Can an openly atheist politician ever become Taoiseach in our lifetime?

Lapin

I'm not suggesting that anyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should ever be a factor in ones ability to hold the office, but given Irish society's ties with the catholic church since the foundation of the state, and the influence the church has on a large number of people and its continuing presence of many aspects of Irish culture, is it possible for a politician become elected as head of government without professing to be a practicing catholic, even though he or she may be non religious or atheist.

While there are a number of openly atheist TDs, the chances of them ever becoming Taoiseach are slim to none. Even as Ireland becomes more secular, would it be safe (politically speaking) for a politician with a chance of holding the office to declare themselves atheist or would it be seen as burning thousands of potential votes?

Peregrinus

Well, remember the Taoiseach is not elected by the voters.

Can we conceive of circumstances in which, say, Ruairi Quinn or someone of his views would be elected leader of the Labour Party? Yes, I think we can.

And can we conceive of circumstances in which Labour might the leading party in a governing coalition? It would take a dramatic turnaround in someone else's electoral fortunes but, again, I think the answer is yes, we can.

So, yes, an atheist could become Taoiseach.

Would his atheism be any kind of handicap or hurdle, electorally speaking? I think it would - as in, it would cost him more support than it would gain him - but not to such an extent as to make his election as party leader, or his securing enough support for his party to lead a governing coalition, impossible.

These things always look impossible until they actually happen. After all, much before 2008 would you have thought it was possible for a black man to be elected President of the United States? Much before the mid-1970s would you have thought it possible for a woman to become Prime Minister of the UK?

pauldla

It's a good question, but I don't think it would be as big a deal in Ireland as it might be on the other side of The Pond. Our first President was CoI (as was his mustache, and it's worth googling him just to get a view of his manly facial hair), at a time when Ireland was much more Catholic than it is now (indeed, he was chosen in part because he was non-Catholic). So while it's not quite the same thing as his being atheist, there is a tradition of high office holders professing different beliefs from the Plain People of Ireland.

magicbastarder

regarding the irish public's view of morality & religious teaching, remember that we elected bertie ahern as taoiseach three times in a row - and he was married, but living with a woman other than his wife (his other sins put to one side for now).
that's not a situation i'd easily imagine occurring in britain or the US.

Lucena

magicbastarder wrote: »

regarding the irish public's view of morality & religious teaching, remember that we elected bertie ahern as taoiseach three times in a row - and he was married, but living with a woman other than his wife (his other sins put to one side for now).
that's not a situation i'd easily imagine occurring in britain or the US.

Based on this, I really don't think it'd be an obstacle. Strangely enough, Irish people are quite tolerant in some respects. I think we could even have a gay Taoiseach, and no-one would mind.

PopePalpatine

I'm not certain on this, but I think Michael D Higgins is at least an agnostic. No-one except the Christian Right brought up Norris' sexuality in the 2011 Presidential Election either IIRC.

Kidchameleon

Does the Taoiseach need to take an oath?

Sulla Felix

No, they don't. I don't think that would be a factor anyway even if they did have a similar oath to that of the President or Council of State. We're not exactly sticklers for minutia, as a nation.

Benny_Cake

Sulla Felix wrote: »

No, they don't. I don't think that would be a factor anyway even if they did have a similar oath to that of the President or Council of State. We're not exactly sticklers for minutia, as a nation.

Indeed, Eamon Gilmore didn't let it bother him! And Dev was quite prepared to overlook his previous opposition to the oath of allegiance so he could take his Dail seat back in the 20s.

I don't see an atheist Taoiseach being an issue for the overwhelming majority of people in this country (how many people actually know or care that the current Taoiseach Tanaiste is an atheist?). In the US - not a chance. Irish people have a pragmatic streak when comes to such things.

Peregrinus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

. . . how many people actually know or care that the current Taoiseach is an atheist? . . .

Sorry, are you saying that Enda's an atheist, or have I misunderstood you?

Benny_Cake

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying that Enda's an atheist, or have I misunderstood you?

That should have read Tanaiste. Duly corrected!

Hotblack Desiato

pauldla wrote: »

It's a good question, but I don't think it would be as big a deal in Ireland as it might be on the other side of The Pond. Our first President was CoI (as was his mustache, and it's worth googling him just to get a view of his manly facial hair), at a time when Ireland was much more Catholic than it is now (indeed, he was chosen in part because he was non-Catholic). So while it's not quite the same thing as his being atheist, there is a tradition of high office holders professing different beliefs from the Plain People of Ireland.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Douglas Hyde was chosen in an attempt to prove that we weren't a catholic fascist nation, even though we were.

That worked out well :rolleyes:

pauldla

ninja900 wrote: »

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Douglas Hyde was chosen in an attempt to prove that we weren't a catholic fascist nation, even though we were.

That worked out well :rolleyes:

It was working out grand until the fine old gent died (and he was a fine old gent, by all accounts), and the then-govt realised that, under then-RCC teachings, they wouldn't be able to enter the CoI church for the funeral, so they all had to wait outside. Ah, happier days. We must remember the mystery of faith.

jank

The days of what you are, defing who you are is behind us for most of the people of Ireland. Most people don't care and I would say that being an atheist would not matter.
However, if they go down the pontificating route of Atheism+/dawkins well that may rub people up the wrong way and would not be wise electorially as you will be seen as divise.

Julia Gillard was elected as an atheist, it was a talking point for about a day and then things moved onto policy, leadership, mandate, rudd and the **** storm joke that was the ALP etc.. She didnt push her personal views onto others and people left her alone. Australian politics can be very rough and tumble (much more so than Irish politics) but the non-religious thing was never a mainstream issue. She was hated for her spend and tax policies, her schoolmarm personality and crying 'sexim' everytime the opposition said anything about her. If she stayed as leader of the ALP to contest the last election they would have had their worst electoral result for over 60 years.

