If you see a Bible at your referendum voting centre

Delirium

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Twee's an atheist.

Brian Shanahan

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?

Thing is they're state schools. And as a secular state, schools run by the state should give a secular education.

Look, we're second in time spent on religious indoctrination in the OECD only to Israel, a country which is actively using religious propoganda to further its goal of Lebensraum nach Osten.

Brian Shanahan

koth wrote: »

His Excellency Michael D. Higgens, Uachtarain na hÉireann.

It was a nickname given to him of old by The Phoenix, mainly because of his poetry sometimes tending towards tweeness.

Delirium

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

His Excellency Michael D. Higgens, Uachtarain na hÉireann.

It was a nickname given to him of old by The Phoenix, mainly because of his poetry sometimes tending towards tweeness.

was there not a correction in one of the papers (Indo I think) where the paper stated he wasn't an atheist?

EDIT: found it

Cabaal

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?

Its a state run and funded school,

Do you think it would be ok to not hire non-catholics for any other position in the state? Do you support such a blanket ban?

Remember, church and state are supposed to be separate

wexie

Cabaal wrote: »

Its a state run and funded school,

Do you think it would be ok to not hire non-catholics for any other position in the state? Do you support such a blanket ban?

Remember, church and state are supposed to be separate

You're completely missing my point and making a good effort of twisting it as well.

It's a state run CATHOLIC school. And as such they will continue to hire in accordance to their ethos.

Of course it's not right that the state continues to fund religious schools, however you can't blame the schools for hiring in accordance to their ethos.

That'd be like blaming the fox for mauling the chickens rather than the farmer that let the fox in the hen house.

Brian Shanahan

koth wrote: »

was there not a correction in one of the papers (Indo I think) where the paper stated he wasn't an atheist?

EDIT: found it

The clarification reads:

The President is an atheist but he has to swear the oath of office under God'. What does he say? I swear under what? The Five Lamps?" It has been brought to our attention that this opinion has no basis in fact.

(sorry for the bolding, it seems to be automatic).

What opinion are they talking about? Calling somebody an atheist is a statement of fact (whether true or false), not an opinion which would read "I believe the President to be an atheist". And it is definitely a fact that the constitution proscribes swearing under god when taking up the office of Presidency.

And the last thing I will mention about the "clarification", who brought "it" to their attention. If it were His Excellency (or his wife, or a member of his staff) noting that in fact he wasn't religious surely the Indo would mention this. I'd say it was some religious person, on realising the only public pronouncement by Michael D. on his religious position was that he held the same "spirituality" as the openly agnostic Albert Einstein, hoping to somewhat muddy the waters.

On the President's religious beliefs, it is common opinion (of which he has done nothing to disabuse) that he is arreligious, tending to disbelief, and this opinion generally complies to his words and actions.

Edit: I was going to mention that in a direct interview if the interviewer was going to talk about the interviewees religion and was any way competent he'd ask first what the interviewees position was. But then again this is the Indo.

Bannasidhe

wexie wrote: »

You're completely missing my point and making a good effort of twisting it as well.

It's a state run CATHOLIC school. And as such they will continue to hire in accordance to their ethos.

Of course it's not right that the state continues to fund religious schools, however you can't blame the schools for hiring in accordance to their ethos.

That'd be like blaming the fox for mauling the chickens rather than the farmer that let the fox in the hen house.

You seem to be missing the point that people are objecting to the fact that the vast majority of State funded schools promote the ethos of one religion and this is not acceptable. It is divisive, elitist and legally excludes those who are not members of that religion.

We can certainly object when the State fails to provide alternatives and is funding a system of education that privileges one religious ethos.

Ones religious beliefs should have no baring on ones ability to teach or on one ability to gain employment in a State funded education system - yet in Ireland this is exactly what happens. One has to be either a Catholic or willing to lie to get a job in a State funded national school - that is demonstrably unjust given our Constitution clearly states

ARTICLE 44

2 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession
and practice of religion are, subject to public
order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

Additionally - in 1973 The 5th Amendment removed this:

The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.

Yet, 40 years later the State is paying for the RCC to have a 'special position' by ensuring the vast majority of State funded schools have a RCC ethos.

swampgas

wexie wrote: »

You're completely missing my point and making a good effort of twisting it as well.

