If you see a Bible at your referendum voting centre

Turtwig

ninja900 wrote: »

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

I'd prefer if we just dropped this line of dicussion altogether. It's not really relevant to the OP and is giving a trash troll's insults of Michael and others more food than he could possibly have anticipated.

wexie

ninja900 wrote: »

Well spotted.
Now, can you justify 96% of schools having a religious ethos? .

Justify : nope. Agree with : Nope. Explain in historical context : Absolutely.

ninja900 wrote: »

There is huge unmet demand from parents for secular education.

Then may I suggest those parents start filling out the census forms with somewhat more thought? Out of a total of 4/5 million(ish) 3.8 million (ish)identified as Roman Catholic

ninja900 wrote: »

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?.

Again, because of the religious ethos, you can hardly expect for a Roman Catholic school to employ a Hindu? Imagine what would happen of Muslim schools were forced to employ Jews?

ninja900 wrote: »

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.

Seems to me that's pretty much how a democracy works alright. What I was pointing out is that you're hardly likely to get elected running on an atheist platform in a country where 85% of the population identify as Catholic. However, I absolutely think you should be able to give it a good go. And if succesful there should be no religious oath to take at the end.

ninja900 wrote: »

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.

No argument from me on this.

ninja900 wrote: »

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.

Again, agree with you on this, however I also feel that an atheist teacher even WANTING to teach in a Catholic institution already is a hypocrite, regardless of whether or not there's an oath to take or a form to write lies on.

ninja900 wrote: »

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.

I think we have somewhat different ideas of what constitutes religious discrimination.

Kiwi in IE

Geomy wrote: »

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.

Do adherents of organised religion really want to continue to have their religion made a mockery of, by advocating that non adherents participate in rituals that mean nothing at all to them?

swampgas

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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?

I personally know people who were interested in becoming primary school teachers but opted for something else because of the religious aspect. I also know primary school teachers from other countries can find it impossible to get jobs in Irish primary schools because of the "ethos" issue, and because in addition to being educators Irish primary school teachers also have to act as Roman Catholic religious instructors.

In many ways Irish primary school teachers are a self-selecting set: only Catholics, or those prepared to pass themselves off as Catholics, apply for and get the jobs.

wexie

swampgas wrote: »

I personally know people who were interested in becoming primary school teachers but opted for something else because of the religious aspect. I also know primary school teachers from other countries can find it impossible to get jobs in Irish primary schools because of the "ethos" issue, and because in addition to being educators Irish primary school teachers also have to act as Roman Catholic religious instructors.

In many ways Irish primary school teachers are a self-selecting set: only Catholics, or those prepared to pass themselves off as Catholics, apply for and get the jobs.

But of course? If it's a Catholic school you can hardly expect them to hire Muslims or Hindu's? So why would they be forced to hire atheists?

Would you expect Muslim schools to hire Catholics?

swampgas

Here's a question for those who think the bible in the polling station is "just a book on a table", and that I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing.

What do they think the reaction would be if I picked the bible up off the table and tore it in half? I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, but I'll bet there would be a lot of talk about me "disrespecting" the bible and "disrespecting" religion.

So if I object to a bible in a polling station I'm getting all whiny about some old book on a table, but if I tore it in two I'll bet it would stop being "just some book" awfully fast.

The point I'm trying to make is that a bible on display in a polling station does have significance and symbolic value.

Geomy

Ok I can see why it bothers some and not other's.
I think it's only going to go round in circles, so ill leave the discussion.

At the end of the day religious paraphernalia has no place at a polling booth, I probably went too far where the whole ink and paper is concerned....

I can see how it looks, like religion is holding onto it's grip on society and can't let go.

It's offensive to some and not to others. ..

Maybe have poling booths in town halls or libraries. ..

swampgas

wexie wrote: »

But of course? If it's a Catholic school you can hardly expect them to hire Muslims or Hindu's? So why would they be forced to hire atheists?

Would you expect Muslim schools to hire Catholics?

The point is that the state pays for the schools, and yet the parents of many children don't get to opt their kids out of Catholic indoctrination.

This has been discussed at length in this forum already. I'll point you to here and here for starters.

Kiwi in IE

wexie wrote: »

But of course? If it's a Catholic school you can hardly expect them to hire Muslims or Hindu's? So why would they be forced to hire atheists?