She will be remembered for being the first woman PM of Australia, her short reign in power which will go down as a failure but she will not be remembered for being the first atheist PM of Australia, because people dont care about it tbh.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Douglas Hyde was chosen in an attempt to prove that we weren't a catholic fascist nation, even though we were.

That worked out well :rolleyes:

Seemed the word fascist is thrown about without it being truely understood. Ireland may have been a conservative nation under undue influence from the RCC but we werent a fascist nation by any means.

Hotblack Desiato

Try telling that to a 1950s unmarried pregnant woman, Jank. Her 'options' were emigration or imprisonment.

Hotblack Desiato

pauldla wrote: »

It was working out grand until the fine old gent died (and he was a fine old gent, by all accounts), and the then-govt realised that, under then-RCC teachings, they wouldn't be able to enter the CoI church for the funeral, so they all had to wait outside. Ah, happier days. We must remember the mystery of faith.

Exactly, there was nothing wrong with his presidency apart from the fact it was a fig-leaf for a catholic theocracy.

yeppydeppy

Charlie believed he was god, does that count?

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Try telling that to a 1950s unmarried pregnant woman, Jank. Her 'options' were emigration or imprisonment.

Nevertheless Jank is correct. Social conservatism does not equal fascism. Puritanism does not equal fascism. You're in danger of Godwinning your own position.

robindch

jank wrote: »

[...] She was hated for [...] crying 'sexim' everytime the opposition said anything about her [...]

I'd have thought that Abbott telling Gillard she ought to "make an honest woman of herself" and referring to her as a "witch" and a "bitch" would count for 'sexim' (sic) in most peoples' books. Even Tony Abbott's books, should it ever turn out that he has some and he's able to read.

Here's Gillard making the prancing Abbot look like the arrogant, unenlightened, neanderthal fool he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0

jank

robindch wrote: »

I'd have thought that Abbott telling Gillard she ought to "make an honest woman of herself" and referring to her as a "witch" and a "bitch" would count for 'sexim' (sic) in most peoples' books. Even Tony Abbott's books, should it ever turn out that he has some and he's able to read.

Here's Gillard making the prancing Abbot look like the arrogant, unenlightened, neanderthal fool he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0

I could count on you Robin to add a bit of drama to this thread.
Abbot has never called Gillard a 'bitch' or a 'witch. I think you are confusing it with signs he was photographed next to at an anti-carbon tax demo a few years ago where he spoke. Optics aren't great but he never directly referred to her in those terms nor were the sings sanctioned by the liberal party.

Regarding the comment about 'making an honest woman out of herself' this was again referring to the carbon tax.

"I think if the Prime Minister wants to make, politically speaking, an honest woman of herself, she needs to seek a mandate for a carbon tax and she should do that at the next election."

For background, Gillard campaigned, in fact pledged in front of the nation NOT to have a carbon tax, yet low and behold, like magic appeared a carbon tax under a Gillard government. Comment could be taken out of context but much like in Ireland, promises don't appear to mean much expect at least in Australia the people remember broken promises.

I think Tony Abbot is capable of reading seeing as he is a Rhodes Scholar but he must be an idiot cause he is a conservative I suppose….

Regards the video, yes it made popular headlines around the world where people who don't have a clue about Australia loved her but if they found out the true story behind the speech that love would be quickly lost. A vote was won by Abbot to take out the speaker of the house for making sexist comments and harassment against a gay man, never mind also the fact that he was being investigated for fraud.

"LUCY is very available and keen! Could turn you from your wayward ways," Peter Slipper texted to adviser James Ashby on September 3.

"Brough is a c..t,'' Mr Slipper said in a text on October 10 last year. Soon after, he said: ''Funny how we say that a person is a c..t when many guys like c..ts.''

About five minutes later Mr Slipper began what the Opposition has called "'vile anatomical references''. Referring to women's private parts, he said: ''They look like mussell (sic) removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat. Salty C..ts in brine.''

Charming!

http://www.news.com.au/national/revealed-what-peter-slippers-sexist-text-messages-actually-said/story-fndo4eg9-1226492172640

This is some of hundreds examples of what the speaker of the house (akin to the ceann comhairle of the dail )texted to his aide. Do you think this is acceptable behaviour of someone who holds such a public position Robin? Julia Gillard didn't seem to have a problem with it surprisingly yet anytime someone made a slight of hand comment at her well we all saw her get on that high horse.

Gillard wanted to keep Peter Slipper on board as speaker of the house for her own selfish political aim of keeping power. So I guess that makes her a homophobe? She is against Gay marriage of course so she must be!

Anyway, she was so unpopular and people got so sick of her whining that even her own party including senior cabinet ministers that owed their start to her dumped her out of office. She didn't even bothering contest the last election. We still have Cowen as a TD FFS!

To summarise, she will be remembered as the above not as an atheist which will be a footnote of her term. Hence my point that people don't really care of ones personal religions/non-religious beliefs.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

Try telling that to a 1950s unmarried pregnant woman, Jank. Her 'options' were emigration or imprisonment.

It would have be interesting where she would have emigrated to as the UK only allowed legal abortion in 1967. Maybe she could have found her 'freedom' behind the iron curtain?

Calling Ireland a fascist state is just a lazy argument.

nagirrac

Ireland was never a fascist state, and to state such is highly inflammatory and inaccurate. However, it did have fascists in its midst, those who believed in the absolute power of the state, a power that should be maintained by force against its own citizens if necessary. They were the ultra right wing of Cumann na nGaedheal (later became Fine Gael), many of whom sailed off to Spain to side with Franco and the RCC and against those seeking freedom from fascism. Fortunately they were sent home quickly after a "friendly fire" incident, before they could sully Ireland's reputation too much. Nonetheless an unfortunate incident in Irish history.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

It would have be interesting where she would have emigrated to as the UK only allowed legal abortion in 1967. Maybe she could have found her 'freedom' behind the iron curtain?