It's a state run CATHOLIC school. And as such they will continue to hire in accordance to their ethos.

Of course it's not right that the state continues to fund religious schools, however you can't blame the schools for hiring in accordance to their ethos.

That'd be like blaming the fox for mauling the chickens rather than the farmer that let the fox in the hen house.

It might not have been clear, but we're well aware of where the responsibility to change this lies - it's with the government, and the minister of education. We are not blaming the schools for having a Catholic ethos, we're (implicitly, perhaps) blaming the state for it's lack of progress in providing equality of education to parents who do not wish their children to be indoctrinated.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Have you got a source on that? Sounds interesting

Employment Equality Act 1998

37.—(1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or

(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

(b) has been used, among other things, to sack teachers who were discovered to be gay. I think it was used to sack an unmarried teacher who became pregnant, also.

Cabaal

ninja900 wrote: »

Employment Equality Act 1998



(b) has been used, among other things, to sack teachers who were discovered to be gay. I think it was used to sack an unmarried teacher who became pregnant, also.

Not sure of any more recent cases, but sacked for being pregnant happened in 1982 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_Flynn.

However the belief is that a teacher could still be sacked for the same situation even now, http://www.herald.ie/opinion/have-we-learned-the-lessons-of-the-pregnant-teacher-case-27885178.html , this basis is the judges ruling:

The judge vindicated the right of a religious order providing specifically Catholic education in a Catholic ethos, to remove a teacher whose lifestyle did not support that ethos.

This means we are technically I suppose in a situation where anything that goes against the ethos could get you sacked, these could include
- Being gay
- Pregnant outside of marriage
- Sex before marriage/Using contraception
- Having an abortion (even if this saved your life)

As of March 2013, gay teachers still fear being fired just for being gay....as do Doctors in catholic ethos hospitals
http://www.thejournal.ie/lgbt-legislation-jobs-815578-Mar2013/

Given being gay stopped being against the law in the early 90's this is a pretty disgraceful situation to have over 20 years later.

The only way we can be 100% sure if teachers can't be sacked for these things is:
- If the government changes the law
- If a teacher gets sacked and brings a case against the government and wins

Its not exactly a good situation to put any teacher in, people should in noway fear that they can be sacked for just living their life in a reasonable and legal way.



Just to add, we know that a catholic ethos school can refuse to teach a student that is pregnant and get away with it perfectly fine. So its not a massive jump to apply this some crap to the workplace still.

http://www.thejournal.ie/wholly-unacceptable-ombudsman-slams-school-that-refused-pregnant-teen-434462-Apr2012/

robindch

Repleace the greasy word "ethos" with "prejudice".

wexie

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that people are objecting to the fact that the vast majority of State funded schools promote the ethos of one religion and this is not acceptable. It is divisive, elitist and legally excludes those who are not members of that religion.

wexie wrote: »

Of course it's not right that the state continues to fund religious schools, however you can't blame the schools for hiring in accordance to their ethos.

remind me again how I'm missing the point?

Bannasidhe

wexie wrote: »

remind me again how I'm missing the point?

Because you appear to be ignoring the contention that placing the 'holy' book associated with one religion (whose indoctrination process is being heavily subsidised by the State) in a prominent position in polling stations is a symptom of that same malaise which has given us a sectarian education system.

It is ridiculous imho that swearing on anything as a means of affirming ones identity is allowed when voting. We are required by law to carry a drivers licence when driving but putting one's hand up and saying 'I swear I am who I say I am' when engaging in the democratic process is absurd. But as this absurd situation exists - everyone should be required to swear the same oath - a civil one. Keep the 'holy' books out of it.

SpaceTime

I have to vote in a shed next to a cathedral...

No bibles or luxuries of any type. I'd say the staff would be lucky if they'd Aldi rich tea by the looks of it.

Miserable location. It would put you off voting

Kidchameleon

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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".

Could you highlight even one post of mine that says that? I thought not.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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

What religion? I don't believe in God and I'm not a member of any religious organization. Which is more than I can say for the vast majority of posters here, including yourself probably. Also this thread is not about me.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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.

I feel religion and state should be separate, Ireland is slowly moving that way. Moaning about a bible on a table however is blatant church bashing. And facepalm inducing.

Obliq wrote: »

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.

