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

Michael Nugent

SpaceTime wrote: »

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.

Actually, that line is not part of the oath.

It has come to be added in by tradition, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged it (more precisely, challenged the prompting of the President to say words that are not in the oath).

The counter-argument was that the words were said after the oath, and not as part of it, and that the Chief justice was asking the President a question ("So help you God?") and not prompting him to say the words!

SpaceTime wrote: »

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!

I agree with all of this.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

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.

The US is no longer so hot on the separation of church and state. Since the 1950's the church has been sidling up to the state and dropping rohypnol in its drinks, willingly abetted by a cabal of cynical politicians.

There still are a few bastions of secularism within the US state system, but I expect them to fail, and the country to end up like A Handmaiden's Tale.

PopePalpatine

Even though I've only read Wikipedia's summary of "A Handmaiden's Tale", the idea of the USA morphing into the Republic of Gilead scares me sh*tless. I wouldn't be surprised if a fundie administration threatened nuclear war against a "godless" EU and China.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

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....

Strawman (topic was treatment of pregnant women)

It shows a deliberate ignorance on your part.

Ad hominem.

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.

Same strawman again

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.

Nope it was the bias in the IT article I was questioning.

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, the topic was pregnant unmarried women and large numbers of them did leave here.
I know of mixed religion couples who had to leave here (1960s)

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.

I agree with you on that. There, happy now?

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.

Strawman.
All democracies are flawed to some extent.

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.

Rather unlikely, unless the other movement was another church, with control of schools, hospitals, etc.

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?

Because like the RCC they had no respect for human rights, only for their own ideology, and its ends could justify any means.

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….

As ready made as the world's most powerful church, with 1500 years to establish itself?

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.

Doesn't make us right.
Did any of them imprison women simply for becoming pregnant?

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.

We had our own little gulag archipelago, but it only imprisoned women.

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.

That was withdrawn several posts ago.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

Strawman (topic was treatment of pregnant women).

Topic is discussing wether Ireland was a pseudo-fascist state or not. The treatment of homosexuals in actual fascist states is a valid point to make in comparison to Ireland and other western democratic countries of the time.

ninja900 wrote: »

Same strawman again.

It is a valid question to ask, why with the absence of the RCC is say the US where that particular country still had conservative social policies? It betrays your reasoning that if we got rif of the RCC overnight then the entire population would become enlightened and liberal.

ninja900 wrote: »

Nope it was the bias in the IT article I was questioning..

It was a finding in the actual report, a report that took 10 years to produce. Once cant reject facts because they don’t like them or don’t fit into their own biased narrative.

ninja900 wrote: »

Again, the topic was pregnant unmarried women and large numbers of them did leave here.
I know of mixed religion couples who had to leave here (1960s).

Again, what are the stats for this? How many women had to leave. Please provide me with peer reviewed numbers regarding your claim.

ninja900 wrote: »

All democracies are flawed to some extent..

As was/is Ireland yet miles off your original claim that it was a notch above a fascist state. Good to see recognise Ireland as a democracy now.

ninja900 wrote: »

Rather unlikely, unless the other movement was another church, with control of schools, hospitals, etc.
.

The National Socialist, Bolsheviks, Maoist and Khmer Rouge did not need to control the schools and hospitals to garner total control initially. Other forces will also fill a vacuum. Ever hear to the saying "Nature abhors a vacuum".

ninja900 wrote: »

Because like the RCC they had no respect for human rights, only for their own ideology, and its ends could justify any means..

Yet as I have pointed out, similar laws against homosexuals were passed in democratic states where the RCC had very little power.

ninja900 wrote: »

As ready made as the world's most powerful church, with 1500 years to establish itself?.

See my post about a vacuum.

ninja900 wrote: »

Doesn't make us right.
Did any of them imprison women simply for becoming pregnant?.

Never said it was right and yes, they did imprison women and steal their babies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

ninja900 wrote: »

We had our own little gulag archipelago, but it only imprisoned women.
.

