If you see a Bible at your referendum voting centre

Sarky

Religious apologists are so fun when they get so worked up they absolutely have to tell the world they're far too cool to care. It's like they never managed to leave playground politics behind them. "I have nothing to contribute but pay attention anyway! Oh look mockery, maybe if I join in I'll be one of the cool kids! Validate meeeee!" It makes them all sound like they never had the spine to stand up for anything, so damned if they think anyone else should be allowed.

Go on, tell us you find militant atheists just as annoying as religious people next and that you don't believe that catholic guff yourselves. :pac:

iguana

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Best use of a bible. EVER!

Ever heard of a bible cyst? It's a cyst on the body formed of crystalline deposits that you treat by hitting it with a heavy book in order to break it up so the body can reabsorb the crystals. It's known as a bible cyst as bible's tend to be the perfect size.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

Religious apologists are so fun when they get so worked up they absolutely have to tell the world they're far too cool to care. It's like they never managed to leave playground politics behind them. "I have nothing to contribute but pay attention anyway! Oh look mockery, maybe if I join in I'll be one of the cool kits! Validate meeeee!" It makes them all sound like they never had the spine to stand up for anything, so damned if they think anyone else should be allowed.

Go on, tell us you find militant atheists just as annoying as religious people next and that you don't believe that catholic guff yourselves. :pac:

Love it....
Well said lad well said.....

PopePalpatine

iguana wrote: »

Ever heard of a bible cyst? It's a cyst on the body formed of crystalline deposits that you treat by hitting it with a heavy book in order to break it up so the body can reabsorb the crystals. It's known as a bible cyst as bible's tend to be the perfect size.

That brings a whole new definition to "Bible-thumping". :pac:

Pherekydes

Geomy wrote: »

No 1 I said nothing about harassing staff.
So you can take me out of that bracket...

Ah,don't be so coy. You thank every one of the Kid's posts.

The Bible thing is a tradition, I suppose there's no Halloween (Samhain) or Christmas (Nollaig) in your house...

There sure is. We still call it Christmas, but we really celebrate the mid-winter holiday, which has been celebrated in this country for twice as long as Christmas.

Hallowe'en? Yep. Never considered a very Christian festival by the church. Hallowe'en probably has its roots in the ancient Roman festival of Pomona, once again predating Christianity.

What happens in St Stephens day when the Wren Bhouys come knocking on your door. ..

Looking for what? Their boxes on boxing day?

Bah humbug. .....

Misrepresenting me again?

Geomy

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ah,don't be so coy. You thank every one of the Kid's posts.



There sure is. We still call it Christmas, but we really celebrate the mid-winter holiday, which has been celebrated in this country for twice as long as Christmas.

Hallowe'en? Yep. Never considered a very Christian festival by the church. Hallowe'en probably has its roots in the ancient Roman festival of Pomona, once again predating Christianity.



Looking for what? Their boxes on boxing day?



Misrepresenting me again?

Sorry about the mix up, I won't misrepresent you anymore.

UrbanSea

Obliq wrote: »

I don't get what you're saying at all?

Do you mean you agree with the homophobic, ignorant and WAAAY over-angry post, but wouldn't have put it like that? However, you think the idea of having equal rights is stupid, but aren't willing to tell us why......



Nice for you to have some company of your own age in A & A at last Kid. There is no moaning, only questions about equality that I didn't know the answer to until guess what? A Presiding Officer from a polling station told me (read up-thread). Thanks again Dinner!

Come down off your high horse where did I say I was against equal rights, what I thought was stupid was going in and heckling someone who is being paid to sit there for the day over the presence of the Bible you'd come across as a right mug and that I got a laugh from the post

Sarky

Why are you complaining about something nobody has actually done?

Kidchameleon

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I find it very sad when a religious apologist pretends not to be religious him/herself, in order to play the "I'm not bothered so you shouldn't be" part.

So cringing at the thought of a high horse atheist moaning to a polling station attendant (who doesent give a sh_it) and speaking out at the ridiculousness of it make me religious? Being atheist does not by default make you a church basher :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

iguana wrote: »

Ever heard of a bible cyst? It's a cyst on the body formed of crystalline deposits that you treat by hitting it with a heavy book in order to break it up so the body can reabsorb the crystals. It's known as a bible cyst as bible's tend to be the perfect size.

OH had one of those cysts but as we did not have a great big bible to whack it with I used a hardback copy of Nell McCafferty's autobiography. Worked a treat.

doughef

doughef wrote: »

I'd imagine the OP and his followers are closet homos and not excepted by the Catholic church..

