Towards a United Ireland

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote:

Have you ever thought of converting to a religion whose clergy didn't have a
predilection for children?

Rather a sweeping generalisation there.

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

Rather a sweeping generalisation there.

As you're absolutely petrified of providing definitions lest one should be contradicted or worse, and are much more adept with tautological self amusement, I shan't request one.

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

As you're absolutely petrified of providing definitions lest one should be contradicted or worse, and are much more adept with tautological self amusement, I shan't request one.

Not all clergy are or were paedophiles - to say so is a nonsense. It's fairly straightforward.

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

Not all clergy are or were paedophiles - to say so is a nonsense. It's fairly straightforward.

You're a wealth of information, and indeed enlightenment. Thanks for sharing.

junder

gurramok wrote: »

Yes it is. It returned a 95% majority for a UI among predominantly Nationalist areas. The significance of it is that the desire for a UI is still quite high in the Nationalist community despite some posters here saying there is hardly any.

So a poll is held to in two stanchly republican areas and people thinks it news that the vote for a united Ireland. What I find more interesting is that dispite these being republican strongholds 5% still voted against a united ireland

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Not sectarian, simply critical of an organised religion which has acted as a vehicle for paedophiles.

I think you will find that when you not only attack the relgion but also the practitioners of said religion then you have moved into the realms of sectarianism

Noreen1

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I am not blaming you personally for the malevolent and outrageous midememanours of peadophile Priests, Noreen. What I am saying is that on my my side of the border there seemed to be a deafening silence whilst all of this was going on, and that silence was reflected in the ROI.

Priests abusing their personal power was a worldwide phenomenon, and the solution can only come from the top ie. the Vatican, and by allowing Priests to marry, as it is my view that the Law of celibacy is responsible for the greater proliferation of child sex abuse within the RCC.

What you actually accused Catholics of was being "too terrified to speak out" - and that was one of your more charitable comments, frankly!
You clearly choose not to understand that in failing to add the word "some" to your comments, you have effectively accused all Catholics of being complicit in the crimes perpetrated by some paedophile priests - despite my having emphasised the word on more than one occasion.
I find such an accusation, made against millions of people, incredibly offensive, and can only assume that it was quite deliberately sectarian.
Such outlandish sectarianism has caused more than enough problems in NI.
It certainly has no place in the Republic, imo.

I personally have no problem with priests being allowed to marry, though I would certainly welcome a link in support of your view that celibacy is a factor in child sexual abuse, and, in particular, that there was a greater proliferation of child sex abuse within the RCC.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The ten commandments and indeed any other biblical teaching is what society based its moral code upon in the past. Ireland has moved on, and is becoming an increasingly secular state. Laws are increasingly created and based upon common sense, a sense of justice and fair play, as opposed to some 2000 year old scripture, and that is progress. Nothing wrong with religious doctrine so long as you don't make it your be all and end all.

Really?

Why don't we have a brief look at a few of those outdated Commandments, then, and see what they should be replaced by?

I'm deliberately selecting two of those "universal" ones, that are acceptable to people of all Religions, (and none) - and that also fit the criteria of being illegal worldwide.

1: Thou shalt not steal.

If this is an outdated teaching, what do you suggest you replace it with?


2: Thou shalt not kill/murder.

This one, in particular, is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
It's particularly ironic when you consider that Religion has often been cited as the cause of the conflict in Northern Ireland, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Had both sides observed these two commandments, which are are core part of their religious teaching, the conflict would never have occurred.

Had the commandment of not coveting thy neighbours goods been observed, the motivation for the conflict would never have existed.

So, what do you propose to replace these outdated laws with, bearing in mind that you think religion should have no part in the laws of a secular country?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

They certainly don't. If I thought that paedophile Priests were actually shedding tears from a sense of guilt and remorse over their nefarious activities, and not self pity and shame about getting caught, I dare say the RCC might even possess the capacity to help to redeem itself.

The priests in question weren't paedophiles. They were ordinary, decent Catholics, who happened to be priests, and they shared the hurt felt both by the victims, and the shock and horror felt by the congregation as a whole.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Long may it continue, and into a united Ireland, where paedophile Priests are a dark phenomenon of a distant past. I have no hatred for paedophiles, as they are beneath contempt, and what criticism I have made of RC doctrine is perfectly valid. I view the Roman Catholic faith like I view all religion; an opium for the people. Regrettably, the RC hierarchy laced your opium with some pretty toxic chemicals. The sooner you change your religious dealer, the better, Noreen.

Have you ever thought of converting to a religion whose clergy didn't have a predilection for children? Or perhaps even give up superstition altogether?

I used to sing "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam" at Sunday School, and I love that song to this very day, as it's a comedy classic.