I could say exactly the same thing about some of the other posters here but at least I was trying to be nice about it. I was trying to leave the thread before the soapboxing from BOTH sides began.

OldNotWIse

Surely the option is there to ignore the bible if you so wish?

What would a "secualr affirmation" even be??

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I feel religion and state should be separate, Ireland is slowly moving that way. Moaning about a bible on a table however is blatant church bashing. And facepalm inducing.

How exactly is it? If anything it's state bashing because the state is being criticised for putting a religious book out in polling stations.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I feel religion and state should be separate, Ireland is slowly moving that way. Moaning about a bible on a table however is blatant church bashing. And facepalm inducing.

Could you please link to the posts where 'church bashing' occurred as I seem to have missed them?

What I have seen is more akin to 'State bashing' for allowing a situation to exist which is patiently sectarian and should have no place in our election process.

Cabaal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Surely the option is there to ignore the bible if you so wish?

What would a "secualr affirmation" even be??

This is the sort of view that has meant the things merely continue as they are,

Given we're supposed to have separate of church and state the bible has no place in our polling stations,

In addition it is in no way a valid form of verifying somebody's identity, if it was then surely people could just go into the social welfare office claim they are such and such and swear on the bible.

Given it wouldn't be ok in a social welfare office situation, it sure isn't ok in our voting system as without a doubt it is open to abuse and fraud.

OldNotWIse

Cabaal wrote: »

This is the sort of view that has meant the things merely continue as they are,

Given we're supposed to have separate of church and state the bible has no place in our polling stations,

In addition it is in no way a valid form of verifying somebody's identity, if it was then surely people could just go into the social welfare office claim they are such and such and swear on the bible.

Given it wouldn't be ok in a social welfare office situation, it sure isn't ok in our voting system as without a doubt it is open to abuse and fraud.

Well the SW system is clearly a target for fraud, what with all the "free money" they give out - but why on earth would someone swear to be someone they are not in a polling station? To skew the system with one "bad" vote or something?

AnonoBoy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What would a "secualr affirmation" even be??

Pinky swear?

Cabaal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well the SW system is clearly a target for fraud, what with all the "free money" they give out - but why on earth would someone swear to be someone they are not in a polling station? To skew the system with one "bad" vote or something?

So you doubt election fraud can happen and because of this you think no proper checks should be put in place?

No really a good way of looking at things,

Morag

Didn't see a bible on display in the hall were voting took place but I has to walk in the gate of the local church and across the shared car park with the school, to access the school and then sure the school had two holy statues and a crucifix over the door into the hall. /sigh

Dinner

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Surely the option is there to ignore the bible if you so wish?

What would a "secualr affirmation" even be??

For voting, the secular affirmation is the same as the Catholic 'swear' except instead of saying "I swear on the holy bible" it says something like "I hereby affirm".

Possibly not the exact words, but there isn't a whole different passage for Catholics compared to the rest of us. They just get to hold book and change the opening line.

Honestly, the bigger issue here is that there is ever a possibility that someone can vote when their identity is in doubt just by 'promising' that they are who they say they are.

Kiwi in IE

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What religion? I don't believe in God and I'm not a member of any religious organization. Which is more than I can say for the vast majority of posters here, including yourself probably.

What precisely do you mean by that? I think most regular posters in here have made it clear they are atheist or agnostic, have they not? Who then are the 'vast majority' that are members of a religious organisation?

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well the SW system is clearly a target for fraud, what with all the "free money" they give out - but why on earth would someone swear to be someone they are not in a polling station? To skew the system with one "bad" vote or something?

Hardly 'one' bad vote when one considers this

At a national level, there were around 200,000 more people on the electoral register than those listed in the 2011 census who would be eligible to vote in a general election, he has claimed.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/political-analyst-raises-electoral-fraud-concerns-ahead-of-by-election-589202.html

200,000 more people on the electoral register then there should be according to the census. :eek:

But that's ok as long as they 'swear' they are kosher when they go to vote. :rolleyes:

Obliq

Dinner wrote: »

Honestly, the bigger issue here is that there is ever a possibility that someone can vote when their identity is in doubt just by 'promising' that they are who they say they are.

Agreed, it is patently ridiculous to have this archaic rule at all, and that is an issue both in this circumstance and in the courts. However, although this display of the bible seems like a non-issue to some, it is worth debating as a minor (but typical) manifestation of the much much wider and bigger problem of church/state separation as it draws attention to the many ways religious and non-religious minorities are discriminated against.