"Homos" are in fact excepted by the church

swampgas

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So cringing at the thought of a high horse atheist moaning to a polling station attendant (who doesent give a sh_it) and speaking out at the ridiculousness of it make me religious? Being atheist does not by default make you a church basher :rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with "church bashing", this is about the state not acting as an extension of the Vatican.

It's interesting to hear you use the phrase "high horse atheist" - reminds me of being called an "intellectual snob" as a youth for being an atheist. You give the impression that you would prefer it if atheists would just shut up and keep their heads down, is this the case?

I'm curious: what bothers you so much about atheists wanting to be treated in an equal way by the state?

Kiwi in IE

doughef wrote: »

I'd imagine the OP and his followers are closet homos and not excepted by the Catholic church..

So now there all 'atheist' and take their anger and frustration out on old ladies working in polling stations..

Fu**in Pri**ks...

Stay in your closets you keyboard wan*ers

robindch wrote: »

Doug is now enjoying a late summer holiday from A+A.

Robin you spoilsport! My babysitter cancelled this evening and that looks like it could have been great alternative entertainment.

swampgas

UrbanSea wrote: »

Come down off your high horse where did I say I was against equal rights, what I thought was stupid was going in and heckling someone who is being paid to sit there for the day over the presence of the Bible you'd come across as a right mug and that I got a laugh from the post

Nobody was advocating "heckling" anyone, that's a misrepresentation of what has been posted earlier.

However, to address the bolded bit of your post: do you think the people who oversee the voting are just random mugs who are paid to sit there? That's pretty insulting to those people, and also very short-sighted. These people have an incredibly important role in making sure that the voting is done correctly. The have a very important job to do for the sake of our democracy, even if it is just for one day.

These people, in their official capacity, are actually acting for the state. Their behaviour, the way they carry out their duties, reflects back on the state. If some of them don't realise that sticking a Bible in a prominent place on the table might have some significance to non-Christian voters, maybe they need to be made aware of it?

Kidchameleon

swampgas wrote: »

I'm curious: what bothers you so much about atheists wanting to be treated in an equal way by the state?

How are atheists treated differently? We can do eveything a religious person does? How does having a bible in a poling station equate to unequal treatment? We can take a secular oath can we not?

Turtwig

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Robin you spoilsport! My babysitter cancelled this evening and that looks like it could have been great alternative entertainment.

I missed everything watching one the best games of rugby I've seen in a while. You guys have a cracking team. Congrats.

swampgas

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How are atheists treated differently? We can do eveything a religious person does? How does having a bible in a poling station equate to unequal treatment? We can take a secular oath can we not?

Sure - it's a pretty minor issue compared to others. But this issue is a symptom of the way many Irish people mistakenly believe that they are somehow living in a Catholic state. They are not, the state has lot of people in it who are not Catholic, or even Christian.

Having a Bible in a prominent place in a voting center reflects this automatic assumption that everybody who uses the voting center is a Christian. It's bad, symbolically. It suggests a lack of inclusiveness.

Symbols are important. Look at the fuss in the UK (and sometimes in Ireland) over the wearing of the Remembrance Day Poppy. It's simply not good enough to say "ah, what's the harm?" A little bit of sensitivity goes a long way.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How are atheists treated differently?

You post in a lot of threads here - it should be very clear to you from reading those threads. Try 'School Patronage' for starters.

We can do eveything a religious person does?

Okay, for example, you can't get a job in 96% of Irish primary schools without agreeing to teach religion as fact.

You can't become President or be sworn in as a judge without taking a religious oath (no affirmation option for these.) This is important as these are among the highest posts of authority in the State and the occupants of them are therefore expected to be christians.

How does having a bible in a poling station equate to unequal treatment? We can take a secular oath can we not?

You can, but it indicates that the state regards the christian swearing on the bible option as the norm, and anything else as the exception.

Hotblack Desiato

UrbanSea wrote: »

Come down off your high horse where did I say I was against equal rights, what I thought was stupid was going in and heckling someone who is being paid to sit there for the day over the presence of the Bible you'd come across as a right mug and that I got a laugh from the post

I hope you wouldn't regard an adolescent, foul-mouthed homophobic outburst such as the post you thanked and quoted earlier and 'got a laugh' out of, as acceptable in the forums you moderate.

wexie

ninja900 wrote: »

Okay, for example, you can't get a job in 96% of Irish primary schools without agreeing to teach religion as fact..

wouldn't happen to coincide with 96% of Irish primary schools having a religious ethos no?

ninja900 wrote: »

You can't become President or be sworn in as a judge without taking a religious oath (no affirmation option for these.) This is important as these are among the highest posts of authority in the State and the occupants of them are therefore expected to be christians...