Would you expect Muslim schools to hire Catholics?

No I guess I wouldn't anyway. And there are plenty of countries where all schools that receive government funding are Muslim, and therefore only Muslim people can teach in the vast majority of schools. Do you want Ireland to be comparable to these countries?

wexie

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No I guess I wouldn't anyway. And there are plenty of countries where all schools that receive government funding are Muslim, and only Muslim people can teach therefore in the vast majority of schools. Do you want Ireland to be comparable to these countries?

I think the mere fact that Ireland isn't even remotely comparable to most of the these countries indicates that cries of 'religious discrimination' seem somewhat hysterical.

Turtwig

I think it's down to our conditioning of Catholic culture we don't really take much notice of it consciously. Same as we do for ashes on a forehead. If it was a Qu'ran* placed on the polling booth people would be going "What the f**k is that doing there?". The same should be asked of the bible in a supposed secular republic, but it isn't because we're so accustomed to the permeation of Catholicism in Irish society and the dealings of the Irish State.

*Afaik, it's not even legal for the Qu'ran to be placed there. The bible is fine though.

wexie

swampgas wrote: »

The point is that the state pays for the schools, and yet the parents of many children don't get to opt their kids out of Catholic indoctrination.
This has been discussed at length in this forum already. I'll point you to here and here for starters.

Oh I agree with you on that, however you're barking up the wrong tree.
You shoulnd't be arguing for Catholic schools not to be allowed to hire according to their ethos. That would be infringing on their religious rights.

Instead you need to argue there should be fewer religious schools, however it's a hard argument to make with 85% of the population identifying as Catholic and something like 98% as religious of some description.

wexie

Jernal wrote: »

*Afaik, it's not even legal for the Qu'ran to be placed there. The bible is fine though.

Why wouldn't it be?

Surely if one is legal then the other should be as well?

Obliq

wexie wrote: »

Then may I suggest those parents start filling out the census forms with somewhat more thought? Out of a total of 4/5 million(ish) 3.8 million (ish)identified as Roman Catholic

Well spotted. We have suggested the same.....once or twice. Between the biscuit breaks, like.

Again, because of the religious ethos, you can hardly expect for a Roman Catholic school to employ a Hindu? Imagine what would happen of Muslim schools were forced to employ Jews?

Yes, just imagine. I presume for the puposes of this discussion, that they wouldn't be all that in favour. Now - what exactly about the Roman Catholic monopoly over our STATE schools do you think is a good thing? If nothing, then why on earth are you rolling over and playing dead (with the exception of sniping at people who are actively trying to alter this strangle-hold that stops atheists/minority religions becoming teachers and keeps children of same discriminated against in school).

Seems to me that's pretty much how a democracy works alright.

In a SECULAR republic? Are you sure that's the way it should be? Because the constitution begs to differ....

Again, agree with you on this, however I also feel that an atheist teacher even WANTING to teach in a Catholic institution already is a hypocrite, regardless of whether or not there's an oath to take or a form to write lies on.

Wut??! Now atheists shouldn't want to be teachers because they'd have to lie to get a job? Are you thinking this through? I mean, you haven't even mentioned (EDIT: Oh wait, you just mentioned it while I was typing. Apologies) the necessity of changing the system BECAUSE this is the case - instead you are pinning it all on atheists and minority religions to just get a grip and give up. I can't access the 'smilie's' from my netbook, so you'll have to imagine the string of them I'd put here aren't bloody smiling.

I think we have somewhat different ideas of what constitutes religious discrimination.

Why yes, that's the most sensible thing I've seen you say.

Kiwi in IE

wexie wrote: »

I think the mere fact that Ireland isn't even remotely comparable to most of the these countries indicates that cries of 'religious discrimination' seem somewhat hysterical.

Really? In most respects you are right however;

In Iran you have to be Islamic to be a teacher in public schools.

In Ireland you have to be Catholic to teach in 90% of public schools and Christian of some variety to teach in 97% of public schools.

In the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium (insert any other Western country here), it does not matter what religion you are to teach in public schools. In fact it would be ILLEGAL for state funded institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion!