The beauty of living in a free Democratic Republic is that I am free to choose to believe on whatever Religion I want - irrespective of what your opinion is.
I will also add that your opinion is more than a little arrogant, intolerant, - and, for the most part, ill-informed and poorly thought out.
Further, I am eminently capable of choosing when to get off my knees, and what Religion I freely choose to adhere to.
I wouldn't presume to criticise your choice to be agnostic. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you what you should believe or disbelieve. I do, however, expect the same courtesy, tolerance, and respect in return.

Frankly, your ideas for a modern Ireland should terrify anyone who seeks a genuinely tolerant and inclusive Country.

You appear to want to substitute the sectarianism you grew up with for an intolerance that is even more fundamental, and, frankly, I wonder if sectarianism hasn't become even more deeply entrenched in your psyche as a result of your embracing agnosticism? If not, then I dread to think what poisonous untruths are being fed to the youth of N.I.
Certainly, your views on Catholicism are extremely sectarian, and betray a total lack of understanding, or knowledge, of the Religion you so blatantly and obviously detest.

You might be wise to consider that in a UI, you would be expected to live in a tolerant society, where your view of Catholics would be greeted with horror by the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants alike.

feargale

I'm thinking that in Bertie's UI it's the Catholics rather than the Protestants who will need external guarantees of security,

junder

Noreen1 wrote: »

What you actually accused Catholics of was being "too terrified to speak out" - and that was one of your more charitable comments, frankly!
You clearly choose not to understand that in failing to add the word "some" to your comments, you have effectively accused all Catholics of being complicit in the crimes perpetrated by some paedophile priests - despite my having emphasised the word on more than one occasion.
I find such an accusation, made against millions of people, incredibly offensive, and can only assume that it was quite deliberately sectarian.
Such outlandish sectarianism has caused more than enough problems in NI.
It certainly has no place in the Republic, imo.

I personally have no problem with priests being allowed to marry, though I would certainly welcome a link in support of your view that celibacy is a factor in child sexual abuse, and, in particular, that there was a greater proliferation of child sex abuse within the RCC.




Really?

Why don't we have a brief look at a few of those outdated Commandments, then, and see what they should be replaced by?

I'm deliberately selecting two of those "universal" ones, that are acceptable to people of all Religions, (and none) - and that also fit the criteria of being illegal worldwide.

1: Thou shalt not steal.

If this is an outdated teaching, what do you suggest you replace it with?


2: Thou shalt not kill/murder.

This one, in particular, is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
It's particularly ironic when you consider that Religion has often been cited as the cause of the conflict in Northern Ireland, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Had both sides observed these two commandments, which are are core part of their religious teaching, the conflict would never have occurred.

Had the commandment of not coveting thy neighbours goods been observed, the motivation for the conflict would never have existed.

So, what do you propose to replace these outdated laws with, bearing in mind that you think religion should have no part in the laws of a secular country?





The priests in question weren't paedophiles. They were ordinary, decent Catholics, who happened to be priests, and they shared the hurt felt both by the victims, and the shock and horror felt by the congregation as a whole.



The beauty of living in a free Democratic Republic is that I am free to choose to believe on whatever Religion I want - irrespective of what your opinion is.
I will also add that your opinion is more than a little arrogant, intolerant, - and, for the most part, ill-informed and poorly thought out.
Further, I am eminently capable of choosing when to get off my knees, and what Religion I freely choose to adhere to.
I wouldn't presume to criticise your choice to be agnostic. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you what you should believe or disbelieve. I do, however, expect the same courtesy, tolerance, and respect in return.

Frankly, your ideas for a modern Ireland should terrify anyone who seeks a genuinely tolerant and inclusive Country.

You appear to want to substitute the sectarianism you grew up with for an intolerance that is even more fundamental, and, frankly, I wonder if sectarianism hasn't become even more deeply entrenched in your psyche as a result of your embracing agnosticism? If not, then I dread to think what poisonous untruths are being fed to the youth of N.I.
Certainly, your views on Catholicism are extremely sectarian, and betray a total lack of understanding, or knowledge, of the Religion you so blatantly and obviously detest.

You might be wise to consider that in a UI, you would be expected to live in a tolerant society, where your view of Catholics would be greeted with horror by the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants alike.

Don't blame his attuitude on his upbringing. As I have pointed out on this site many times I am a unionist and I am in no way sectarian. I do have issues with the Roman Catholic faith but then I have issues with organized relgion in general so I am not singleing out the Roman Catholic faith. Bertie's attuitude is all his own

Bertie Woot

junder wrote: »

I think you will find that when you not only attack the relgion but also the practitioners of said religion then you have moved into the realms of sectarianism

Attack is a strong word. I've been critical , and of their reluctance to speak out and condemn Priests. I've also been critical of the teachings of the RC religion, but then I view all religion as stuff that megalomaniac men in high places made up as they went along, and as a means to exercise power and control over people.

