NUIG Suspends Legion of Mary over Leaflets

eviltwin

Phoebas wrote: »

I've had a quick browse. It seems to be pretty mainstream Catholic stuff.

.

Take a look at it again. There is a section "Unsure about your Sexuality?", obviously directed at younger readers. There right in the middle of the page they tell readers they have a choice in choosing to be gay. Like wtf??

They also provide a link to a centre that offers "therapy" for gay people!

There is nothing acceptable or indeed mainstream in that.

hatrickpatrick

old hippy wrote: »

From societies/organisations/groups who seek to pray or cure homosexuality. And their apologists who claim "freedom of speech" when all they usually wish to do is be free to discriminate and/or victimise.

What about people who absolutely despise religious fundamentalism and discrimination of any kind (which if you look at my posting history you'll find it difficult to deny) but also despise censorship?

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
― Voltaire

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Can you be some specific - in the poster where do you find the 'wilful incitement to hatred'?

Is praying for someone 'wilful incitement to hatred' these days?

"I'm a child of god, don't call me gay". Why not? What's wrong with being gay. What's wrong with being a child of God and gay? What does chastity have to do with being gay? Can you be gay and not lead a life of chastity?

I don't think it's incitement to hatred but there's fairly clear message coming through.

old hippy

Phoebas wrote: »

Can you be some specific - in the poster where do you find the 'wilful incitement to hatred'?

Is praying for someone 'wilful incitement to hatred' these days?

It's suggesting that we're to be pitied and can only find redemption in makey uppy judgemental religious bobbins.

old hippy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What about people who absolutely despise religious fundamentalism and discrimination of any kind (which if you look at my posting history you'll find it difficult to deny) but also despise censorship?

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
― Voltaire

I'd like to give you a definite answer on this but I can't. Things get into a hazy area when it comes to discrimination in my book.

jank

Don't like the message but that doesn't mean one should shoot the messenger, in fact its disturbing and ironic that a University should engage in this type of reaction, an over reaction in my opinion. There was lots of other ways to handle this situation. I guess certain 'elements' within the University don't understand what a University should be doing.

Da Shins Kelly

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I think suspending the Legion Of Mary is a bridge too far. Removal of the message condemning homosexuality and implying it can be prayed away would be sufficient. People can go on about the latter being "fascist" and "suppression of free speech" (which tends only to be applied to stuff they disagree with) all they like, but misinformation is misinformation. Any incorrect/inaccurate message, including ones with a liberal slant, should be removed from the public domain.
And saying homosexuality is wrong might be just an opinion, but what about all of the gay people at whom it's aimed? They should be of higher priority than the "free speech" of those who condemn them. Very easy for someone who's not gay to say "they should cowby the f**k up".

However I do think NUIG is being quite ridiculous by droppiong Legion Of Mary as a campus society. A discussion with them rather than just getting rid of them would have been more productive, and less polarising.

I think it's worth mentioning that Legion of Mary were approached and offered the opportunity to defend their position and declined. It's not as though they were shut down, no questions asked. I think they know themselves that they may have gone to far with this campaign and chose not to dispute the suspension or removal of posters.

Also, as far as I know, it's within the rules of the university that a society can't promote outside organisations, which is what they were doing. They were also a society that had only just begun anyway and were on somewhat of a trial period, and breached the rules very early on.

As for gay Christians who maybe want to put chastity first and want somewhere to talk about that, the chaplaincy is always available in the college and St. Nicholas' has even blessed same sex unions. It's not as though the only outlet for gay Christians has suddenly been removed and now they have nowhere to go.

Personally I am glad to see the posters gone. The whole ethos of the society aside, the actual wording of the posters came off as quite agressive. "I'm a child of God, don't call me gay!" is a ridiculous slogan that implies you can't be religious and gay and is actually quite derogatory. If the society really wanted to create a safe and open place for gay Christians to come and talk, the wording of the poster should have been a lot less antagonistic, and it's their responsibility as a society to make sure they appear welcoming and not hostile. They were asking for trouble with those posters, frankly, and the fault doesn't lie with people who are angered by them, but with the people who saw it fit to make them.