It is only one similarity, but an extremely embarrassing one none the less!

wexie

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, just imagine. I presume for the puposes of this discussion, that they wouldn't be all that in favour. Now - what exactly about the Roman Catholic monopoly over our STATE schools do you think is a good thing? If nothing, then why on earth are you rolling over and playing dead (with the exception of sniping at people who are actively trying to alter this strangle-hold that stops atheists/minority religions becoming teachers and keeps children of same discriminated against in school)..

You're awfully presumptious for someone who knows absolutely sweet FA about me.

Obliq wrote: »

In a SECULAR republic? Are you sure that's the way it should be? Because the constitution begs to differ.

I was referring to elections being a popularity contest.....

Obliq wrote: »

Wut??! Now atheists shouldn't want to be teachers because they'd have to lie to get a job? Are you thinking this through? I mean, you haven't even mentioned the necessity of changing the system BECAUSE this is the case - instead you are pinning it all on atheists and minority religions to just get a grip and give up. I can't access the 'smilie's' from my netbook, so you'll have to imagine the string of them I'd put here aren't bloody smiling.

Where did you see me mention that? please humour me and quote it...

I was questioning the hypocrisy of an ATHEIST wanting to teach in a CATHOLIC school.....

your reading and comprehension skills are well below par.

wexie

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Really? In most respects you are right however;

In Iran you have to Islamic to be a teacher in public schools.

In Ireland you have to be Catholic to teach in 90% of public schools and Christian of some variety to teach in 97% of public schools.

In the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium (insert any other Western country here), it does not matter what religion you are to teach in public schools. In fact it would be ILLEGAL for state funded institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion!

It maybe only one similarity, but an extremely embarrassing one none the less!

Sadly yes, however, the distinction is 'public schools'. I can tell you from experience that you still need to be Catholic to teach in a Catholic school in Holland. I'd imagine it would be much the same in those other countries.

However I'd also think that in those countries the religious schools aren't state funded.

Should there be more public schools in Ireland. Absolutely. Should religious schools not be state funded(or to lesser extent). Absolutely

Are all of these much bigger issues than bible's in polling stations?

Gimme a break.

If you'd visited enough polling stations you'd probably also would have found some with crucifixes somewhere in the building.

Obliq

wexie wrote: »

You're awfully presumptious for someone who knows absolutely sweet FA about me.

Well perhaps I am - I'll take that on the chin. Having read your previous posts though, you've not exactly been coming out in support of changing the way things stand, and from what I can see you've been having a go at people for caring about this issue, have you not? I guess I'm sick of the presumption that we atheists are going to shut up and get back under our rocks.

I was referring to elections being a popularity contest.....

Right so. Missed that

Where did you see me mention that? please humour me and quote it...

Cannot quote due to netbook/android fail. Anyone know how to copy and paste with android? Will get back to you on this one.....

I was questioning the hypocrisy of an ATHEIST wanting to teach in a CATHOLIC school....

Yes, that much I had figured. I'm questioning whether you even see it as a problem for atheists that they cannot choose to be teachers unless willing to lie in a classroom environment. I would not encourage anyone to be hypocritical, but the nature of the system is that. Stick around here and discuss changing it maybe, instead of having a go at the people who are trying to.

your reading and comprehension skills are well below par.

Cheers, same to you.

Obliq

wexie wrote: »

Are all of these much bigger issues than bible's in polling stations?

Gimme a break.

It's all the one issue.

And ditto.

Kiwi in IE

wexie wrote: »

Are all of these much bigger issues than bible's in polling stations?

I agree that the education issue has a far more serious impact than bibles in polling booths, but they are symptoms of the same disease; State endorsement of a religion.

wexie

Obliq wrote: »

Well perhaps I am - I'll take that on the chin. Having read your previous posts though, you've not exactly been coming out in support of changing the way things stand, and from what I can see you've been having a go at people for caring about this issue, have you not?

wexie wrote: »

Should there be more public schools in Ireland. Absolutely. Should religious schools not be state funded(or to lesser extent). Absolutely

:rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

wexie wrote: »

I was questioning the hypocrisy of an ATHEIST wanting to teach in a CATHOLIC school.....

It's where 96% of the job vacancies are.

A qualified teacher shouldn't have to choose between either living a lie (And risking the sack if exposed) or cutting their employment prospects down to almost zero because of not being the 'right' religion.