Many Irish women left to give birth in the UK and bring up their child there. Almost no-one did that here in Ireland until the 1970s. There was no state support and massive social disapproval.

Calling Ireland a fascist state is just a lazy argument.

I'll withdraw that. But we weren't as far away as some would like to think. We simply did not respect the rights of anyone who wasn't willing to follow catholic 'social teaching'. A democracy where human rights are not well respected is a democracy in name only.

nagirrac wrote: »

However, it did have fascists in its midst, those who believed in the absolute power of the state, a power that should be maintained by force against its own citizens if necessary.

There were many who believed in the absolute power of the church, and the state did the RCC's bidding on almost all issues until the 1980s.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

There was no state support and massive social disapproval.

This was true for most of the western world during that period.

ninja900 wrote: »

I'll withdraw that. But we weren't as far away as some would like to think. We simply did not respect the rights of anyone who wasn't willing to follow catholic 'social teaching'. A democracy where human rights are not well respected is a democracy in name only.

We were miles away from being a fascist state in the terms of what a European fascist state looked like in the 1930's. I don't want to Godwin this thread. Don't forget that Spain was under fascism until 1975…!, Argentina until the 80's. Brazil similar and so on. Almost every country has a skeleton in the closet.

People of other religions did have rights. People were free to practice their religion openly. The state did not close churches or synagogues. True the RCC tried to control morality, education and social policies to some extent but that is a far cry to actual fascism where people of other religions were extermintaed or imprisoned.

To say Ireland was democratic in name only is like saying that because there is no legal gay marriage in say the US or Australia than these countries are not democratic at all, which is absurd.

Anytime we talk about the RCC and its relationship with Ireland we also get this narrative where the impression given is that Ireland from 1921 to the 1980's was some sort of stalinist regime, where the fault of that lies totally with the RCC, and the outside world was pure, innocent, pluralist, tolerant, better. We should always be objective when looking at history, not fall into lazy cliche and arguments that might go well down the pub. We irish have a habit of hating ourselves, this one eyed revisionism of irish history in my opinion is an extension of that. Ireland may have not been a beacon of liberalism during that time but it was certainly not a Fascist/Stalinist state that some like to portray. In many ways it was a product of the time, at least until the 50's. We can rightly critique that period until the late 70's where Ireland tired to act morally like a pre war European country. Joining the EEC changed all that.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

This was true for most of the western world during that period.

Attitudes were less liberal than today, but Ireland was far behind most other European countries.
Many Irish women during that period did make new lives for themselves and their children in the UK, they simply could not have done that here.

We were miles away from being a fascist state in the terms of what a European fascist state looked like in the 1930's. I don't want to Godwin this thread. Don't forget that Spain was under fascism until 1975…!, Argentina until the 80's. Brazil similar and so on. Almost every country has a skeleton in the closet.

Like industrial schools, laundries, and our massive psychiatric 'hospital' incarceration rate? We didn't call them prison camps but that's effectively what they were.

Many, many more 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate. It was quite common for people to lose their jobs and become effectively unemployable for opposing the church, especially but not exclusively in the public sector and jobs like teaching.

People of other religions did have rights. People were free to practice their religion openly. The state did not close churches or synagogues. True the RCC tried to control morality, education and social policies to some extent but that is a far cry to actual fascism where people of other religions were extermintaed or imprisoned.

Other religions were tolerated, but it was clear (and even in the constitution) which one had a 'special position'. Sure, people were free to not worship the catholic church, but they were not free to escape its 'morality' e.g. use contraception.

To say Ireland was democratic in name only is like saying that because there is no legal gay marriage in say the US or Australia than these countries are not democratic at all, which is absurd.

The tyranny of the majority over the minority is not democracy, it is a sham.

Human rights cannot be subject to the will of the majority, or else they are not rights at all but privileges.

Now we'll probably pass a gay marriage referendum if we have one - but imagine if we didn't. Imagine if a majority of the electorate chose to deny the minority the same rights the majority enjoys. How is that 'democratic' ?

Anytime we talk about the RCC and its relationship with Ireland we also get this narrative where the impression given is that Ireland from 1921 to the 1980's was some sort of stalinist regime, where the fault of that lies totally with the RCC, and the outside world was pure, innocent, pluralist, tolerant, better. We should always be objective when looking at history, not fall into lazy cliche and arguments that might go well down the pub. We irish have a habit of hating ourselves, this one eyed revisionism of irish history in my opinion is an extension of that. Ireland may have not been a beacon of liberalism during that time but it was certainly not a Fascist/Stalinist state that some like to portray. In many ways it was a product of the time, at least until the 50's. We can rightly critique that period until the late 70's where Ireland tired to act morally like a pre war European country. Joining the EEC changed all that.

The fault does lie totally with the RCC. They brainwashed politicians and voters from the cradle, under the threat of ostracism in this life and eternal hellfire after it, to do their bidding. This was not a choice freely entered into by an educated and informed population.

ironingbored

Lucena wrote: »

Based on this, I really don't think it'd be an obstacle. Strangely enough, Irish people are quite tolerant in some respects. I think we could even have a gay Taoiseach, and no-one would mind.

Except David Quinn and Iona I suspect.

jimd2

Lapin wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that anyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should ever be a factor in ones ability to hold the office, but given Irish society's ties with the catholic church since the foundation of the state, and the influence the church has on a large number of people and its continuing presence of many aspects of Irish culture, is it possible for a politician become elected as head of government without professing to be a practicing catholic, even though he or she may be non religious or atheist.