Again, using the words 'gulag' suggests some sort of Stalinist regime which does not stand up to objective historical research
We were not the only western country to have laundries (or similar) for single mothers. The UK had plenty of them as well, the first opening in London in 1758 and closing in 1966.

jank

robindch wrote: »

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.

Yet seeing as Gillard voted to keep Peter Slipper in the speaker of the houses' chair, by extension using your own logic and reasoning, "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she+you agree" with his sexist and homophobic comments. So whats the end result here?

Just admit it, you got caught with your pants down using a bad example. Take your beating and we can move on.

Hotblack Desiato

I notice Jank you snipped out my reference to a claim having been withdrawn, so you could continue to rail against it.

Oh and we didn't operate a system of exit visas or pregnancy tests on departure from Ireland, so the statistics you are disingenuously looking for simply do not exist. I am certain that you already know that, of course.
Very convenient for our government's point of view that there was a common travel area with the UK where people who didn't fit in with their vision of holy catholic Ireland could go.

Explain to me what was the major difference between the gulag system a (usually male) political dissident could be forced into in Stalin's Russia and the gulag system a (female) sexual dissident could be forced into here?

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Explain to me what was the major difference between the gulag system a (usually male) political dissident could be forced into in Stalin's Russia and the gulag system a (female) sexual dissident could be forced into here?

The main difference is that it was the legal power of the state, backed by the use of force, which put people into the gulags, whereas it was entirely social and conventional pressures which put people into the Magdalene Laundries, and kept them there.

And, yes, that is a very important difference. Particularly in the context of attempts to parlay Irish social conservatism into something akin to fascism. It just wasn't. And people who think it was either don't understand the reality of mid-twentieth century Ireland, or they don't understand the reality of fascism.

GerB40

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Does the Taoiseach need to take an oath?

One can choose to take an oath on the constitution if they want.. Makes far more sense to me.

Peregrinus

GerB40 wrote: »

One can choose to take an oath on the constitution if they want.. Makes far more sense to me.

Strictly speaking, what the Taoiseach has to take (as a member of the Council of State) is a declaration, not an oath. There are no books involved. (Or, at least, there is no requirement for any books to be involved. I'm sure if someone making the declaration wants to hold a book while he does so, no-one will object.)

The problem is not the presence or absence of a bible, but the wording of the declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State."

Obviously, it may be offensive to the conscience of non-believers, and indeed of some believers, to require them to make a declaration in this form.

A similar issue arises in relation to the declarations which the Constitution requires (a) the President, and (b) Judges to make on entering into office. These declarations are again made "in the presence of Almighty God", and furthermore they both conclude with a prayer ("May God direct and sustain me.")

SpaceTime

I think it's as big a deal as Sinn Fein members of parliament being expected to swear an oath of allegiance to Liz 2.0

A lot of agonistics and indeed many atheists may just 'go with the flow', but it's not very fair or inclusive!
It could also cause a huge issue where someone's of a non-Christian or non-monotheistic faith.

Does this basically mean that only Christians (and those of us who pretend to be for the sake of swearing oaths) can hold public office in Ireland?!

If we go around calling ourselves an open, inclusive 'republic' then we should really have no issue having a quick referendum to change this stuff. It's just totally incompatible with what we claim to be.

No public office, public body, local council or any arm of the state should be making life difficult for, or completely excluding (as seems to be the case) non-Christians from being part of it.
To make it even more complicated, some Christians may even consider swearing an oath on the bible or swearing religious oaths for non religious things to be blasphemous.
It could get terribly difficult if the state had to prosecute itself under blasphemy legislation in every court case! Imagine the legal infinite loop that might cause!

This is as big an issue for a lot of people and I think it's one that we might all need to come together on and change if we're actually going to live up to the high bar that we set by calling ourselves a republic.

Also, I would add that changing it does not disadvantage Christians or in anyway diminish the public office positions etc that currently have these oaths.

