), so they got the government to make it illegal in the mid 20s and then enshrine its illegality in the 37 constitution.