Obliq

wexie wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Yes, and if you check my first post in reply to you, you'll see where I was a big girl and acknowledged you saying that, as soon as I saw it. Now perhaps we can tone this down a little since you seem (now) to be less actively advocating that we all just let this issue drop.

MrPudding

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

In the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium (insert any other Western country here), it does not matter what religion you are to teach in public schools. In fact it would be ILLEGAL for state funded institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion!

It is only one similarity, but an extremely embarrassing one none the less!

I'm afraid you need to take the UK out of your list. Schools are state funded and also slowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

MrP

wexie

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, and if you check my first post in reply to you, you'll see where I was a big girl and acknowledged you saying that, as soon as I saw it. Now perhaps we can tone this down a little since you seem (now) to be less actively advocating that we all just let this issue drop.

Hmmmmaybe I should have been clearer. I absolutely have an issue with the influence of the Catholic church in day to day life in Ireland.

However, I don't see the existence of a bible in a polling station as a symptom of it.

I see a bible in a polling station as nothing more (or less) than an archaic custom (swearing on the bible). I do find it worrying however not from a religious point of view but more because there's no bloody way it should be an acceptable form to establish someones identity.

And while the influence of the Catholic church in society to me is worrying, I would hate to see the removal of that influence to be extended to completely remove any trace of 'the Church' from society.

Obliq

wexie wrote: »

Hmmmmaybe I should have been clearer. I absolutely have an issue with the influence of the Catholic church in day to day life in Ireland.

However, I don't see the existence of a bible in a polling station as a symptom of it.

I see a bible in a polling station as nothing more (or less) than an archaic custom (swearing on the bible). I do find it worrying however not from a religious point of view but more because there's no bloody way it should be an acceptable form to establish someones identity.

And while the influence of the Catholic church in society to me is worrying, I would hate to see the removal of that influence to be extended to completely remove any trace of 'the Church' from society.

In the spirit of our new civility ;-), I'm happy to discuss how the existence of the bible at a polling station (and no other alternative on display) is a symptom of exactly what Jernal described. We are so used to seeing this symbolism as part of our national identity, that Irish people on the whole don't see the problem of the tenets of one particular religious denomination being the 'go-to' arbiter of truth within the legal workings of our state.

Yes, of course you're right. It's an archaic custom (that we are all too accostomed to) and it doesn't mean any more to most people, but to the likes of me who genuinely can't swear on a bible, I would like to point out the shortcomings of this WITHIN the greater scheme of things.

It all ties in. Most people are genuinely unaware that people with other religions and none face difficulties in the grand scheme of things of our system (as per the previous examples) and highlighting this issue is honestly more of a public awareness campaign than an example of a 'big issue', such as educational monopoly or Catholic run hospitals. It all adds up though. Where I live in tiny small-town Ireland, the issue of an atheist wanting to go to the NS here didn't occur till I arrived, because everyone else just backed off and went to the Steiner. Except me. Now we have a far more inclusive school. It really does take people actually speaking up to make others aware of inequality.

I don't know that I would 'hate' to see symbols of Catholic influence being removed. There are really very few examples that affect me (as someone who doesn't attend church), but the state is beginning to agree that the proliferation of religious symbolism in schools is an intrusion on their pupils who are not of the same faith (can't link to the recent dept. missive from here, sorry). As far as I'm concerned, Catholics are absolutely entitled to their symbolism, both personally and within their own institutions. Also, littering the villages with grottos if that is the village's majority wish. But in state funded institutions or obligations such as polling stations? No.

Also, yes. How ridiculous is it these days to believe that someone is being honest about their identity if they swear on a holy book (any holy book, or secular affirmation for that matter)?!

Kidchameleon

My point (that people seem to be ignoring) was that there is nothing stopping you taking those jobs. It is just an oath to a God that doesn't exist, whats the big deal? Its a book in a polling station, whats the big deal? When was the last time a president was turned away for not swearing on God? When was the last time a judge was?

Kidchameleon

MrPudding wrote: »

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

Give me an example of one human being who hasn't lied in the past week. To claim you don't lie as a matter of principle is a blatant lie in itself.

Turtwig

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Give me an example of one human being who hasn't lied in the past week. To claim you don't lie as a matter of principle is a blatant lie in itself.