The oath should be sworn to the People of Ireland, not to anyone else!

...

Also, I would just point out Irish people are highly selective about which aspects of the constitution to get up in arms over and enface rigerously!

This bit would seem to imply that such oaths are unconstitutional :

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.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion. (Swearing religious oaths to take up public office certainly endows christian religions)
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status. (non-Christians can't really swear these oaths without lying)

robindch

jank wrote: »

Yet seeing as Gillard voted to keep Peter Slipper in the speaker of the houses' chair, by extension using your own logic and reasoning, "In the absence of any condemnation, I think it's fair to assume that she+you agree" with his sexist and homophobic comments.

I don't recall her being asked to condemn his sexism or homophobia, unlike the unpleasant Abbot who was (but didn't). Neither do I fully understand your peculiar obsession with this minor domestic political incident which is of no interest to anybody in this thread, and certainly not to me.

While your original claim was that Gillard was "crying 'sexim' (sic) everytime the opposition said anything about her". And I pointed out that this wasn't the case, so perhaps you should accept that and move on since it's irrelevant to the main point of your post, which is fairly uncontroversial, which was that Gillard won't be remembered for her atheism, but will be remembers for being the first female PM of Australia, and for losing the political battle.

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think it's as big a deal as Sinn Fein members of parliament being expected to swear an oath of allegiance to Liz 2.0

Or Eamon de Valera having been required to do so in order to take his seat in the Free State Dail! This isn’t a new issue.

SpaceTime wrote: »

A lot of agonistics and indeed many atheists may just 'go with the flow', but it's not very fair or inclusive!
It could also cause a huge issue where someone's of a non-Christian or non-monotheistic faith.

Does this basically mean that only Christians (and those of us who pretend to be for the sake of swearing oaths) can hold public office in Ireland?!

No. Eamon Gilmore is not a Christian and does not pretend to be, and he has made the declaration as a member of the Council of State. I’m sure it stuck in his craw, but the point is he did it and it was valid and effective and there was no comeback. So he’s clearly not precluded from holding office. And it didn’t involve him in any dishonesty; he was quite open about his attitude to the declaration and his reasons for making it.

It is nevertheless offensive that, in a republic, a citizen should have an obligation of this kind laid on him. Even if the conscientious dilemmas it creates are not insurmountable, they are still dilemmas, and there is no good reason why anybody should have to face them, and every reason why they should not. I think there’s an injury done to Gilmore in requiring him to make a declaration in these terms, but there’s a greater injury done to the Republic in requiring public officials to make declarations of a religious character. That injury remains even if all the officials who have to make the declaration are in fact believers who have no personal objection to the religious elements of the declaration.

SpaceTime

This will suddenly become a huge issue when you get someone who is of another faith entirely and finds it hugely offensive / or a huge obstacle.

Most Irish atheists were brought up having to bite their tongue anyway as most of us went to Catholic (or protestant) schools which were very overtly religious. Most of us had to say prayers, go to religious ceremonies etc etc and just went with the flow and went through the motions and keep your opinions to yourself until you were in university.
It's a little bit like how people in China who aren't too keen on the regime have to operate.

My concern is that while Irish atheists and agnostics are very tolerant of the quirks and inflexibility of our establishment, it's going to suddenly become a human rights issue when you get say a devout Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist who has to take such an oath.

Suddenly that will become an issue of institutional racism, religious bias and social exclusion.

It's a lot more than an issue for atheists, and to be honest, Irish atheists have really put up with just existing in the shadows of society for a long time. I don't really think we should have to accept that kind of setup either.

It's really not good enough and I think it's completely contrary to the fundamental ideals that this country claims to have been founded upon.

A lot of it also has to do with hangovers from the British era. We sometimes forget that while the modern UK is very tolerant of other religions and that most British people couldn't be more liberal if they tried, that at its core the UK is still a constitutional monarchy with an official state church and with religious observance blended into all sorts of institutes of state.