Also, Christians aren't the only people in the university, and a lot of their sh*t gets tolerated on a regular basis, including very provocative and inflammatory anti-choice campaigns.

Phoebas

eviltwin wrote: »

Take a look at it again. There is a section "Unsure about your Sexuality?", obviously directed at younger readers. There right in the middle of the page they tell readers they have a choice in choosing to be gay. Like wtf??

They also provide a link to a centre that offers "therapy" for gay people!

There is nothing acceptable or indeed mainstream in that.

Mainstream catholic teaching is that gay people should choose to be celibate. Courage are endorsed by the Vatican and in their first goal state that their teaching is in line with RC teaching.

courage wrote:

To live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality

So why do you think that this isn't mainstream Catholic teaching?

Sleepy

TBH, as a graduate of the university I'm quite proud of them doing this.

This isn't about freedom of speech, the University has several debating societies which already provides for that (and efb's contributions to the debates there during his time there alone would prove that very well ). This is a simple matter of bullying imo. It's targeting people who feel uncomfortable in their own skin due to society's need to neatly categorise something as organically diverse as sexuality and attempting to manipulate that discomfort into support for their own ideals. It's reprehensible behaviour imo.

The students involved have every right to hold their nonsensical beliefs that anything other than unprotected missionary position sex inside the confines of a Catholic marriage is an abomination, and to express that opinion in suitable forums such as those offered by the Lit & Deb, PDS (or, god forbid, Law Soc ). Those rights do not, however, entitle them to disseminate propaganda that seeks to manipulate vulnerable people.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

"I'm a child of god, don't call me gay". Why not? What's wrong with being gay. What's wrong with being a child of God and gay? What does chastity have to do with being gay? Can you be gay and not lead a life of chastity?

Why are you asking me this? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay at all.
I don't have to agree with the message and still want to allow the messenger deliver it.

Daith wrote: »

I don't think it's incitement to hatred but there's fairly clear message coming through.

Agreed.

Sleepy

Phoebas wrote: »

So why do you think that this isn't mainstream Catholic teaching?

I'm guessing it's because "Irish Catholics" don't believe most of the teachings of the Vatican... Let's be honest, most of them are Protestant in their beliefs but the Republican Catholic bias of our education system ensures that this remains a dirty word to most.

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

Why are you asking me this? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay at all.
I don't have to agree with the message and still want to allow the messenger deliver it.

Ok I'm not asking if you think being gay is wrong. I'm asking what message is being delivered by that group. If people in NUIG believe that the soc is suggesting being gay is wrong then that is an issue. Likewise if the college believes it to be the case it's an issue.

Once again. Societies in colleges do not have free reign to say what they want. As pointed above the soc had a chance to explain it's position. They didn't.

Phoebas

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm guessing it's because "Irish Catholics" don't believe most of the teachings of the Vatican... Let's be honest, most of the are Protestant in their beliefs but the Republican Catholic bias of our education system ensures that this remains a dirty word to most.

True that. Mainstream Catholic belief is a very different animal to mainstream catholic teaching.

Dravokivich

Phoebas wrote: »

It calls gay people to chastity - a mainstream Catholic teaching. Some other mumbo jumbo about not defining yourself on your sexuality alone.

How did you read it?

Courage ministers to persons with same-sex attractions and their loved one. 1By developing an interior like of chastity, which is the universal call to all Christians, 2one can move beyond the confines of the homosexual label to a more complete identity in Christ. In Courage you will get to know men and women 3who share in your concerns, meeting them online through our Listservs, or in person at chapter meetings, conferences, days of recollection and retreats. Come see what we are about. Browse our pages. Get to know our community. 4You'll be glad you did!

'5I'm a child of God. 6Don't call me gay'

1 - The use of the words interior and chastity are quite striking for me. It means someone has to deny and re-establish themselves by means of repressing their sexuality along with how they view themselves sexually.

2 - There are few/no restrictions on those who are homosexual. (Blood donation is a different topic) This comment infers that one's sexuality places limits on their abilities.

3 - They are looking to make their view seem like the obvious thing to agree with and be concerned about. They are inviting it in a way to suggest you acknowledge you have a problem with it, or if you don't, to question why you don't have a problem with it.