While there are a number of openly atheist TDs, the chances of them ever becoming Taoiseach are slim to none. Even as Ireland becomes more secular, would it be safe (politically speaking) for a politician with a chance of holding the office to declare themselves atheist or would it be seen as burning thousands of potential votes?

Absolutely. Once the Taoiseach is a good fair leader who gives a balanced and fair judgement when dealing with church and secular matters. His or her religion or lack of it should not be a factor.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Abbot has never called Gillard a 'bitch' or a 'witch [...] Optics aren't great but he never directly referred to her in those terms nor were the sings sanctioned by the liberal party.

He was asked to reject the terms 'witch' and 'bitch' and he didn't. In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that he agrees - though as you say, he does not appear to have been caught using the terms in front of a live mike himself.

jank wrote: »

I think Tony Abbot is capable of reading seeing as he is a Rhodes Scholar but he must be an idiot cause he is a conservative I suppose….

And George Bush graduated from Harvard - perhaps academic qualifications aren't quite what they used to be.

No, Abbott is an idiot not because he is a conservative (you have that the wrong way around), but because he's a misogynistic, arrogant, hypocritical, climate-science denying, pro-gun, fact-averse, prancing twit.



BTW, the name of your PM is "Tony Abbott", with two letters "t".

jank

robindch wrote: »

He was asked to reject the terms 'witch' and 'bitch' and he didn't. In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that he agrees - though as you say, he does not appear to have been caught using the terms in front of a live mike himself.

Well at least you admitted your factual error in your earlier post.

robindch wrote: »

And George Bush graduated from Harvard - perhaps academic qualifications aren't quite what they used to be.

Nah, calling someone whom you disagree with politically 'stupid' is the same classroom type behaviour is calling someone smelly.

robindch wrote: »

No, Abbott is an idiot not because he is a conservative (you have that the wrong way around), but because he's a misogynistic, arrogant, hypocritical, climate-science denying, pro-gun, fact-averse, prancing twit.

So a conservative is an idiot then by default? Your hero Hitches was a conservative, was he an idiot. Even I wouldn't call him that a even though I may disagree with him on many things.

Then we get the the same infamous video of Jullia Gillard posturing in front of the world. Getting up on her high horse and calling out Abbot a sexist and misogynist in a debate that called for a motion of no confidence against James Slipper the speaker of the house. Are you serious? REALLY?

You do know that one on hand Gillard was railing against sexism and misogyny and then on the other voting to support, yes SUPPORT James Slipper even after it transpired what he had said to his Gay aide. Let me remind you of what he said.

Quote:
"LUCY is very available and keen! Could turn you from your wayward ways," Peter Slipper texted to adviser James Ashby on September 3.

"Brough is a c..t,'' Mr Slipper said in a text on October 10 last year. Soon after, he said: ''Funny how we say that a person is a c..t when many guys like c..ts.''

About five minutes later Mr Slipper began what the Opposition has called "'vile anatomical references''. Referring to women's private parts, he said: ''They look like mussell (sic) removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat. Salty C..ts in brine.''

He also called a colleague an 'ignorant bitch'. Do you stand by those comments Robin, do you agree with them? Do you think James Slipper should have kept his chair as speaker of the house?

Never mind sexist, but there is a touch of homophobia there as well. So your hero Gillard cast a vote in the Australian Federal parliament to SUPPORT such comments and never, ever apologised for that vote. Using your reasoning "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she agrees". After all she is against Gay marriage…..

Such blatant hypocrisy and double standards displayed by your part, putting Gillard on a pedestal and dumping on Abbot all through the medium of quick and easy soundbites and goggling opinion pieces and passing them off as your own. Utter laziness in debating.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

Attitudes were less liberal than today, but Ireland was far behind most other European countries.
Many Irish women during that period did make new lives for themselves and their children in the UK, they simply could not have done that here.

As I said up until the late 50's until the 80's yes Ireland was behind some other European countries, but just because we didn't become Sweden overnight doesn't mean that we were 'pesduo-facsist' either. Before than pre WWII Ireland was much like most other European country and certainly better than actual fascist or communist states.

ninja900 wrote: »

Like industrial schools, laundries, and our massive psychiatric 'hospital' incarceration rate? We didn't call them prison camps but that's effectively what they were.

Yes, and these institutions only existed in Ireland pre 1950? The above existed in other western countries too and locked up undesirables as well. Lets not even go into what happened in Germany and eastern Europe. This one eyed approach is what bugs me, as if Ireland was in a vacuum of sorts when it comes to human rights abuse.

ninja900 wrote: »

Many, many more 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate. It was quite common for people to lose their jobs and become effectively unemployable for opposing the church, especially but not exclusively in the public sector and jobs like teaching.

Do you have examples and peer reviewed research into this 'common' occurrence? How many 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate?

ninja900 wrote: »

Other religions were tolerated, but it was clear (and even in the constitution) which one had a 'special position'. Sure, people were free to not worship the catholic church, but they were not free to escape its 'morality' e.g. use contraception.

Yes, Ireland was morally conservative but the point still stands that people were free to practice their own religion and other churches were not closed by the state. However, the issue of contraception after WWII should be rightly brought up as a valid criticism of the state.

ninja900 wrote: »

The tyranny of the majority over the minority is not democracy, it is a sham.

Human rights cannot be subject to the will of the majority, or else they are not rights at all but privileges.

Now we'll probably pass a gay marriage referendum if we have one - but imagine if we didn't. Imagine if a majority of the electorate chose to deny the minority the same rights the majority enjoys. How is that 'democratic' ?