Bear in mind that it has 26 bishops of the Church of England sitting as legislators in the House of Lords. Known as the Lords Spiritual, they read prayers at the start of each daily meeting and play a full and active role in the life and work of the Upper House!!??!! in 2013 in a multicultural, largely agnostic / atheist diverse UK.

We seemed to have just deleted the word "royal" here and there, swapped Church of Ireland for Catholic Church and painted a few red post boxes green.

I don't think we went nearly far enough to realise a genuine republic.

Also, I think because we pretty much established the Catholic Church as an official state religion until the 1970s, we really drove a big wedge between the Republic and Northern Ireland which didn't really help any notions of reunification either as it really frightened a lot of moderate protestants in the North and handed hardline unionists ammunition to bolster their arguments that it was a catholic-only state.

I would rather see Ireland having a liberal, open, progressive, totally inclusive outlook as a proper Republic without all these vestiges of established state religions and old nonsense that's taken straight out of the era of monarchy.

There was a huge attempt her to conflate being "Irish" with being "Irish Catholic" which were never the same thing and should never be the same thing and I think it did a huge disservice to a lot of people who weren't catholic who were a huge part of setting up this state and it continues to do a great harm to people in Ireland who aren't catholic and are most definitely Irish whether born her or whether they've decided to make their permanent homes here.

We should be trying to find the set of common values, dreams, hopes and aspirations that we all share. Not trying to subtly exclude people based on religious grounds! Being a proper republic with genuinely open values and equally of opportunity is something that we should be proud to aspire to. I don't see why it's something that's posing any difficulties at all.

This is an absolutely enormous issue and I don't think it's really given the attention that it deserves because it doesn't impact on the majority who are catholic / lapsed catholic / de facto catholic.

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

My concern is that while Irish atheists and agnostics are very tolerant of the quirks and inflexibility of our establishment, it's going to suddenly become a human rights issue when you get say a devout Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist who has to take such an oath.

None of these would have a problem with the declaration as currently worded, I think.

The two groups that would have a problem are (a) unbelievers, and (b) Quakers and Christians from a similar tradition.

SpaceTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of these would have a problem with the declaration as currently worded, I think.

The two groups that would have a problem are (a) unbelievers, and (b) Quakers and Christians from a similar tradition.

I must run it past some hindus and muslims. I think it could prove to be a huge issue as for example it's quite clear (based on the preamble and quite a few other things) that it's referring to God in a christian sense. It's not exactly vague or fluffy wording.

It goes a lot further than this though.

I mean take the fact that the Dail and Seanad start with :

Oireachtas Website wrote:

Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The above prayer is said at the commencement of each day's business in the Dáil by the Ceann Comhairle, and in the Seanad by the Clerk of the Seanad.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/a-misc/prayer.htm

How is that even remotely compatible with an open democracy that's not religiously biased?!?
Is it a legislature or mass? We would want to make our minds up!

How does that even make it possible to debate something that might be contrary to catholic doctrine e.g. maybe a debate on secularism, abortion or gay rights or divorce?! It sets the tone of the place.

To me, that completely undermines the whole concept of a national legislature. It's incorporated the church directly into it and it has no place there.

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

I must run it past some hindus and muslims. I think it could prove to be a huge issue as for example it's quite clear (based on the preamble and quite a few other things) that it's referring to God in a christian sense. It's not exactly vague or fluffy wording.

Well, not to pick nits or anything, but Muslims worship the same God as Christians and are generally comfortable to join in Christian invocations of God. A reference to Jesus would be problematic, and they couldn't endorse the Trinitarian language in the preamble, but they'd have no problem with anything in the declarations that various office-holders have to take.

Similarly, Hinduism is not jealous of its concept of divinity, and generic references to God by people who are not Hindus are generally something they are happy to join in.