Can't argue with you on this being an issue. However with the current make up of the electorate I doubt you'd have much of a chance as an atheist. You should absolutely have the option though.

ninja900 wrote: »

You can, but it indicates that the state regards the christian swearing on the bible option as the norm, and anything else as the exception.

As much as you may not like it, swearing on the bible IS the norm and anything else IS the exception. No point in pretending otherwise. I'd go as far as saying that perhaps the bible shouldnt have been displayed quite so prominently as some people seem to think, but to be honest if you get offended quite so easily you should really look at that because you're going to get offended a LOT and it's going to be very stressfull. What with the majority of Western society(and then some) being Christian of some description

swampgas

wexie wrote: »

As much as you may not like it, swearing on the bible IS the norm and anything else IS the exception. No point in pretending otherwise. I'd go as far as saying that perhaps the bible shouldnt have been displayed quite so prominently as some people seem to think, but to be honest if you get offended quite so easily you should really look at that because you're going to get offended a LOT and it's going to be very stressfull. What with the majority of Western society(and then some) being Christian of some description

The state is there for everyone, not just the majority who happen to define a norm. It's simply not correct to expect that minorities just have to suck it up on matters of religion, especially when it's in an official setting such as a polling station. You might as well argue that it would be okay to start saying decades of the rosary or the odd mass in the polling stations while you're at it, if the "norm" is supposed to be the standard of acceptable behaviour.

BTW I don't get "offended" the way you suggest - I'm not stressing out about this. I just like to point out, very politely, when someone is making an unwarranted assumption about my religious beliefs.

Geomy

wexie wrote: »

wouldn't happen to coincide with 96% of Irish primary schools having a religious ethos no?



Can't argue with you on this being an issue. However with the current make up of the electorate I doubt you'd have much of a chance as an atheist. You should absolutely have the option though.



As much as you may not like it, swearing on the bible IS the norm and anything else IS the exception. No point in pretending otherwise. I'd go as far as saying that perhaps the bible shouldnt have been displayed quite so prominently as some people seem to think, but to be honest if you get offended quite so easily you should really look at that because you're going to get offended a LOT and it's going to be very stressfull. What with the majority of Western society(and then some) being Christian of some description

I think if I got offended by a bible lying somewhere id seriously get some help, its just not right.

On my bookshelf at home I have Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Robert Fisk, John O Donoghue, John Moriarty, King James Bible,Gardening books, Meditation, fly fishing,and many more. ...

I don't get the wooooo's or gitters from the mix of books I have. ...

Imagine im arriving in the door and see the book shelf, ahhhh the Bible is there, oh nooooo my friends can't see that, my outstanding social conditioned agnostic reputation will be in tatters, ahhhhhh Richard Dawkins people might think im a full on Atheist hopped right over the fence.
The next day I arrive home I see the King James Bible ahhhhh people might think im gone all religious. ...

They're only books, tree bark and ink, get attached the what the book symbolically represents and it's leading to sadness, resentment and a circular argument in your head......

It's only a book :-)

expectationlost

aren't alot of these church owned buildings where do they have polling stations in the US

Kidchameleon

ninja900 wrote: »

Okay, for example, you can't get a job in 96% of Irish primary schools without agreeing to teach religion as fact.

You can't become President or be sworn in as a judge without taking a religious oath (no affirmation option for these.) This is important as these are among the highest posts of authority in the State and the occupants of them are therefore expected to be christians.

You can take a religious oath, you don't have to believe it, so whats stopping you taking those jobs? I'd imagine we have plenty of atheist judges. There was a big story recently involving Gilmore getting legal advice before taking an oath. In the end he took the oath but said the constitution needs to be changed. I agree with him (for once!)

As regard to the teachers, you'll find plenty of them don't like teaching religion either (Google it), but did it stop them getting the job?

tfitzgerald

swampgas wrote: »

The state is there for everyone,

BTW I don't get "offended" the way you suggest - I'm not stressing out about this. I just like to point out, very politely, when someone is making an unwarranted assumption about my religious beliefs.