Incidentally, I view the Protestant faith as based upon a fallacious notion too ie. the existence of a supernatural entity that created and governs the universe.

IMO all religion is bullsh*t, and most people who practice a traditional organised religion are those who were born into it, were indoctrinated by it, and are consequently afraid or reluctant to question it.

junder

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Attack is a strong word. I've been critical , and of their reluctance to speak out and condemn Priests. I've also been critical of the teachings of the RC religion, but then I view all religion as stuff that megalomaniac men in high places made up as they went along, and as a means to exercise power and control over people.

Incidentally, I view the Protestant faith as based upon a fallacious notion too ie. the existence of a supernatural entity that created and governs the universe.

IMO all religion is bullsh*t, and most people who practice a traditional organised religion are those who were born into it, were indoctrinated by it, and are consequently afraid to question it.

But your not being critical you basically accusing all Roman Catholics of being responsable for the child abuse carried out by a minority of priests

Bertie Woot

junder wrote: »

But your not being critical you basically accusing all Roman Catholics of being responsable for the child abuse carried out by a minority of priests

I've stated that they didn't protest loud enough. They still don't. If Protestant ministers had abused our kids like that do you think they'd still be sanctimoniously preaching from the pulpit?

marienbad

gurramok wrote: »

Yes it is. It returned a 95% majority for a UI among predominantly Nationalist areas. The significance of it is that the desire for a UI is still quite high in the Nationalist community despite some posters here saying there is hardly any.

I don't think anyone said any such thing ? At least I can't find it anyway. The point that numerous posters have made is that sufficient ''nationalists'' now favour the link with Britain so a to make a comfortable overall majority for the status quo. And I think you would find that mirrored in the south.

gurramok

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think anyone said any such thing ? At least I can't find it anyway. The point that numerous posters have made is that sufficient ''nationalists'' now favour the link with Britain so a to make a comfortable overall majority for the status quo. And I think you would find that mirrored in the south.

They did, they keep quoting other polls with your line of view. This local poll in a overwhelmingly Nationalist area shows 95% among that section of the population want a UI.

marienbad

gurramok wrote: »

They did, they keep quoting other polls with your line of view. This local poll in a overwhelmingly Nationalist area shows 95% among that section of the population want a UI.

Can you show me such posts ? Any I have seen are just saying enough nationalist in all areas are favouring the union to make the majority fairly comfortable.

Are you saying those border poll on a 42% turnout I think are reflective of the region as a whole ?.

gurramok

marienbad wrote: »

Can you show me such posts ? Any I have seen are just saying enough nationalist in all areas are favouring the union to make the majority fairly comfortable.

Are you saying those border poll on a 42% turnout I think are reflective of the region as a whole ?.

First part - they quote Life and Time Survey NI, you're long enough here to know they do. A simple search of boards shows you the usual suspects quote that survey like the gospel as to Nationalists opinion of the present Union.
http://www.google.ie/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Life+and+Time+Survey+site:boards.ie&oq=Life+and+Time+Survey+site:boards.ie&gs_l=hp.3...2373.6817.0.6865.16.16.0.0.0.0.95.685.15.15.0...0.0...1c.1.15.psy-ab.y5ayXP2d_84&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47244034,d.ZG4&fp=fd5bf596362c6714&biw=1920&bih=951

Second part - no as it does not reflect Unionist opinion obviously as hardly any Unionists live in the local area, i'm highlighting Nationalist opinion and this local poll amongst the Nationalist community in that area is an indicator of the wishes of the Nationalist community as a whole.

feargale

gurramok wrote: »

Yes it is. It returned a 95% majority for a UI among predominantly Nationalist areas. The significance of it is that the desire for a UI is still quite high in the Nationalist community despite some posters here saying there is hardly any.

Who commissioed and who organised this poll in Creggan and Crossmaglen? What precise question was asked? Was the poll conducted among Catholics in other areas e.g. Ballycastle, Omagh, Bangor and Malone Road etc.?

gurramok

feargale wrote: »

Who commissioed and who organised this poll in Creggan and Crossmaglen? What precise question was asked? Was the poll conducted among Catholics in other areas e.g. Ballycastle, Omagh, Bangor and Malone Road etc.?

The local community, read the article.

marienbad

gurramok wrote: »

First part - they quote Life and Time Survey NI, you're long enough here to know they do. A simple search of boards shows you the usual suspects quote that survey like the gospel as to Nationalists opinion of the present Union.
http://www.google.ie/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Life+and+Time+Survey+site:boards.ie&oq=Life+and+Time+Survey+site:boards.ie&gs_l=hp.3...2373.6817.0.6865.16.16.0.0.0.0.95.685.15.15.0...0.0...1c.1.15.psy-ab.y5ayXP2d_84&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47244034,d.ZG4&fp=fd5bf596362c6714&biw=1920&bih=951

Second part - no as it does not reflect Unionist opinion obviously as hardly any Unionists live in the local area, i'm highlighting Nationalist opinion and this local poll amongst the Nationalist community in that area is an indicator of the wishes of the Nationalist community as a whole.

