NUIG suspends Legion of Mary college society

Benny_Cake

I suspect that the choice of the name "Courage" is a response to the pro-LGBT rights Catholic organisation, Dignity.

I haven't noticed Courage directly suggesting that it's possible to "pray the gay away", but they are a member of a coalition called "Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality", along with organisations such as NARTH. If the Legion supported Courage at an organisational level - and I'd suspect they don't - then they are likely to keep it quiet in the future.

robindch

Benny_Cake wrote: »

[...] organisations such as NARTH [...]

NARTH is an especially obnoxious organization, even by the standards of the US gay-hate industry.

I wonder why the Odious Nicolosi chose a name that sounds like something out of a 1960's Bond movie.

Zillah

Peregrinus wrote: »

It says that gay people, like straight people, are called to chastity.

Straight people are called to chastity in the sense that they should be modest and celibate until they find someone to love and marry and be loyal to for the rest of their life.

Gay people are called to chastity in the sense that their feelings are immoral and filthy, they are explicitly forbidden from marrying the person they 'love' and would be living in sin if they had such a partner, and should suppress their sexuality and deny themselves companionship forever more.

You can't advocate that someone suppress who they are forever more, denying themselves some of the most wonderful experiences in live, without an implicit condemnation of their nature.

It is hateful. You don't have have to call someone a f*g, a ni**er or a c*nt to display horrible prejudice.

And yes I feel silly starring those out but that would be too great a concentration of expletives otherwise

Zillah

Also Jank is a million miles off course once again.

The A&A story you linked to is about the style in which a poster was done - the main purpose was advertising an event - so it is already an entirely different situation: they are being questioned over the way they presented their message, not the message itself. Secondly, they're not expressing hateful opinions of others, they are refusing to obey the rules of a religion that is not theirs. It is provocative, perhaps, but it is not comparable. Thirdly, their intent is an issue here: They were not putting up posters addressing others - Hey you, Muslims, your prophet is stupid! - they were addressing their own members, someone else took offense to the manner in which they did it.

Finally, a person's religion is not like their sexuality: Religion is something that one buys into, that one can interpret and change, or abandon altogether. There is nothing innate about it, equivocations are disingenuous here. I find comparisons with race are much more appropriate: Something a person is born with, it is an inherent part of their make-up, they can't change it and nor should they be made feel they have to.

Criticising someone's race or sexuality is inappropriate because it is inherent to their nature and they could not change it even if they wanted to. Criticising someone's religion is part of intellectual discourse.

All that said, I think one of the primary responsibilities of an institute of education is to foster an environment where all students can be comfortable and have access to education, so even as a free speech libertarian I think within the context of that environment that the administration have a right to suppress offensive views, even if it means telling the A&A society to not put up posters that will make Muslim students feel they are unwelcome.

They can still put those posters up outside of the university bubble, and they are welcome to have debates or discuss these things in the right context, but as a whole I think I am OK with the university campus being a protected space. I wouldn't tolerate religious objections based on the premise that they deserve a privileged position, but if I felt someone's objection was genuinely that they were being made feel unwelcome, I think that's bona fide.

This turned out a lot longer that I expected. I should probably do some work.

Brian Shanahan

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I am intrigued by their plans, they have some sort of idea that there is power in college societies.

I got the impression that there was only alcahol to be had in college societies. And this after I joined my fair share of them.

Nary a speck of power to be found though.

FouxDaFaFa

Peregrinus makes an excellent point. I was an NUIG student up until recently and the Legion of Mary Soc didn't exist when I was there.

It appears to be more a case of the University being (understandably) pissed that the funds they gave the soc are being used by a group which has a neglible presence on campus and which is really an external group, rather than the might fist of censorship.

If you're a uni soc receiving funding from the University, you have to fill out all the forms and be honest about your membership and what you are doing. If you're not, that privilege is taken away from you. Seems fair to me.

DapperGent

Zillah wrote: »

You can't advocate that someone suppress who they are forever more, denying themselves some of the most wonderful experiences in live, without an implicit condemnation of their nature.

This is exactly the point and the difference which the religious frequently seem to blithely ignore, like being gay is an opinion you choose to hold. I saw it put wonderfully in the recent UK supreme court decision on the Christian guest house bigotry case:

"Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation."

Valmont

I would have thought atheists above all would value the freedom of speech more than this? The congratulatory sneers are highly ironic.

Theists in power boss around atheists
Atheists in power boss around theists

Although I suppose that evolution does take time after all.

EDIT: Given that sunlight is the best disinfectant, a liberal scientific approach would surely suggest that allowing these people to air their incorrect or distasteful opinions to public scrutiny is the best way to refute them. Banning it and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't exactly help the cause and sets a dangerous precedent of intolerance.