You don't get offended and your not stressed out. What you are is whining about a book on a table

wexie

swampgas wrote: »

The state is there for everyone, not just the majority who happen to define a norm. It's simply not correct to expect that minorities just have to suck it up on matters of religion, especially when it's in an official setting such as a polling station. You might as well argue that it would be okay to start saying decades of the rosary or the odd mass in the polling stations while you're at it, if the "norm" is supposed to be the standard of acceptable behaviour.

BTW I don't get "offended" the way you suggest - I'm not stressing out about this. I just like to point out, very politely, when someone is making an unwarranted assumption about my religious beliefs.

I think it's some leap of 'logic' to equate a bible being available in a polling station to 'having to suck it up'. Now if you would have been complaining about there not being a Koran then maybe you'd have had a point.

Also, why wouldn't it be okay if someone wanted to say a rosary in a polling station? They won't make you say one so why not just let them excercise their right to freedom of religion?

Geomy

I can imagine the extreme low percentage of Atheists being scared of the book, or wary of it.

A good therapist or friend who's been there might help you through it.

The Black Oil

This is what atheists want to see.

Geomy

The Black Oil wrote: »

This is what atheists want to see.

Lol exactly, they should have one of these in every pooling station...

It'll take the BITE out of the sitiation...

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You can take a religious oath, you don't have to believe it, so whats stopping you taking those jobs? I'd imagine we have plenty of atheist judges. There was a big story recently involving Gilmore getting legal advice before taking an oath. In the end he took the oath but said the constitution needs to be changed. I agree with him (for once!)

As regard to the teachers, you'll find plenty of them don't like teaching religion either (Google it), but did it stop them getting the job?

So the fact that you can lie and misrepresent yourself means it isn't an issue? Sure there is no problem, you just need to lie when you take the oath. Or, if you are trying to become a teacher, lie on you application form and in your interview. When they get sacked for lying on the application form or not actually conforming to the ethos of the school we can point them at you post.

The fact that you don't see a problem because you can simply lie does not mean there isn't a problem for other people. Other people might have a fee more principles than you apparently do and might not want to lie or misrepresent themselves when taking an oath or applying for a job.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

wexie wrote: »

wouldn't happen to coincide with 96% of Irish primary schools having a religious ethos no?

Well spotted.
Now, can you justify 96% of schools having a religious ethos? The census over-estimates the numbers of people who actually practice or believe in a religion, but still the number of religious people in Ireland is far below 96%. There is huge unmet demand from parents for secular education.

Why do schools funded by the state teach religion as fact at all?

Why are schools allowed discriminate in admitting pupils and hiring staff on the basis of religion? Why are they allowed discriminate in ways that other employers are not?

Can't argue with you on this being an issue. However with the current make up of the electorate I doubt you'd have much of a chance as an atheist. You should absolutely have the option though.

So the majority get to pick and choose which of the rights they themselves enjoy should also be extended to minorities? The 'current make-up of the electorate' doesn't enter into it, it is a question of rights not a popularity contest.

As much as you may not like it, swearing on the bible IS the norm and anything else IS the exception. No point in pretending otherwise.

Nobody is pretending otherwise, but the state should not favour one religion over another belief or non-belief, no matter whether it is the 'norm' or not.

I'd go as far as saying that perhaps the bible shouldnt have been displayed quite so prominently as some people seem to think, but to be honest if you get offended quite so easily you should really look at that because you're going to get offended a LOT and it's going to be very stressfull. What with the majority of Western society(and then some) being Christian of some description

Who said anything about being offended?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You can take a religious oath, you don't have to believe it, so whats stopping you taking those jobs? I'd imagine we have plenty of atheist judges. There was a big story recently involving Gilmore getting legal advice before taking an oath. In the end he took the oath but said the constitution needs to be changed. I agree with him (for once!)

As regard to the teachers, you'll find plenty of them don't like teaching religion either (Google it), but did it stop them getting the job?

Believe it or not, some people have a problem with publicly making a hypocrite of themselves, or making a false legal declaration. This might be surprising to those content to go along with the flow in all things in as principle-free a manner as possible, but it's a fact.

Religious discrimination will continue to be the norm if no-one challenges it, just like racism, sexism and homophobia were once regarded as acceptable by a majority but it never made them right.

deadeye187

Why would anyone believe someone more if they 'swear on the Bible'!?

Sh*t i see no difference if someone swore on cosmo..they`re both garbage!

Geomy

MrPudding wrote: »

So the fact that you can lie and misrepresent yourself means it isn't an issue? Sure there is no problem, you just need to lie when you take the oath. Or, if you are trying to become a teacher, lie on you application form and in your interview. When they get sacked for lying on the application form or not actually conforming to the ethos of the school we can point them at you post.