Both groups would certainly have a problem joining in the prayers said at the start of each sitting day in the Oireachtas, as would Jews - and of course there have been Jews in the Oireachtas, on and off, pretty much since 1922. They generally deal with the problem by not attending at prayers, which they're not required to do, so it doesn't cause the the kind of problem that having to take a Christian-flavoured oath would cause.

None of which is a defence of the practice; the prayers, like the religious declarations in the Constitution, should go. And that doesn't require a Constitutional referendum.

SpaceTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not to pick nits or anything, but Muslims worship the same God as Christians and are generally comfortable to join in Christian invocations of God. A reference to Jesus would be problematic, and they couldn't endorse the Trinitarian language in the preamble, but they'd have no problem with anything in the declarations that various office-holders have to take.

Similarly, Hinduism is not jealous of its concept of divinity, and generic references to God by people who are not Hindus are generally something they are happy to join in.

You could still see quite a few religions becoming quite annoyed with that setup. It's plainly obvious that it's not meant to be remotely inclusive and never was.
It was a subtle little "this is a Catholic State for a Catholic People" type insert into what was supposed to be a republic.

It seems though that nobody cares / recognises that it's a major problem and we just leave it as is because we're incapable of doing anything to radically reform anything ever in Ireland as the status quo is grand no matter how incompatible with reality it might be.
Ireland is very heavily defined by an obsession with independence from Britain and a complete inability to do anything radically different from Britain after it left. We never really created a proper republic. We just talked about it a lot and used a lot of republican terminology.

There was a massive lost opportunity to really radically reform Ireland and set it out as a real trail blazing inclusive republic and I think that would have been something that might have been a lot more attractive to NI moderates too who are sick of endless religious in-fighting up north.

I mean, can you imagine how different the relationship with NI might have been if the Republic had been a progressive, liberal place with high ideals of democracy and equality perhaps in line with modern France (also majority catholic btw) or the USA. Instead of just handing the reigns of power over to the nearest bishop and basically installing the Catholic church in pretty much exactly the same way as the C of I had been in the bad old days.

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

You could still see quite a few religions becoming quite annoyed with that setup. It's plainly obvious that it's not meant to be remotely inclusive and never was.
It was a subtle little "this is a Catholic State for a Catholic People" type insert into what was supposed to be a republic.

Actually, no. De Valera took some care to ensure that the pietistic elements of the Constitution would not be distinctively Catholic, although he was under pressure from some quarters to make them so. Apart from the single reference to the Trinity in the Preamble, they're not even distinctively Christian.

SpaceTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. De Valera took some care to ensure that the pietistic elements of the Constitution would not be distinctively Catholic, although he was under pressure from some quarters to make them so. Apart from the single reference to the Trinity in the Preamble, they're not even distinctively Christian.

The problem was that it shouldn't have been distinctively anything in particular other than Irish and republican. Instead it has been absolutely peppered with religious references.

There was a large dose of Spanish-style conservative, religious fundamentalism and corporatism going on in the early days of the Irish state that bordered on fascism in some ways. It was moderated by other factors, but it was still there and did huge damage to this state in terms of installing unaccountable religious bodies into all sorts of aspects of state services and completely chilling social progress through some of the most oppressive censorship regimes in the western world.

It's quite embarrassing when you consider things like this country banned condoms from 1935–1978. One of my granddad's friends was basically run out of town (and emigrated) because he sold condoms in the 1960s! We didn't have normal sales of condoms in Ireland until 1992 and even then it was still a bit problematic.

Being gay was basically a criminal offence until 1993 largely because the Oireachas was too embarrassed / cowed by the church to discuss the issue until it was sued into doing so by David Norris and his senior counsel Mary Robinson.

This country was seriously screwed up in the very recent past and the legacy of that still lives on in a lot of our legislation and structures of state. It may not have been officially a fascist state, but it came quite close to that description in the darkest days of conservatism which lasted right up into the 1970s where huge coercive power was exerted by threat of laundries, reforms schools, social exclusion etc etc etc.