You didn't answer my question. Would you not call Australia or the US a democratic state? Say in Norway one is not allowed to marry their mother or have multiple partners via marriage. Because that right is not inferred on someone, does that mean it is not democratic? By your reasoning there is no 'pure' democratic state in the world therefore. If the US is not a democratic state than what is it?

ninja900 wrote: »

The fault does lie totally with the RCC. They brainwashed politicians and voters from the cradle, under the threat of ostracism in this life and eternal hellfire after it, to do their bidding. This was not a choice freely entered into by an educated and informed population.

You are falling into the same trap as those that blame the RCC for all the ills of 'old' independent Ireland. It is a convenient scapegoat that fits the modern narrative but a scapegoat all the same. True the RCC did exert too much influence on Irish public life. However, even if we took the RCC out of the equation and say it never existed, do you really really think that Ireland would have overnight morphed into Norway?

One just has to look at other countries where religion was either illegal or had very little influence on their societies.
Examples in regards rights for homosexuals.
China only decriminalised homosexuality in 1997 and that is most certainly not a religious country.
The Soviet Union sent homosexuals to gulags for decades, same thing happened in Albania and Mongolia.
God knows what happening in North Korea right at this moment…

What they all have in common is the absence of the power of religion yet conservative social policies were applied none the less. I have also deliberately left out what 'rights' european fascists bestowed to homosexuals

The point is that even if the RCC disappeared in 1921 than some other conservative social or political force would have filled that vacuum and would have tried to shape society in their authoritarian image as in the examples I have put forward. If you want to accept the possibility that Ireland would have been more liberal without the RCC, than you also have to accept that Ireland could have been more authoritarian without the RCC, if you want to engage in 'what if' regards history and I don't want to open up that pandoras box.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

As I said up until the late 50's until the 80's yes Ireland was behind some other European countries, but just because we didn't become Sweden overnight doesn't mean that we were 'pesduo-facsist' either. Before than pre WWII Ireland was much like most other European country and certainly better than actual fascist or communist states.

The fact that we were slightly more liberal than the many European totalitarian states in the 1930s isn't really something to get excited over, is it?

As far back as the eighteenth century, the founders of the USA recognised the importance of separation between church and state, yet in the early 20th our founders chose to give our constitution and institutions an explicit religious character, and even worse a specific denomination of a specific religion.

Yes, and these institutions only existed in Ireland pre 1950? The above existed in other western countries too and locked up undesirables as well. Lets not even go into what happened in Germany and eastern Europe. This one eyed approach is what bugs me, as if Ireland was in a vacuum of sorts when it comes to human rights abuse.

Ah, so Ireland was comparable to repressive regimes after all?

We had the world's highest psychiatric incarceration rate in the 1950s.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/professional-and-local-interests-had-stake-in-keeping-aslyums-says-major-study-1.1572258

Now, that article goes to some pains to excuse the RCC in this regard, but as they had such a key role in everything the State did for most of the 20th century I wouldn't be so keen to do so.

Do you have examples and peer reviewed research into this 'common' occurrence? How many 'dissidents' were forced to emigrate?

Are you familiar with any 20th-century Irish writers?
It was said that one didn't have any credibility as an Irish writer if ones works were not banned here. That was an attempt to enforce the silence of critics of the church-state, and deny them their livelihood.

You didn't answer my question. Would you not call Australia or the US a democratic state? Say in Norway one is not allowed to marry their mother or have multiple partners via marriage. Because that right is not inferred on someone, does that mean it is not democratic? By your reasoning there is no 'pure' democratic state in the world therefore. If the US is not a democratic state than what is it?

As I've repeatedly said, it is undemocratic for a majority to deny to the minority the rights that the majority themselves enjoy. Nobody said anything about special pleading on behalf of minorities.

You are falling into the same trap as those that blame the RCC for all the ills of 'old' independent Ireland. It is a convenient scapegoat that fits the modern narrative but a scapegoat all the same. True the RCC did exert too much influence on Irish public life. However, even if we took the RCC out of the equation and say it never existed, do you really really think that Ireland would have overnight morphed into Norway?

We would have been far better off in every way, and necessary social change would have occurred far earlier as it did in other Western nations.

One just has to look at other countries where religion was either illegal or had very little influence on their societies.
Examples in regards rights for homosexuals.
China only decriminalised homosexuality in 1997 and that is most certainly not a religious country.
The Soviet Union sent homosexuals to gulags for decades, same thing happened in Albania and Mongolia.
God knows what happening in North Korea right at this moment…

What is the recurring obsession with communist dictatorships when we are discussing the role of religion in Western democracies??

What they all have in common is the absence of the power of religion yet conservative social policies were applied none the less.

As you well know, these states have their own proxies for religion.

I have also deliberately left out what 'rights' european fascists bestowed to homosexuals

Again, it really doesn't help your point to say that we were slightly better than actual fascist states.

Brian Shanahan

jimd2 wrote: »

balanced and fair judgement when dealing with church and secular matters.

So I expect you support the idea of brining state-funded schools directly under department control and secuarlising them then?

walrusgumble

A person does not have to take a religious oath in court, so why would a potential Taoiseach have to take a religious oath before taking office.I thought all tds had to take some kind of oath?

Besides, he could always do a De Valera!

Being Ireland, no cute hoor would declare that they are atheists especially if from down the country

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

And George Bush graduated from Harvard - perhaps academic qualifications aren't quite what they used to be.

There's a long tradition in Ivy League schools that if you're a legacy (i.e. you've multiple ancestors who went to the same school) you'll get in even if you fail an entrance test which consists solely of a request to translate your surname into Spanish. And the level of degree he subsequently gets is dependant on how much daddy is willing to fund the college (for example building a new wing is good for a PhD, throwing a million at the star quarter-back poached from a community college will get a 1st).