The fact that you don't see a problem because you can simply lie does not mean there isn't a problem for other people. Other people might have a fee more principles than you apparently do and might not want to lie or misrepresent themselves when taking an oath or applying for a job.

MrP

Well MrP

There's a big difference between telling white lies to institutions or the system and telling personal lies.

The system and institutions are not always honest with us.

Delirium

Geomy wrote: »

Well MrP

There's a big difference between telling white lies to institutions or the system and telling personal lies.

The system and institutions are not always honest with us.

apologies if I'm taking you up wrong, Geomy, but are you actually condoning lying when asked to swear to be truthful?

Sarky

koth wrote: »

apologies if I'm taking you up wrong, Geomy, but are you actually condoning lying when asked to swear to be truthful?

Certainly looks that way. Kidchameleon actively endorsed it a couple of posts ago.

Pesky atheists, looking for a little honesty and integrity out of people. Next I suppose they'll be complaining about torture, genital mutilation and gay rights. Bloody whiners...

Lapis lazuli

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you are voting in the referendum today, you may or may not see a Bible on display in your voting centre. The referendum staff need to have a Bible available, because the law allows people to swear on the Bible if their identity is challenged. However, you are also allowed to make a secular affirmation instead of swearing on the Bible.

If you see a Bible in your polling station, ask the staff these questions: Why is there a Bible on display? Does it have to be on display in order to be available if it is needed? Is the secular affirmation also on display? If only the Bible is on display, can you either display both or not display either?

There is also the obvious question of why the law assumes that somebody who is fraudulently impersonating somebody else would be unwilling to fraudulently swear an untrue oath, but that’s a question for another day!

In the interests of being inclusive, you forgot to advise that Protestants should also object if it's a Catholic bible, and that a Protestant bible should also be available / on display, alongside the Catholic bible. Also small sized bibles should be used, as larger bulky bibles may be extra intimidating to those who object to them. You should also advise the same issue is raised in court.

mitosis

There was no bible at my table. There was a copy of the New Testament

Geomy

koth wrote: »

apologies if I'm taking you up wrong, Geomy, but are you actually condoning lying when asked to swear to be truthful?

No not at all, but I can see how it might make it look like I endorse lying. ...

If I drove over 60 in a 50 kph zone I wouldn't hand myself in to the guards.

Or if someone likes Aucuba japonica and planted them in their garden and were happy about it, I wouldn't really tell them that I hate the bloody things and they look bad....

I wouldn't condone lying about situation s where people are in danger of being hurt emotionally or physically or other situations. ...where im a witness or called to be a witness.

UrbanSea

ninja900 wrote: »

I hope you wouldn't regard an adolescent, foul-mouthed homophobic outburst such as the post you thanked and quoted earlier and 'got a laugh' out of, as acceptable in the forums you moderate.

Nope but I don't have to moderate here do I

Perhaps I should elaborate. It was the post's ignorance I found funny

Michael Nugent

Just to clarify, this issue is not about being offended.

The state should be impartial between citizens regardless of whether people get offended.

swampgas

tfitzgerald wrote: »

You don't get offended and your not stressed out. What you are is whining about a book on a table

It's just a book on a table? Really? Did you forget that it's a bible in a polling station, not some random book on your own coffee table? It's not any old book, nor is it on any old table, and well you know it.

Suppose there was political party literature on the table at the polling station, would that be okay with you? After all, it's just words on bits of paper ...

Kiwi in IE

I think the religious apologists are deliberately being obtuse about the significance of state sponsored bible use.

swampgas

wexie wrote: »

I think it's some leap of 'logic' to equate a bible being available in a polling station to 'having to suck it up'. Now if you would have been complaining about there not being a Koran then maybe you'd have had a point.

I do accept it's a minor issue, but I think it's a valid one all the same. There shouldn't be any official preference for any particular religion. By having the Bible sitting there, it sends a certain message (even if it's completely unintentional) to Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, those of other religions and none, that this is officially a Christian state. Surely it's better just to keep things neutral from a religious point of view, and avoid religious symbolism in polling stations?

Also, why wouldn't it be okay if someone wanted to say a rosary in a polling station? They won't make you say one so why not just let them exercise their right to freedom of religion?

So if the officials at the polling station kept the rosary going, loudly, while people were coming through to vote on referendums on divorce or abortion, you'd think this was fine because that's their right? If so I really don't think you really understand how freedom of religion works.

swampgas

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think the religious apologists are deliberately being obtuse about the significance of state sponsored bible use.