I don't think it's good enough to just let some of those structures and deliberate attempts to turn the republic into a theocracy stand. We need to make a lot of reforms.

jank

ninja900 wrote: »

Oh and we didn't operate a system of exit visas or pregnancy tests on departure from Ireland, so the statistics you are disingenuously looking for simply do not exist.

Than why were you pursing a claim that it was a 'common' occurrence that effected a large proportion of the Irish population. You made the claim, I asked for numbers and now you admit no such numbers are available to validate your claim exists. So this makes your original claim pure opinion and conjecture with no basis in historical fact.

Your original claim was this.

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.

The above is just pure conjecture and has no basis in fact. If it was that common surely some research would have been carried out to find out all those 'tens of thousands' of people who were forced to leave Ireland at the hands of the RCC.

ninja900 wrote: »

I am certain that you already know that, of course.
Very convenient for our government's point of view that there was a common travel area with the UK where people who didn't fit in with their vision of holy catholic Ireland could go.

Ah, so its a conspiracy now. LOL. OK!
Here is a tip, don't make a claim (and pursue it) if you can't prove it. This is the A+A forum after all.

ninja900 wrote: »

Explain to me what was the major difference between the gulag system a (usually male) political dissident could be forced into in Stalin's Russia and the gulag system a (female) sexual dissident could be forced into here?

Are you making another new comparison now saying that the Magadlene laundries in Ireland were more or less the same as the Soviet Gulags?

jank

robindch wrote: »

I don't recall her being asked to condemn his sexism or homophobia, unlike the unpleasant Abbot who was (but didn't).

You think voting to keep him in his job is not condoning his behaviour? I am reminded of a certain Valerie Plame then in the way you have looked beyond the obvious.

robindch wrote: »

While your original claim was that Gillard was "crying 'sexim' (sic) everytime the opposition said anything about her". And I pointed out that this wasn't the case, so perhaps you should accept that and move on since it's irrelevant to the main point of your post, which is fairly uncontroversial, which was that Gillard won't be remembered for her atheism, but will be remembers for being the first female PM of Australia, and for losing the political battle.

Gillard did her fair amount of "poor me, cause I'm a woman, look at how mean Tony is to me" and the people just got sick of it and her, that and along with her tax and spend policies. As I said, her own party dumped her weeks before the election, the electorate couldn't stand her.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

Than why were you pursing a claim that it was a 'common' occurrence that effected a large proportion of the Irish population. You made the claim, I asked for numbers and now you admit no such numbers are available to validate your claim exists. So this makes your original claim pure opinion and conjecture with no basis in historical fact.

I didn't say it affected a large proportion of the Irish population.
It was common in that it happened and it wasn't rare and there is ample testimony of this.
It seems that no-one else here is allowed post opinion except you, is that it?

Ah, so its a conspiracy now. LOL. OK!

Again with the twisting and falsehoods.
It acted as an economic safety valve primarily, but also a social one.

Here is a tip, don't make a claim (and pursue it) if you can't prove it. This is the A+A forum after all.

Ah right so stats (inconveniently never collected) or it never happened?

Are you making another new comparison now saying that the Magadlene laundries in Ireland were more or less the same as the Soviet Gulags?

No I said that we had our own version of it. Stop putting words in other poster's mouths, it is extremely tiresome.

antiskeptic

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?

A politician atheist is one who lacks belief in God (according to atheists who resist the notion that atheists have a belief system - at least, not one centered on a god)

As such they need not pronounce themselves atheists (since there is nothing positive to claim about a lack. If mean, one doesn't proclaim the lack of a third eye, does one?)

When atheists go positive (for example: staking a claim based on their lack of belief: "there is no god", or attacking that which they suppose themselves (but cannot demonstrate themselves) to understand (such as the Christian faith)) then they stir the waters to their own detriment.

Even to this biased ear, atheists on radio and TV tend to come across (and are obviously invited to demonstrate themselves as) loony fringe. I mean, they'd bring on TV Evangelicals were there any living this side of the pond...