The US college system is fcuked up in so many ways.

SpaceTime

I don't think it's going to matter much and doubt it would at present either.

Ireland has changed a huge amount in the last 20 years.

It's also not America. For example Bertie was separated and had a new partner and it didn't even cause a raised eyebrow. However, if he'd been in the US and I think even in the UK that would have been a HUGE issue.

We're not the conservative backwater we were in the 1980s

robindch

jank wrote: »

Then we get the the same infamous video of Jullia Gillard posturing in front of the world.

(cough)

jank wrote: »

So a conservative is an idiot then by default?

I'm not sure what your experience is, but most idiots -- I'm using the term quite broadly here -- tend towards the conservative/authoritarian end of the political spectrum.

Bob Altemeyer's excellent The Authoritarians goes into quite a lot of detail on that. It's an interesting read.





(cough) BTW, the name of your previous PM is "Julia Gillard", with one letter "l" in "Julia".

feargale

Lapin wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that anyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should ever be a factor in ones ability to hold the office, but given Irish society's ties with the catholic church since the foundation of the state, and the influence the church has on a large number of people and its continuing presence of many aspects of Irish culture, is it possible for a politician become elected as head of government without professing to be a practicing catholic, even though he or she may be non religious or atheist.

While there are a number of openly atheist TDs, the chances of them ever becoming Taoiseach are slim to none. Even as Ireland becomes more secular, would it be safe (politically speaking) for a politician with a chance of holding the office to declare themselves atheist or would it be seen as burning thousands of potential votes?

Correct me if I'm wrong - isn't the next highest office after Taoiseach presently occupied by a man of no religion? Given what I've seen of posts in the AA forum, I would expect religious people to be alot less exercised by the prospect of a non-religious Taoiseach than atheists are about the present reality of a religious one. That's how the wheel turns. Protestants struck a blow for religious freedom in a Europe in the throes of religious wars, and many fled Europe's intolerance to settle in America, where many of their descendants are among the most intolerant Christians on Earth. Many of the Paris Communards of the 1870s were exiled to New Caledonia, where many of their descendants became racist colonialists. Atheists suffered fire and sword in Christian Europe, and then one of their number, Enver Hoxha, became a byword for persecution of religious people. But that would never happen to Irish atheists, now, would it? I mean, the price of liberty being eternal vigilance and all that.

robindch

feargale wrote: »

Atheists suffered fire and sword in Christian Europe, and then one of their number, Enver Hoxha, became a byword for persecution of religious people. But that would never happen to Irish atheists, now, would it?

Enver Hoxha was responsible for policies that lead to the deaths of innumerable non-religious people too.

BTW, makes a nice change to be compared to a dictator other than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot!

feargale

robindch wrote: »

Enver Hoxha was responsible for policies that lead to the deaths of innumerable non-religious people too.

Yes, I guess there were capital crimes over and above being religious. I don't recall that he was ever accused of discrimination, at least not on the question of who faced the firing squad. His deputy Mehmet Shehu wasn't required to bless himself as a prerequisite to qualifying. Being a Spanish Civil War hero and potential rival was enough, However, Hoxha did have a particular taste for religious blood.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, makes a nice change to be compared to a dictator other than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot!

Link please.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

The fact that we were slightly more liberal than the many European totalitarian states in the 1930s isn't really something to get excited over, is it?

Only slightly? Come off it. There is a huge gulf and leap from rounding up homosexuals and murdering them in camps to the treatment they got in Ireland which would have been similar in all respects to the treatment they got in other western nations of the 30's and 40's like the UK and US where homosexual activity was illegal in those states as well during that time....

It shows a deliberate ignorance on your part.

ninja900 wrote: »

As far back as the eighteenth century, the founders of the USA recognised the importance of separation between church and state, yet in the early 20th our founders chose to give our constitution and institutions an explicit religious character, and even worse a specific denomination of a specific religion.

I agree with a separation of church and state totally and lament the fact that this did not happen in Ireland. We may have an opportunity in the future to do this. However, how did the USA treat homosexuals and minorities in the period of 1920-late 1950's? Was it a liberal paradise for them? It was illegal in most states to marry someone outside your race up until the early 60's. Even if you were 1/4 native Indian for example... No RCC to blame for that, so what happened? Other conservative social and political forces filled a vacuum.

ninja900 wrote: »

Ah, so Ireland was comparable to repressive regimes after all?

We had the world's highest psychiatric incarceration rate in the 1950s.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/professional-and-local-interests-had-stake-in-keeping-aslyums-says-major-study-1.1572258

Now, that article goes to some pains to excuse the RCC in this regard, but as they had such a key role in everything the State did for most of the 20th century I wouldn't be so keen to do so.

So you post an article to back up a claim yet dismiss the some of the findings of the study as they don’t 'fit' with your own personal outlook. That is not surprising in the least.

“The staff had a stake in this. The medics and nurses had their professional interests in this. Economically, it became very important, and it became a snowballing institutional development,” said Dr Brennan

Seems money outweighed piety.

ninja900 wrote: »

Are you familiar with any 20th-century Irish writers?
It was said that one didn't have any credibility as an Irish writer if ones works were not banned here. That was an attempt to enforce the silence of critics of the church-state, and deny them their livelihood.

Taking an example of a few writers works being censored is a far step from your original claim that it was a 'common' occurrence for the general population to more or less exiled from the state due to your beliefs. Again what are the stats to this claim? How many hundreds or thousands were exiled?
Again I agree with the fact that post WWII the censorship regime was far too strict compared to our western European neighbours (books were banned in the UK and US as well don’t forget but not to the same numbers). I have made this point regarding post 1950’s Ireland about 3 times now yet choose to not listen or take it on board.

ninja900 wrote: »

As I've repeatedly said, it is undemocratic for a majority to deny to the minority the rights that the majority themselves enjoy. Nobody said anything about special pleading on behalf of minorities.