Turtwig

Valmont wrote: »

I would have thought atheists above all would value the freedom of speech more than this? The congratulatory sneers are highly ironic.

Theists in power boss around atheists
Atheists in power boss around theists

Although I suppose that evolution does take time after all.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.

Zillah

Valmont wrote: »

I would have thought atheists above all would value the freedom of speech more than this? The congratulatory sneers are highly ironic.

Theists in power boss around atheists
Atheists in power boss around theists

Although I suppose that evolution does take time after all.

EDIT: Given that sunlight is the best disinfectant, a liberal scientific approach would surely suggest that allowing these people to air their incorrect or distasteful opinions to public scrutiny is the best way to refute them. Banning it and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't exactly help the cause and sets a dangerous precedent of intolerance.

Reading the rest of the thread would be a good move.

jank

Valmont wrote: »

I would have thought atheists above all would value the freedom of speech more than this? The congratulatory sneers are highly ironic.

Theists in power boss around atheists
Atheists in power boss around theists

Although I suppose that evolution does take time after all.

EDIT: Given that sunlight is the best disinfectant, a liberal scientific approach would surely suggest that allowing these people to air their incorrect or distasteful opinions to public scrutiny is the best way to refute them. Banning it and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't exactly help the cause and sets a dangerous precedent of intolerance.

This is the double standard the is the norm now unfortunately. Replacing one form of theist authoritarianism with another form of 'liberal' authoritarianism. Causing offence is now a crime more or less in the UK .

Originally Posted by FinnLizzy
David Quinn is too busy spouting racial abuse about Nelson Mandela to notice.
Really?

Can we get a clarification on this?

Cabaal

So jank , you'd support the formation of a kkk group?

Cause surely they are entitled to their views that black people are inferior or wrong?

Valmont

Zillah wrote: »

Reading the rest of the thread would be a good move.

Yes I quite enjoyed your post explaining that as homosexuality is not freely chosen it should be insulated and protected from criticism (you neglected to present an actual argument I might add). My point is that it is better to allow bigots to openly air their views freely to public scrutiny so as to better refute and discourage the hateful ideas they propagate. This view is articulated very persuasively by Jonathan Rauch, gay activist and author of The Kindly Inquisitors.

The intricacies of university administration aside, the masturbatory sneering by the A&A faithful at this particular group being silenced are laughably ironic given, oh say, a few centuries of abuse by the inquisition? Atheists should really be denouncing the move by NUIG if they had any modicum of understanding the need to openly refute the ideas put forth by the legion of Mary rather than squash them. As I said, evolution is a slow process, particularly with respect to tolerance and an understanding of a liberal society.

Valmont

Cabaal wrote: »

So jank , you'd support the formation of a kkk group?

Cause surely they are entitled to their views that black people are inferior or wrong?

So in supporting free speech Jank is expressly endorsing racism? Did you actually read 1984 or do you just think the avatar is cool?

Links234

Valmont wrote: »

The intricacies of university administration aside, the masturbatory sneering by the A&A faithful at this particular group being silenced are laughably ironic given, oh say, a few centuries of abuse by the inquisition?

Except they aren't. NUIG just won't be funding their student society. Utterly hyperbolic comparisons to the inquisition aren't helping either, as it's been repeatedly pointed out that this isn't a free speech issue in the least and neither you nor Jank seem to be able to discuss the actual issue itself, instead trying to make it out to be something else, which I find poor form indeed.

Sarky

The important thing here is that jank found a friend.

Zillah

Valmont wrote: »

Yes I quite enjoyed your post explaining that as homosexuality is not freely chosen it should be insulated and protected from criticism (you neglected to present an actual argument I might add). My point is that it is better to allow bigots to openly air their views freely to public scrutiny so as to better refute and discourage the hateful ideas they propagate. This view is articulated very persuasively by Jonathan Rauch, gay activist and author of The Kindly Inquisitors.

The intricacies of university administration aside, the masturbatory sneering by the A&A faithful at this particular group being silenced are laughably ironic given, oh say, a few centuries of abuse by the inquisition? Atheists should really be denouncing the move by NUIG if they had any modicum of understanding the need to openly refute the ideas put forth by the legion of Mary rather than squash them. As I said, evolution is a slow process, particularly with respect to tolerance and an understanding of a liberal society.

There are multiple posts over four pages where people argue that this is not a free speech issue at all, and then you open a post with "I would have thought atheists above all would value the freedom of speech more than this?" which is the epitome of a loaded question.