Politicians, being savvy to election types, would tend to steer clear of such landmines.

Sulla Felix

Peregrinus wrote: »

The main difference is that it was the legal power of the state, backed by the use of force, which put people into the gulags, whereas it was entirely social and conventional pressures which put people into the Magdalene Laundries, and kept them there.

There was plenty of the legal power of the state excercised regarding the laundries, both in putting girls/women in them and keeping them there.

Peregrinus

Sulla Felix wrote: »

There was plenty of the legal power of the state excercised regarding the laundries, both in putting girls/women in them and keeping them there.

Depend on what you mean by “plenty”, I think. Many women were sent there by state power, but not as many as is commonly supposed.

According to the McAleese report, from the records available between 1922 and 1996, 646 women were admitted to Magdalene laundries, having been sent there by the criminal justice system - an average of 9 per year, though in fact admissions were heavily weighted towards the 1930s and 1940s. I should say girls, really, since these were mostly juveniles, convicted in the children’s court and sent to a Magdalene laundry as an alternative to an industrial school. Note that these girls would not, typically, have been pregnant, and their offences would not typically have been sexual offences or prostitution (though being involved in prostitution might be a reason why they were sent to a Magdalene home rather than an industrial school).

Another 622 came from industrial and reformatory schools. Some of these - we don’t know how many - would have been sent to the industrial schools by the courts, and then sent on to a Magdalene Laundry either because (a) they were still serving a sentence, but were too old for school, or (b) they had completed their sentence, but had nowhere to go.

193 were referred by hospitals, doctors or nurses. These would typically be women who were leaving hospital, were destitute and had nowhere to go. The reason they were in hospital might or might not have to do with pregnancy.

176 were referred by the NSPCC. These would mostly be young girls who were at risk because, for whatever reason, their family and extended family could not care for them.

107 came from psychiatric hospitals - again, medical discharges of people with nowhere to go and, typically, limited or no survival skills.

87 came from health and social service authorities.

845 women were admitted by their families.

1,319 women admitted themselves - presumably, because they had no other options.

It’s a mistake to think that everyone who went to a Magdalene home did so because she was pregnant. People went because they were desperate and they had no other options, but pregnancy was by no means the only thing that could occasion desperation.

It’s also a mistake to think that people were imprisoned there. Some were; those who were serving sentences, but they were a small minority. Most were free to leave at any time, and nearly all women who went there on account of pregnancy were free to leave at any time. Most did leave; the median stay was 28 weeks, but about one woman in seven stayed for more than five years. Some women entered and left several times, treating the home essentially as a refuge when life outside became impossible for them. Those who remained long-term mostly did so for the same reason as they had entered in the first place; they were desperate, and whatever other options were available to them looked to be worse that the Magdalene home. And of course after a while they became institutionalised, which limited their options even further.

The point of all this is not to excuse the state for its complicity in the system, but to point out that the state’s role in the system was a comparatively minor one. Particularly in the context of this thread, where we’re discussing the fate of women who became pregnant outside of marriage, the state was not often involved. Those women admitted themselves, or they were brought by their families, or they were referred by a priest, a mother-and-baby home, an adoption society. The state took no interest in them; on the one hand they had broken no laws, on the other the state did not acknowledge any obligation to support them. They were not legally compelled to enter the Magdalene homes, and having entered they were not legally restrained from leaving.

This is not to excuse the state, but to suggest that we can’t conveniently offload responsibility for this onto “the state”, thereby absolving ourselves (or, at any rate, our parents and grandparents). It wasn’t the abuse of state power that kept women confined in Magdalene homes; it was the way they were regarded, and the way they were treated by their own families, friends and neighbours. Because, appalling as life was in a Magdalene home, in the end they stayed there because they knew that what awaited them outside was worse.

Sulla Felix

Peregrinus wrote:

it was entirely social and conventional pressures which put people into the Magdalene Laundries, and kept them there.