So care to answer the question then. Is the USA and Australia non-democratic countries today by your own definition in your book as in your original claim? I have asked this three times. Simple yes or no.

ninja900 wrote: »

We would have been far better off in every way, and necessary social change would have occurred far earlier as it did in other Western nations.

Probably/possibly true from the 1950's onwards but you would be sadly and foolishly mistaken if we would have turned into an enlightened Norway overnight. The thing that people forget is that the general populace handed over moral authority to the state and RCC freely. Without the RCC they would have handed it over just as easily to another force/movement or institution.

ninja900 wrote: »

What is the recurring obsession with communist dictatorships when we are discussing the role of religion in Western democracies??

In these states there has been no influence of religion on law, yet homosexual activity was still largely restricted, persecuted and gay people were sent away to jail/die. Why did this happen if your scapegoat the RCC or religion didn’t have their say?

ninja900 wrote: »

As you well know, these states have their own proxies for religion.

Bingo!!! Well done. You are learning something. That was exactly my point. Without the RCC, Ireland could well have its own ready made replacement to fill its vacuum and pursue very similar polices that was employed by the RCC anyway….

ninja900 wrote: »

Again, it really doesn't help your point to say that we were slightly better than actual fascist states.

Read my first reply to the post. Hell of a lot of difference between Nazi Germany and Ireland in regards right to homosexuals and other minorities. For a start we didn’t round them up into camps, never mind what happened after to them. One can very easily cheery pick historical facts from each countries past and come up with the conclusion that said country was slightly better or no better than a 1930's fascist/Stalinist state. Take Australia white only policy or the US civil rights issue, the British treatment of Indians, the French treatment of Algerians, The Belgium Congo, the Dutch east indies and so on and on.

Sure weren’t they all as bad as each other??? No, not at all. There was a scale of brutality employed here where on the lower/extreme end you had Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany and on the lighter/less extreme side of the scale you had the arguably the US and Australia. Not to say that blacks or aboriginals in these countries had it easy but must look at history objectively.

All countries have shadows in their past but it is historical ignorance to ignore any grey scale when discussing this. It seems to you it was black and white where your anti-RCC bias clouds all your opinion and objective reasoning. My last point, we were miles off being a fascist state in all but name with the RCC controlling the levers of power. It does not stand up to historical scrutiny of the times and you have not shown any proof, statistics, laws to show prove otherwise.

jank

robindch wrote: »

(cough)I'm not sure what your experience is, but most idiots -- I'm using the term quite broadly here -- tend towards the conservative/authoritarian end of the political spectrum.

That is just the typical left wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage. Read my sig, very apt for this reply.

Also, interesting that you again (3rd time) refused to answer my question about being in favour of Julia Gillard’s actions regarding Peter Slipper even after he communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments as speaker of the house . So using the reasoning of someone you are very familiar with I take it that "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she you agree" with these comments.

Charming!

SpaceTime

Whatever about an atheist taoiseach, it's quite surprising that we haven't gotten anywhere near having a female taoiseach yet and I do not think that's down to some kind of anti-female bias in the electorate. There are quite a few studies showing that female candidates in Ireland perform at least as well as their male counterparts in elections.

However, the party structures are not getting women up the ranks, so the electorate isn't getting presented with all that many female candidates.

As for the taoiseach's religious views, I don't ever remember them being called into question by anyone in any election campaign here in my lifetime. Where as in the US in particular, the President's religious views are a major issue for some people. I'd suspect even an agnostic presidential candidate would feel the full wrath of the very conservative population although many (most) Americans wouldn't give a damn, the conservatives would manage to swing a vote against them.

I don't think Ireland's really in that position to be perfectly honest. The only times that an issue comes up and I don't think it's a religious one is around abortion and views on it because it's a public opinion flash point.

robindch

jank wrote: »

That is just the typical left wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage.

Well, that's just the typical right-wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage.

jank wrote: »

Also, interesting that you again (3rd time) refused to answer my question about being in favour of Julia Gillard’s actions regarding Peter Slipper even after he communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments as speaker of the house [...]

I've no idea who this guy Slipper is but if you say that he's "communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments", then I'm sure he has. Bad boy Slipper!

Sarky

Are you sure it's not a right wing inferiority complex?

Michael Nugent

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Does the Taoiseach need to take an oath?

Yes, the Taoiseach has to swear a religious oath at his or first Council of State meeting.

Article 31.2 of the Constitution states that the “The Council of State shall consist of the following members: i. As exofficio members: the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann, the Chairman of Seanad Éireann, and the Attorney General…” (there are also other members.)

Article 31.4 requires every member of the Council of State, at their first meeting, to take and subscribe publicly to an oath that begins “In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State.”

This means that there is a religious oath for Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Chairman of the Dail, Chairman of the Seanad and Attorney General, as these officeholders are obliged to be members of the Council of State and are thus obliged to swear the oath for that office.

This additional obligation became clear when Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore became the first person who is publicly on record as saying that he does not believe in God had to attend his first meeting of the Council of State and had to swear the religious oath. He stated that he had taken legal advice, that he respected the Constitution, and that he would comply with his constitutional obligations.

These obligations include not only swearing the oath at his first Council of State meeting under Article 31.4, but also being a member of the Council of State under Article 31.2.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I've no idea who this guy Slipper is but if you say that he's "communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments", then I'm sure he has. Bad boy Slipper!