Are you actually going to go down that road. Just because people lie everyday doesn't mean they should lie in court.
There's an awful difference from a minor lie "I liked the food" to a major one "I'm not cheating on you!", to an extreme one "I saw him point the gun and pull the trigger!"

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

My point (that people seem to be ignoring) was that there is nothing stopping you taking those jobs. It is just an oath to a God that doesn't exist, whats the big deal? Its a book in a polling station, whats the big deal? When was the last time a president was turned away for not swearing on God? When was the last time a judge was?

What's so hard to understand? For some people, it's a point of personal integrity not to lie. Also, if a person lies when making an oath to tell the truth, then their whole testimony is suspect.

If it's "no big deal" then why not just remove the bible from the polling station?

wexie

Kidchameleon wrote: »

My point (that people seem to be ignoring) was that there is nothing stopping you taking those jobs. It is just an oath to a God that doesn't exist, whats the big deal? Its a book in a polling station, whats the big deal? When was the last time a president was turned away for not swearing on God? When was the last time a judge was?

I don't know about you but personally I'd like to not promote dishonesty in the people teaching my kids, the next generation and the future of this country.

(just a thought)

inocybe

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree that the education issue has a far more serious impact than bibles in polling booths, but they are symptoms of the same disease; State endorsement of a religion.

One important extension of the bible in polling booths is the bible in the court room. And please let no-one be so naive as to think that being forced to expose yourself as a non believer doesn't influence certain judges attitudes. It's unacceptable for religion to be in the courthouse, and removing it from other official places like polling booths needs to go hand in hand with that reform.

wexie

inocybe wrote: »

One important extension of the bible in polling booths is the bible in the court room. And please let no-one be so naive as to think that being forced to expose yourself as a non believer doesn't influence certain judges attitudes. It's unacceptable for religion to be in the courthouse, and removing it from other official places like polling booths needs to go hand in hand with that reform.

Would you say that that's genuine or hypocrisy though? As in, are these judges genuinely religious or just going through the motions as they might have when sworn in?

(just out of curiosity not looking to derail the thread)

Turtwig

If it goes too far off topic we can always create a spin-off thread.

I wouldn't be too worried about Judges being swayed. I'd be seriously concerned about members of the Jury. Imagine if Popette was on the jury! Some people have preconceptions about atheists. Imagine if you were the key witness that could attest to someone's innocence. You decline to swear a religious oath, that's possibly your credibility dented.

inocybe

wexie wrote: »

Would you say that that's genuine or hypocrisy though? As in, are these judges genuinely religious or just going through the motions as they might have when sworn in?

(just out of curiosity not looking to derail the thread)

It doesn't matter, once a judge forms an impression about you based on information that should remain private. Have personal experience of this unfortunately, the judge actually rolled his eyes when I refused the bible. Nobody should be put in that position.

inocybe

Jernal wrote: »

If it goes too far off topic we can always create a spin-off thread.

I wouldn't be too worried about Judges being swayed.

You would if you were in front of at least one, and I'm not so sure he's the only one

Kiwi in IE

Jernal wrote: »

I'd be seriously concerned about members of the Jury. Imagine if Popette was on the jury!

Guys, who is she? I clearly havn't been around long enough to know and am completely intrigued! Robin has referred to her many times, and I assumed she must be a mother in law or some such relative, but now Jernal speaks of her too?

Obliq

I think she is Robin's aunt, but could be wrong. She is legendary though, so she is starting to acheive honorary mentions by others! Legendary for exactly fitting the bill of the generic Irish relative that nothing religiously controversial can be spoken about in their company for fear of the ear bashing you'd get, while they bang on about the devilish and immoral nature of today's society without fear of contradiction.

Fun at the xmas dinner table :-)

Turtwig

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Guys, who is she? I clearly havn't been around long enough to know and am completely intrigued! Robin has referred to her many times, and I assumed she must be a mother in law or some such relative, but now Jernal speaks of her too?

Female relative in Rob's extended family. When Rob got tired using the long winded terminology, Popette was born.

Kiwi in IE

Obliq wrote: »

I think she is Robin's aunt, but could be wrong. She is legendary though, so she is starting to acheive honorary mentions by others! Legendary for exactly fitting the bill of the generic Irish relative that nothing religiously controversial can be spoken about in their company for fear of the ear bashing you'd get, while they bang on about the devilish and immoral nature of today's society without fear of contradiction.