So, from that to this,

Many women were sent there by state power

Given the rest of your post, you're evidently quite familiar with the laundry debacle. I'm amazed that you'd make so elementary a mistake in your first quoted post.

Anyway, given the numbers supplied, 1831 women of 3995, were "referred" by state apparatus' of some kind. 45% is probably going to satisfy most peoples understanding of "many" or "plenty".

Happily, I'll agree wholly with the last paragraph. The practice of scapegoating properly belongs in the bronze age desert from which we get the very name. The State bodies, society at large and the religious institutions all bear a portion of the blame.

Peregrinus

Sulla Felix wrote: »

So, from that to this,


Given the rest of your post, you're evidently quite familiar with the laundry debacle. I'm amazed that you'd make so elementary a mistake in your first quoted post.

You're right, it was a mistake on my part. My bad.

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Anyway, given the numbers supplied, 1831 women of 3995, were "referred" by state apparatus' of some kind. 45% is probably going to satisfy most peoples understanding of "many" or "plenty".

Happily, I'll agree wholly with the last paragraph. The practice of scapegoating properly belongs in the bronze age desert from which we get the very name. The State bodies, society at large and the religious institutions all bear a portion of the blame.

Yes. And I'd also make the point that the social institutions - the state and the church - don't operate indedpendently of society at large. If the state saw fit to send women to the Madgalene homes, they were simply reflectiong a societal view that that was an appropriate place to which to send them. Indeed, the Madgalene homes only existed because there was a demand for them.

Where I came into this, though, is on the question of whether the existence of the Magdalene homes was evidence that, in the mid-20th century, Ireland was a "fascist" country. I don't think it is, unless you adopt a definition of "fascism" which is almost meaninglessly broad.

If Ireland was a fascist society at the time, then so was the US, which also had its Magdalene homes (for Catholics - psychiatric hospitals served the same function for wayward non-Catholic girls) and had a great deal of explict and legal racism to boot. And of course it's laughably easy to make the case that the USSR was a fascist society. All of which would mean that the Second World War was a war between fascist powers, in which one set of fascists beat another. But that's not how most people see it.

Sulla Felix

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where I came into this, though, is on the question of whether the existence of the Magdalene homes was evidence that, in the mid-20th century, Ireland was a "fascist" country. I don't think it is, unless you adopt a definition of "fascism" which is almost meaninglessly broad.

If Ireland was a fascist society at the time, then so was the US, which also had its Magdalene homes (for Catholics - psychiatric hospitals served the same function for wayward non-Catholic girls) and had a great deal of explict and legal racism to boot. And of course it's laughably easy to make the case that the USSR was a fascist society. All of which would mean that the Second World War was a war between fascist powers, in which one set of fascists beat another. But that's not how most people see it.

Definitely. The kind of abuses that can happen under a fascist regime can also happen in a lot of different situations too. Just because x occurs a fascist state, doesn't mean that ever state in which it occurs is a fascist one.
Or something! There's probably a fancy named logical fallacy for it.

Peregrinus

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Definitely. The kind of abuses that can happen under a fascist regime can also happen in a lot of different situations too. Just because x occurs a fascist state, doesn't mean that ever state in which it occurs is a fascist one.

Ironically, this particular form of oppression didn't characterise Nazi Germany. Young healthy "Aryan" women having "Aryan" babies was a Good Thing, and keenly encouraged, with plenty of state support in the way of maternity homes, nurseries, etc, especially if the father was off doing his duty to the Volk at the Russian front. There was no negative judgment (from the state) about having your baby while not married, though marriage in due time was encouraged.

Malcolm.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And of course it's laughably easy to make the case that the USSR was a fascist society. All of which would mean that the Second World War was a war between fascist powers, in which one set of fascists beat another. But that's not how most people see it.

Don't know about that, a lot of people realise it was fascist capitalists against fascist communists.

Not that anarchist capitalists or anarchist communists would be any better.

Extremism is the problem, whatever it's form.