Well, it's not completely irrelevant in the context. Slipper was a long-standing but poorly-egarded MP from Tony Abbott's side of the house whose uncontrolled drinking, irregular private life and notorious abuse of travel claims eventually caused his party colleagues to lose patience with him. He was on the way to being dumped as a candidate for the next election when Gillard (who of course led a minority government) offered him the post of Speaker of the House of Representatives. It's the government's job to find a Speaker and, since by convention the Speaker does not vote except to break a deadlock, doing so normally costs the government side one of its regular voters. Instead, by appointing Slipper, Gillard hoped to deprive the opposition of a regular voter.

This was always a high-risk strategy, since the Liberal party had all the dirt on Slipper and knew his (many) weaknesses. In an astonishingly short period of time, a gay staffer of Slipper's (who later turned out to be a Liberal Party stooge) resigned, bringing an unfair dismissal claim alleging that Slipper (who is married) had made repeated unwanted sexual advances to him, and in the course of the proceedings he released a number of (genuine) e-mails from Slipper which contained some pretty grossly offensive misogynistic material, Slipper evidently having assumed that the way to get into a young gay man's pants was to denigrate women, because as we all know gays hate and fear women, right? You can google it and read the stuff. It was not nice.

The opposition promptly brought a motion of no confidence in Slipper, and it was in the debate on that motion that Gillard made her justly famous speech about misogyny, the gist of which was "the opposition are not well-positioned to complain about misogyny, because Tony Abbott".

Gillard was of course quite right, but it remains the fact that the speech was given in defence of Peter Slipper, who is undoubtedly even nastier than Tony Abbott. Consequently the speech didn't have quite the traction in Australia that it had abroad, where the context in which it was given was basically not reported at all.

jank

robindch wrote: »

Well, that's just the typical right-wing superiority complex. It amounts to 'my opinion is more valid cause your stupid' without any attempt to engage.

Grand, dont engage the actual question.

robindch wrote: »

I've no idea who this guy Slipper is but if you say that he's "communicated sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments", then I'm sure he has. Bad boy Slipper!

Interesting seeing that you used Julia Gillards infamous speech not once but twice to back up your claims about Tony Abbot (did you even read the articles you posted FFS?) shows that you actually know nothing about Australian politics apart from a quick 10 sec on google to copy and paste to counter some argument. Only this time you got caught with your pants down and can't take your beating like a grown up.

You(and many others) may not seeing the irony of using that speech of Gillards, railing against the big bad sexist, misogynist right, while at the same time voting in Australia's highest house to keep a man in the speakers of the house chair, who texted sexist, misogynist and homophobic comments to his gay aide as that was the actual topic of debate when she got up on that high horse. This is the double standards the left employ all the time. Hypocrisy at its highest.

So seeing again that you ignored this fact again I will use your own exact words to see if "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she you agree" with these comments. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

SpaceTime

Surprisingly enough, despite the US being quite hot on the separation of church and state, it still has a "so help me God" line in the presidential (and most public office) oaths.

I think Ireland really should change oaths though and also should ditch the religious stuff at Dail, Seanad and any other public meeting.

People should be swearing to carry out their job in the interest of the nation and the people of Ireland! That's where they tend to fall down in public office anyway! A reminder of how serious their job is and that the people are their ultimate bosses would be at least a nice token of appreciation!

SpaceTime

Comparison of preambles:

French Constitution 1958 and ammended wrote:

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004.
By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories which have expressed the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived for the purpose of their democratic development.

Irish Constitution 1938 (no amendments to preamble) wrote:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

German constitution preamble wrote:

Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law. Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.

(A little bit of a reference to God, but not much and very definitely reference to humanism)

United States Constitution Preamble wrote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We're very firmly stuck in the 1600s somewhere with our preamble anyway!

The Irish ones sounds more like the introduction to the constitution of a monastery or something and really seems to have little or nothing to do with power being devolved to the Government by the people. It smacks of some kind of government appointed by God much like the Queen of England type setup.

I wouldn't entirely blame the Catholic Church influence, but it looks like a very conservative adaptation of British-style monarchy appointed by God to be perfectly honest.

We really need to look at what being a Republic is supposed to be about. It's meant to be about power derived from the people, not from some external agency (including God).

I know the preamble is largely just a load of symbolic stuff with no legal meaning, but it does set the agenda to some extent and I think ours is totally inappropriate!

If you're a president, taoiseach, TD, councillor, senator etc .. does it mean that God's your boss and to hell with the electorate? That's sort of what it's implying.

...

It does need to change though, the constitution and public office should be open to EVERY citizen of Ireland, not just the piously religious ones!
Otherwise, what exactly did we have a revolution for in the first place?
We were up in arms about the Church of Ireland's official church status in the past, I don't see what the difference is nowadays other than we swapped it for the Catholic Church.

Irish people need to actually realise that Republic and Republicanism does not just mean 'not British'! It's a whole philosophy of governance.
Devine mandates really have no place in a republic. They're an obsolete vestige of monarchy.

So, I'm not quite sure what kind of a half-arsed Republic we setup as it seems to have a hell of a lot of old concepts leftover from royalty!

robindch

jank wrote: »

Grand, dont engage the actual question.

Well, I engaged with you in the same way you engaged with me, so I'm rather interested to see how you're going to deal with your own failure to engage?

jank wrote: »

Hypocrisy at its highest.

You should take the time to read some of what you're replying to rather than just yelling like a town crier in Pompeii. I pointed out that Gillard has been insulted in a sexist manner and neither Abbott nor you appear to be concerned. This guy Slipper seems to be another clown in the same vein as Abbott, which may not be all that mysterious given that (checking on Wikipedia) Slipper seems to have spent 15 years in the same Liberal Party as Abbott did. The Liberal party really does need to have a think about the kind of people they allow stand in their name.

BTW, I see that Abbott spent some time training to be a catholic priest. That would certainly explain some of his sexist views.