Fun at the xmas dinner table :-)

Jernal wrote: »

Female relative in Rob's extended family. When Rob got tired using the long winded terminology, Popette was born.

It should perhaps be an official generic term for such people because I have one too!

Hotblack Desiato

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It should perhaps be an official generic term for such people because I have one too!

Ah now. Your false popette couldn't hold a candle to the real Popette! Schism!!

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

My point (that people seem to be ignoring) was that there is nothing stopping you taking those jobs. It is just an oath to a God that doesn't exist, whats the big deal? Its a book in a polling station, whats the big deal? When was the last time a president was turned away for not swearing on God? When was the last time a judge was?

Did you read the bit where I said that if you lied to your employer on recruitment and were caught out later, you could be fired?

Bear in mind that 'religious institutions' e.g. 98% of Irish primary schools are exempt from discrimination law. They can fire an employee on the basis of their religion with no comeback.

Kidchameleon

swampgas wrote: »

Here's a question for those who think the bible in the polling station is "just a book on a table", and that I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing.

What do they think the reaction would be if I picked the bible up off the table and tore it in half? I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, but I'll bet there would be a lot of talk about me "disrespecting" the bible and "disrespecting" religion.

So if I object to a bible in a polling station I'm getting all whiny about some old book on a table, but if I tore it in two I'll bet it would stop being "just some book" awfully fast.

The point I'm trying to make is that a bible on display in a polling station does have significance and symbolic value.

If you ripped up say the latest J.K. Rowling you would get the same reaction from me as you would if it were the bible. A religious person might find it offensive if you ripped up a bible. The point is, an atheist seeing a bible in a polling station SHOULD see it as just another book, if you don't believe in all that stuff, why be bothered about it? Other people do, in fact a majority of the people do, so what?

Kidchameleon

ninja900 wrote: »

Did you read the bit where I said that if you lied to your employer on recruitment and were caught out later, you could be fired?

Bear in mind that 'religious institutions' e.g. 98% of Irish primary schools are exempt from discrimination law. They can fire an employee on the basis of their religion with no comeback.

Have you got a source on that? Sounds interesting

Obliq

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you ripped up say the latest J.K. Rowling you would get the same reaction from me as you would if it were the bible. A religious person might find it offensive if you ripped up a bible. The point is, an atheist seeing a bible in a polling station SHOULD see it as just another book, if you don't believe in all that stuff, why be bothered about it? Other people do, in fact a majority of the people do, so what?

We've seen your point repeatedly kid, and explained that it is the highlighting of the principal that we're doing here. Y'know, because we have some principals.

Kidchameleon

Obliq wrote: »

We've seen your point repeatedly kid, and explained that it is the highlighting of the principal that we're doing here. Y'know, because we have some principals.

im still not convinced. Anyhow were going around in circles here. Has been a nice debate :-)

TwoShedsJackson

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you ripped up say the latest J.K. Rowling you would get the same reaction from me as you would if it were the bible. A religious person might find it offensive if you ripped up a bible. The point is, an atheist seeing a bible in a polling station SHOULD see it as just another book, if you don't believe in all that stuff, why be bothered about it? Other people do, in fact a majority of the people do, so what?

The Bible is not just another book, as you well know. Comparing it to JK Rowling (at least in the manner you are doing), is facetious in the extreme.

Brian Shanahan

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:

I was pointing out the fact that every single one of your posts I've read goes "I'm an atheist, but christianity is the greatest".

I don't mind you defending your religion, honestly. But I find it a bit rich your constant assertion of arreligiosity.

Oh and Ireland is de iure a secular state, which means religion doesn't impinge on state matters and vice versa. Therefore complaining about religious icons being used in state ceremonies is perfectly legitimate.

Brian Shanahan

wexie wrote: »

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.

Twee's an atheist.

Obliq

Kidchameleon wrote: »

im still not convinced. Anyhow were going around in circles here. Has been a nice debate :-)

It's only a proper debate when someone takes another person's point, addresses it and moves the debate forward. What you've been doing is repeating yourself on a loop alright, but you needn't include me in your version of circular debate.