This is just saying what I am saying , People quoting legitimate polls is not what I thought you were referring to.

On the second part- my question was not directed at how the Unionists would vote but towards the rest of the nationalist community across the region, ie would you get a 95% for a UI and that on a limited turnout ?

That is the only point I am making- if you got say 90% for and 10% against that is enough to forestall any possibility of a UI for the foreseeable future.

feargale

gurramok wrote: »

The local community, read the article.

Ok, thanks, I've read it. Now can somebody please give me a link to the other poll referred to,

gurramok

marienbad wrote: »

This is just saying what I am saying , People quoting legitimate polls is not what I thought you were referring to.

On the second part- my question was not directed at how the Unionists would vote but towards the rest of the nationalist community across the region, ie would you get a 95% for a UI and that on a limited turnout ?

That is the only point I am making- if you got say 90% for and 10% against that is enough to forestall any possibility of a UI for the foreseeable future.

90% is way better than 35% or much less than this number as some have stated here in the past.

feargale wrote: »

Ok, thanks, I've read it. Now can somebody please give me a link to the other poll referred to,

The famous Life and Times survey? Whole thread on the matter. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056301702

marienbad

gurramok wrote: »

90% is way better than 35% or much less than this number as some have stated here in the past.



The famous Life and Times survey? Whole thread on the matter. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056301702

What is your point though ? Are you saying your poll refutes all those other polls or what ?

gurramok

marienbad wrote: »

What is your point though ? Are you saying your poll refutes all those other polls or what ?

I said it already. The poll(which was a mock election type one) carried out by the community in that area which is overwhelming Nationalist does indeed refute the Life and Time survey poll.

junder

gurramok wrote: »

I said it already. The poll(which was a mock election type one) carried out by the community in that area which is overwhelming Nationalist does indeed refute the Life and Time survey poll.

Not really. It's a loaded survay since it was carried out in areas guarantied to return the desired result.

gurramok

junder wrote: »

Not really. It's a loaded survay since it was carried out in areas guarantied to return the desired result.

It was an election which involved all adults of voting age in the area. So what if they were mostly Nationalists, it was simply to gauge opinion among the community which showed an overwhelming desire for a UI.

Similarly if there was a mock election poll in lets say Carrickfergus, we'd know the result but we'd also know the opinion of the Unionist community there.

marienbad

gurramok wrote: »

I said it already. The poll(which was a mock election type one) carried out by the community in that area which is overwhelming Nationalist does indeed refute the Life and Time survey poll.

I just can't follow your logic ? How can a poll in a specific area commissioned by an interested party have more credibility that a number of polls over the whole region carried out by a neutral party ?

gurramok

marienbad wrote: »

I just can't follow your logic ? How can a poll in a specific area commissioned by an interested party have more credibility that a number of polls over the whole region carried out by a neutral party ?

Which interested party is that? Who is neutral, you having a laugh?!

marienbad

gurramok wrote: »

Which interested party is that? Who is neutral, you having a laugh?!

Ok then ,leave out interested and neutral if it suits you. Are you saying that a poll over a localised area supersedes a poll over the whole region ?

And this time would you mind answering a question instead of posing new ones, thanks. I am just trying to understand your point of view .

feargale

gurramok wrote: »

Which interested party is that? Who is neutral, you having a laugh?!

Thanks, I've read the Guardian report on the Life and Time Survey. Was it commissioned by the Guardian? Is Life and Time a reputable polling agency? Have questions arisen on other occasions about their methods? Apart from the foregoing what issues have you with the poll?

gurramok

marienbad wrote: »

Ok then ,leave out interested and neutral if it suits you. Are you saying that a poll over a localised area supersedes a poll over the whole region ?

Yes, when its an actual election rather than a random survey of individuals with no sources disclosed. Here in this mock election we have sources disclosed which is the local community in that area.

feargale wrote:

Thanks, I've read the Guardian report on the Life and Time Survey. Was it commissioned by the Guardian? Is Life and Time a reputable polling agency? Have questions arisen on other occasions about their methods? Apart from the foregoing what issues have you with the poll?

Its supposed to be run by one of the universities. They are not a reputable polling agency like our Red C.

They have consistently got the level of support for both SF and DUP wrong. Not just wrong but way wrong. For example they had SF on 11% when in fact they got about 28% support, similar for the DUP. Thats their credibility shattered.
At least now we have an indicator of the true level of support for an UI within the Nationalist community, it may not keep high at 95% if the entire community was polled in the same way but you can be guaranteed its high.