If our best reply would be to quote a dozen posts from before you joined the conversation then you've clearly demonstrated that you're not paying any attention to what we've said. "[Homosexuality] should be insulated and protected from criticism" is a total strawman, I never said anything like it.

My position, and that of some other posters, is that this is about creating a university environment where all students can attend without being made feel unwelcome or discriminated against - that is the context of our approval of this move. We don't consider a university an arena where the bigoted and the tolerant should wage their intellectual war, nor should (potentially very vulnerable) students be dragged in as combatants. I don't think a grieving widow should have to debate with me over her belief in God, not because the debate doesn't deserve to be had, but because it is not the time and place to have it.

That has all been said in one form or another before you even got here, so I must beg you indulgence if I seem a little snarky, but showing someone that you just ignored everything they said is likely to raise hackles.

Brian Shanahan

Valmont wrote: »

Yes I quite enjoyed your post explaining that as homosexuality is not freely chosen it should be insulated and protected from criticism

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until I read this nasty little piece of misrepresentation.

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

[...] the masturbatory sneering by the A&A faithful at this particular group being silenced are laughably ironic given, oh say, a few centuries of abuse by the inquisition [...] evolution is a slow process, particularly with respect to tolerance and an understanding of a liberal society.

Well, do stick around -- you've a lot to learn and A+A is a good place to start.

Obliq

Valmont wrote: »

Atheists should really be denouncing the move by NUIG if they had any modicum of understanding the need to openly refute the ideas put forth by the legion of Mary rather than squash them. As I said, evolution is a slow process, particularly with respect to tolerance and an understanding of a liberal society.

Should we now?!

Hmm. Your hypotheses seems fatally flawed before you've even taken a head-count. Stick around a bit cos you won't fix it all with just the one post - evolution is a slow process y'know.

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

So jank , you'd support the formation of a kkk group?

Cause surely they are entitled to their views that black people are inferior or wrong?

I support free speech so I must be a racist? Can't beat them so just throw mud...

I would not support such a group because I am not a racist, but I would not let any law stand in the way of such a group being formed nor should they be free from public criticism. It's quite simple.

28064212

jank wrote: »

I support free speech so I must be a racist? Can't beat them so just throw mud...

Not what anyone said. At all

jank wrote: »

I would not support such a group because I am not a racist, but I would not let any law stand in the way of such a group being formed nor should they be free from public criticism. It's quite simple.

And you would insist that universities must provide support for such a group?

Just in case it's not ridiculously obvious and I wasn't direct enough, I am not asking if you would support such a group, only if you would support the university funding of such a group

jank

28064212 wrote: »

Not what anyone said. At all

Yes it was.

Cabaal wrote: »

So jank , you'd support the formation of a kkk group?

Maybe it was badly phrased but it says what is says. "I would support (as in lend my approval for) the formation of a KKK group."

This is what was said of me since I would not ban such a group.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

Yes it was.



Maybe it was badly phrased but it says what is says. I would support (as in lend my approval for) the formation of a KKK group.

Probably best to add that you would not support their opinions.

28064212

jank wrote: »

28064212 wrote: »

Not what anyone said. At all

Yes it was.

jank wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

So jank, you'd support the formation of a kkk group?

Maybe it was badly phrased but it says what is says. I would support (as in lend my approval for) the formation of a KKK group.

Deadlie

The society was also closed down partly because it failed to give the SU a list of it aims and objectives. Its a wonder it was ever allowed to accept members before this. Also, most colleges require posters to have SU approval too for exactly this reason. This whole thing should never have gotten this far, but that said it feels a little like a storm in a teacup!

I was surprised by the numbers in the society though, I must say! (100)

jank

Jernal wrote: »

Probably best to add that you would not support their opinions.

Yes, I am paraphrasing what Cabal said what my opinion is.
Which of course is false.

Brian Shanahan

Deadlie wrote: »

I was surprised by the numbers in the society though, I must say! (100)

Given its the legion of Mary they probably counted the number of people who came up to the stand during fresher's week asking where the toilets were as members.

Common catholic tactic to inflate member numbers.

shruikan2553

Deadlie wrote: »

I was surprised by the numbers in the society though, I must say! (100)

Offering free stuff is a good method to get members. Give a sweet to each person who signs up and you'll get a few hundred.

Turtwig

Mod: If you believe someone to be trolling or a sock puppet report the post. Don't post the accusation in the thread!

Obliq

Gosh. I had momentarily forgotten what a sock-puppet meant. I won't even tell you where my mind brought that....

smacl

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Offering free stuff is a good method to get members. Give a sweet to each person who signs up and you'll get a few hundred.