Kiwi in IE

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Pinky swear?

A judge asking a witness to 'swear on the bible' is as ridiculous as a 'pinky swear' is in a professional or legal capacity!

Obliq

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What precisely do you mean by that? I think most regular posters in here have made it clear they are atheist or agnostic, have they not? Who then are the 'vast majority' that are members of a religious organisation?

Ha! Kiwi, you totally forgot to include the important bit in kid's sentence, which is that apparently, this thread is not all about him. ;-)

PopePalpatine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hardly 'one' bad vote when one considers this


http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/political-analyst-raises-electoral-fraud-concerns-ahead-of-by-election-589202.html

200,000 more people on the electoral register then there should be according to the census. :eek:

But that's ok as long as they 'swear' they are kosher when they go to vote. :rolleyes:

I'll admit that I got two electoral cards, one naming me as "Ciaran" and the other as "Kieran" (I use the former).

Obliq

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'll admit that I got two electoral cards, one naming me as "Ciaran" and the other as "Kieran" (I use the former).

Well, you know what they say. Vote early and often....

Got to be an Irish phrase, that.

robindch

Obliq wrote: »

Well, you know what they say. Vote early and often.... Got to be an Irish phrase, that.

Possibly related to Charlie Haughey’s election agent sometime in the early 1980's, a guy named Pat O'Connor.

The bold Pat voted twice, was caught and was subsequently charged with personation. But while the charges were dropped, he had trouble maintaining his innocence, especially since he was generally referred to as "Pat O'Connor Pat O'Connor" thereafter.

Brian Shanahan

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I feel religion and state should be separate, Ireland is slowly moving that way. Moaning about a bible on a table however is blatant church bashing.

So you think the seperation of church and state means the inclusion of the iconography of one particular religion in the activities and functions of the state. May I remind you that secularism doesn't mean; "all religious positions bar the one we favour must be discriminated against and that one religious position must be advanced".

And facepalm inducing.

Indeed. Your position that secularism is the promotion of one particular religion is facepalm worthy.

Kidchameleon

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you think the seperation of church and state means the inclusion of the iconography of one particular religion in the activities and functions of the state.t .

Ok so your solution would be to have every religious text in the history of humanity at polling stations?

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok so your solution would be to have every religious text in the history of humanity at polling stations?

Are we reading the same posts?

Sarky

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok so your solution would be to have every religious text in the history of humanity at polling stations?

You're almost there. Keep it up!

Brian Shanahan

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok so your solution would be to have every religious text in the history of humanity at polling stations?

You forgot to quote the answer to your question:

meeeeeeeeee! wrote:

May I remind you that secularism doesn't mean; "all religious positions bar the one we favour must be discriminated against and that one religious position must be advanced".

I would have no religious iconography at the polling station, as is right and proper in a secular republic.

Selective blindness must be great when you just want to invoke straw men.

doughef

Your still on about this??

Get a hobby.....

or a religion??

TwoShedsJackson

doughef wrote: »

Your still on about this??

Get a hobby.....

or a religion??

Says the man who bumps the thread after four days of inactivity...

doughef

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Says the man who bumps the thread after four days of inactivity...

I got a ban for a week because someone reported me.

I'm sorry I wasnt able to come back and insult you earlier but I'll say a prayer for you in mass tomorrow morning..

TwoShedsJackson

doughef wrote: »

I got a ban for a week because someone reported me.

I'm sorry I wasnt able to come back and insult you earlier but I'll say a prayer for you in mass tomorrow morning..

I didn't notice an insult..

Hotblack Desiato

doughef wrote: »

I got a ban for a week because someone reported me.

I'm sorry I wasnt able to come back and insult you earlier but I'll say a prayer for you in mass tomorrow morning..

Careful now, it could be forty days and forty nights in the wilderness next time.

Glad the mass thing is working out great for you, you might want to work on the love thy neighbour thing a bit.

doughef

ninja900 wrote: »

Careful now, it could be forty days and forty nights in the wilderness next time.

Glad the mass thing is working out great for you, you might want to work on the love thy neighbour thing a bit.

This is actually very funny

You heathens can be funny at times!!

Point taken