Well, it's only telling lies really, and that's perfectly okay, apparently....

Geomy

swampgas wrote: »

It's just a book on a table? Really? Did you forget that it's a bible in a polling station, not some random book on your own coffee table? It's not any old book, nor is it on any old table, and well you know it.

Suppose there was political party literature on the table at the polling station, would that be okay with you? After all, it's just words on bits of paper ...

Exactly it's only words on bit's of paper.

So is political paraphernalia, words on paper.

It all depends on the social conditioning and control freakish person who has deeply unresolved issues with piece's of paper etc

Some don't let it get to them more do.

I think the OP's point about having some sort of affirmation along with the bible should keep everyone happy.

After all it's a good choice, affirmation or the bible.

swampgas

Geomy wrote: »

I think if I got offended by a bible lying somewhere id seriously get some help, its just not right.

On my bookshelf at home I have Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Robert Fisk, John O Donoghue, John Moriarty, King James Bible,Gardening books, Meditation, fly fishing,and many more. ...

I don't get the wooooo's or gitters from the mix of books I have. ...

Imagine im arriving in the door and see the book shelf, ahhhh the Bible is there, oh nooooo my friends can't see that, my outstanding social conditioned agnostic reputation will be in tatters, ahhhhhh Richard Dawkins people might think im a full on Atheist hopped right over the fence.
The next day I arrive home I see the King James Bible ahhhhh people might think im gone all religious. ...

They're only books, tree bark and ink, get attached the what the book symbolically represents and it's leading to sadness, resentment and a circular argument in your head......

It's only a book :-)

You are (if I may say so) spectacularly missing the point. This isn't about your personal bookshelf, or some random book "lying somewhere". This is about the holy book of a specific religion being placed in a prominent position in a polling station.

The voting form and the X you place are also just "tree bark and ink", it's what those marks on those pieces of paper symbolise that has importance.

The fact that you can, for example, get a divorce in this country is as a result of the symbolism of marks on bits of tree bark and ink, so I fail to see why you think the symbolism is irrelevant. The symbolism is actually the only thing that matters.

Geomy

swampgas wrote: »

You are (if I may say so) spectacularly missing the point. This isn't about your personal bookshelf, or some random book "lying somewhere". This is about the holy book of a specific religion being placed in a prominent position in a polling station.

The voting form and the X you place are also just "tree bark and ink", it's what those marks on those pieces of paper symbolise that has importance.

The fact that you can, for example, get a divorce in this country is as a result of the symbolism of marks on bits of tree bark and ink, so I fail to see why you think the symbolism is irrelevant. The symbolism is actually the only thing that matters.

I already mentioned about symbolism in one of my posts.

I can see what you're saying but there's also an element of moaning going on. ..

I can take a slap on the wrist,im not taking the subject seriously like some are, ill leave the discussion now....

The whole thing is like something out of monty python or something similar. ...

Im agnostic so not as strident as some are...

swampgas

Geomy wrote: »

I already mentioned about symbolism in one of my posts.

I can see what you're saying but there's also an element of moaning going on. ..

I can take a slap on the wrist,im not taking the subject seriously like some are, ill leave the discussion now....

The whole thing is like something out of monty python or something similar. ...

Im agnostic so not as strident as some are...

Fair enough.

However, it's very easy to accuse people of "moaning" or "whining" (not you) when they raise legitimate issues. Comparing this to Monty Python isn't far off. Just because you think it's a complete storm in a teacup doesn't mean that it can be dismissed as such. There was a time when women looking for the vote were dismissed in equally derogatory terms.

Obliq

Geomy wrote: »

I can see what you're saying but there's also an element of moaning going on. ..

I just don't spot the 'moaning' here at all. There are many atheists who are actively trying to cause a proper separation of church and state, so that we can all live in a more equal society. This represents a very small part of that action. It is important, and many of the regular A&A folk have stated that we are not offended/angry/moaning or in fear of libraries and books, but have explained themselves very well in the face of people demanding to know why we can't just roll over and accept the status quo.

Ireland has a proper problem of too much church control over the state (such as in education and health, for example) and some people are doing their level best to straighten this out. If you don't care about the problem either way, then get out of the way, tbh.

Hotblack Desiato

UrbanSea wrote: »

Nope but I don't have to moderate here do I

Perhaps I should elaborate. It was the post's ignorance I found funny

Yeah right. If you thank it, you endorse it. I can see why you're embarrassed and trying to wriggle out of it though.