Fond memories of free fudge on Grafton street and the odd veggie meal in the Golden Abattoir as we called it, courtesy of the hare krishnas back in the day. Don't know if they ever managed to sign anyone up.

Obliq

smacl wrote: »

Fond memories of free fudge on Grafton street and the odd veggie meal in the Golden Abattoir as we called it, courtesy of the hare krishnas back in the day. Don't know if they ever managed to sign anyone up.

Yeah! I remember the free fudge alright. The food was free as well, but you had to sit through a kind of sermon, no? I never went. Clearly not hungry enough....

Cabaal

jank, you know what I meant by the post,

However for clarification,

Would you support the right for a KKK to form to spread their views that blacks are wrong and inferior?

Would you support the right of the LOM to re-form to spread their views that they believe gay is wrong sinful and inferior?

You'll notice that both groups have something in common, one just chooses a different word and believes people can be converted. Such a belief has no basis in reason, logic, science and reality.

Both views have no place in a modern progressive society.

Surely by your own logic you support the right for the KKK group to form and air their views on the basis of freedom of speech?

pH

Cabaal wrote: »

jank, you know what I meant by the post,

However for clarification,

Would you support the right for a KKK to form to spread their views that blacks are wrong and inferior?

Would you support the right of the LOM to re-form to spread their views that they believe gay is wrong sinful and inferior?

You'll notice that both groups have something in common, one just chooses a different word and believes people can be converted. Such a belief has no basis in reason, logic, science and reality.

Both views have no place in a modern progressive society.

Surely by your own logic you support the right for the KKK group to form and air their views on the basis of freedom of speech?

yes - fair enough racism blah blah blah, but what about other views that a person's lifestyle "choices" are wrong. And yes "choices" is in quotes as many of these things aren't "choices" and I get that.

There are many things that some adults do that others campaign against - drug taking, drinking alcohol, smoking, pre-marital sex. Yes I know that homosexuality currently has protection under legislation and drug addicts don't but that's a technical point, I'm talking about what overall right makes criticizing and campaigning against some things we do OK - but makes others verbotten.

The KKK was never just an organisation that espoused a few racist views and made posters - however, a better analogy would be UK organisations like the National Front, BNP and to a certain extent UKIP. Now I strongly oppose their views, however I really do believe that they have a right to express them, however distasteful I find them. Obviously there is a spectrum, and if an organisation had the same views but had a history of acts of intimidation, violence and murder (like the KKK) then no - I don't.

So do you believe that all members of the BNP should be rounded up and thrown in some sort of camp until they recant? or are you happy for them to keep going? What about UKIP?

The same goes for the Legion of Mary - I really feel that too many people, on too many issues have taken their new found "rights" which they are absolutely entitled to, and extrapolated from there an additional "right" not to be criticized or questioned in any way.

So do you think that groups that say the following are "wrong" should be allowed exist or campaign in Ireland?

Pre-marital sex
Use of contraception
Drug taking
Consuming Alcohol
Being overweight/obese

Cabaal

pH wrote: »

yes - fair enough racism blah blah blah, but what about other views that a person's lifestyle "choices" are wrong. And yes "choices" is in quotes as many of these things aren't "choices" and I get that.

There are many things that some adults do that others campaign against - drug taking, drinking alcohol, smoking, pre-marital sex. Yes I know that homosexuality currently has protection under legislation and drug addicts don't but that's a technical point, I'm talking about what overall right makes criticizing and campaigning against some things we do OK - but makes others verbotten.

The KKK was never just an organisation that espoused a few racist views and made posters - however, a better analogy would be UK organisations like the National Front, BNP and to a certain extent UKIP. Now I strongly oppose their views, however I really do believe that they have a right to express them, however distasteful I find them. Obviously there is a spectrum, and if an organisation had the same views but had a history of acts of intimidation, violence and murder (like the KKK) then no - I don't.

So do you believe that all members of the BNP should be rounded up and thrown in some sort of camp until they recant? or are you happy for them to keep going? What about UKIP?

The same goes for the Legion of Mary - I really feel that too many people, on too many issues have taken their new found "rights" which they are absolutely entitled to, and extrapolated from there an additional "right" not to be criticized or questioned in any way.

So do you think that groups that say the following are "wrong" should be allowed exist or campaign in Ireland?

Pre-marital sex
Use of contraception
Drug taking
Consuming Alcohol
Being overweight/obese

All of the above are choices people made, being gay is not a choice the same as being black or asian is not a choice.

Its insulting to compare any of the above to the LOM's campaign against gay people or the KKK's hatred of blacks.

In relation to two of the choices you've listed above (sex and contraption) the only opposition to those is really just religious. The same groups who see being gay as wrong.

As for BNP, they are just a re-branded modern KKK for the new generation (blacks are ok...as long as their english).

They took a very heavy fall after Channel 4 did a undercover doc on them and they've never recovered from the message of hatred that was seen in that doc. Hence the rise of UKIP.

Would I expect NUIG to support the formation of a INP (Irish National Party) society with the same view of hatred as BNP, no. Never.

PopePalpatine

Cabaal wrote: »

As for BNP, they are just a re-branded modern KKK for the new generation (blacks are ok...as long as their english).

They took a very heavy fall after Channel 4 did a undercover doc on them and they've never recovered from the message of hatred that was seen in that doc. Hence the rise of UKIP.

Would I expect NUIG to support the formation of a INP (Irish National Party) society with the same view of hatred as BNP, no. Never.

You're assuming a member of a BNP-like party could ever make it to uni. :pac:

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

jank, you know what I meant by the post,

However for clarification,

Would you support the right for a KKK to form to spread their views that blacks are wrong and inferior?

Would you support the right of the LOM to re-form to spread their views that they believe gay is wrong sinful and inferior?

You'll notice that both groups have something in common, one just chooses a different word and believes people can be converted. Such a belief has no basis in reason, logic, science and reality.

Both views have no place in a modern progressive society.

Surely by your own logic you support the right for the KKK group to form and air their views on the basis of freedom of speech?

I think I have said this before. I would not stand in the way nor want legislation to be passed that would limit any group or individuals right to air their views in the public sphere. If some nut jobs want to spread hate, let them as their views can be easily torn apart using the same rights of expression and speech bestowed onto all.
I would draw the line in terms of actual physical threats to life as in group x want to kill/murder all members of group y.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

I think I have said this before. I would not stand in the way nor want legislation to be passed that would limit any group or individuals right to air their views in the public sphere. If some nut jobs want to spread hate, let them as their views can be easily torn apart using the same rights of expression and speech bestowed onto all.
I would draw the line in terms of actual physical threats to life as in group x want to kill/murder all members of group y.

So you think that any group that has pamphlets etc that outlining that the group they see as wrong should be killed (BNP saying Muslims should be killed for example) should be banned then?

Or at the very least their views should never be allowed be aired to impressionable people..such as teenagers in college or on national tv?

lazygal

Deadlie wrote: »

I was surprised by the numbers in the society though, I must say! (100)

Could be the Yoof Defence style of counting, in fairness.

Sarky

Signing up for an NUIG society is cheap and gets you a handful of sweets and a few beers at the first welcome meeting. Attendance dies off exponentially once the regular non-boozey meetings get under way.

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

Signing up for an NUIG society is cheap and gets you a handful of sweets and a few beers at the first welcome meeting. Attendance dies off exponentially once the regular non-boozey meetings get under way.

Beers....at a Legion of Mary meeting? What would Jesus do?

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Beers....at a Legion of Mary meeting? What would Jesus do?

Give them wine instead,

Sarky

Well there are wine receptions for the socs that want to pretend to be classy.

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

Well there are wine receptions for the socs that want to pretend to be classy.

I presume the Legion of Mary starts off with water though. And let Jesus work his magic.

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

So you think that any group that has pamphlets etc that outlining that the group they see as wrong should be killed (BNP saying Muslims should be killed for example) should be banned then?

Or at the very least their views should never be allowed be aired to impressionable people..such as teenagers in college or on national tv?

No group should be banned. If physical threats are made it should be dealt with like any other physical threat via the Courts not the courts of public opinion.
Regarding the medium it depends on ownership of said medium. Private ownership means the owners have absolute discretion, public ownership means nothing should be banned.

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

Well there are wine receptions for the socs that want to pretend to be classy.

Sarky

Well I say wine, it's usually a few bottles of fizzy screw-cap stuff from Lidl.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

No group should be banned. If physical threats are made it should be dealt with like any other physical threat via the Courts not the courts of public opinion.
Regarding the medium it depends on ownership of said medium. Private ownership means the owners have absolute discretion, public ownership means nothing should be banned.

So any group should still have the right to have documents etc that say a group of people they don't like should be killed. Do you support even this right, I take it you do?

Outside of getting the courts getting involved.

Peregrinus

jank wrote: »

No group should be banned.

We don't know that any group has been banned here, do we? What has happened is that the NUI LoM has lost recognition as a student society, meaning (presumably) that it no longer has access to funding and other material support. But I've not heard any suggestion that students are banned from joining, attending meetings or the like. There's a world of difference between not funding a group, and banning it.