4 - Suggests you'll be miserable for be homosexual and doing nothing about it.

5 - This is the only part of their poster I don't have a problem with. (not all doom and gloom)

6 - It's not up to anyone to decide how one identifies themselves. Be it sexually, nationally or what have ye. But I'd be damned if I ever thought it's a good thing, to identify yourself with a negative comment. That statement in itself is worded to make the idea of being identified as Gay, a negative thing. It makes being "Gay" sound unwanted and unpleasant. Someone being Gay isn't how I recognise them, It's how I respect them, just as those Hetro buddies of mine.

Overall, I'm even more incensed by the idea of "courage" ministers doing all of this to someone. Expecting homosexuality to be a weakness or affliction to those who weren't strong enough to resist.

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah. I read the article.
As I said earlier, I sceptical about the colleges' reasoning. This is bound to be seen as suspending them because of their religious beliefs on homosexuality.

It has nothing to do with that at all.

Phoebas

Dravokivich wrote: »

1 - The use of the words interior and chastity are quite striking for me. It means someone has to deny and re-establish themselves by means of repressing their sexuality along with how they view themselves sexually.

It certainly is RC teaching that gay people should repress their sexuality (by chastity). They're pretty upfront about that.

Dravokivich wrote: »

2 - There are few/no restrictions on those who are homosexual. (Blood donation is a different topic) This comment infers that one's sexuality places limits on their abilities.

I didn't read it that way. There is a qualification on that sentence that talks about identity, not ability/

Dravokivich wrote: »

3 - They are looking to make their view seem like the obvious thing to agree with and be concerned about. They are inviting it in a way to suggest you acknowledge you have a problem with it, or if you don't, to question why you don't have a problem with it.

Coming, as they are, from a Catholic standpoint where homosexual acts are sinful, it would be pretty reasonable for them to think that gay people might be concerned about their sexuality. There's nothing controversial (from a Catholic pov) about that.

Dravokivich wrote: »

4 - Suggests you'll be miserable for be homosexual and doing nothing about it.

Again, from a Catholic standpoint, a practicing (sinful) homosexual would have reason to me miserable. Nothing controversial about that at all.

Dravokivich wrote: »

6 - It's not up to anyone to decide how one identifies themselves. Be it sexually, nationally or what have ye. But I'd be damned if I ever thought it's a good thing, to identify yourself with a negative comment. That statement in itself is worded to make the idea of being identified as Gay, a negative thing. It makes being "Gay" sound unwanted and unpleasant. Someone being Gay isn't how I recognise them, It's how I respect them, just as those Hetro buddies of mine.

From a Catholic standpoint, being gay is very negative - it's sinful.

Dravokivich wrote: »

It has nothing to do with that at all.

I wouldn't be too sure, but regardless, that's how it's been reported in the media (and that's how the OP framed the thread). So public perception is going to be that this is a freedom of speech issue and you can be damn sure that it'll be used by the Catholic right wing as such.

John Waters is salivating over his keyboard as we speak!

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

From a Catholic standpoint, being gay is very negative - it's sinful.

Which is fine. If they want to preach that message in a University they're out of luck. They need to abide by the University's rules. As has being pointed out they refused to explain themselves to the Uni.

Phoebas wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure, but regardless, that's how it's been reported in the media (and that's how the OP framed the thread). So public perception is going to be that this is a freedom of speech issue and you can be damn sure that it'll be used by the Catholic right wing as such.

The Catholic right wing don't need an excuse to be honest.

shruikan2553

If the college doesn't want its name associated with something they have every right to remove funding and support. The people can still be a part of a group if they fund themselves.

Should a society be allowed to discuss the downsides of immigration or the bible's opinion on homosexuality? Yes. Should a society be allowed to promote that another group of students as inferior? No.

None of us have true freedom of speech, try yelling about a bomb in an airport or a fire in a crowded place.

Corkfeen

A charitable society recommends a dodgy organisation that believe in reparative therapy. If any society in a college targeted a group of vulnerable people promising pseudoscientific cures, they should get shut down in a shot. They're proven to be bloody dangerous and I'd suspect it's in complete violation of what college societies are allowed to do !

Let's say for example a society starts advertising for groups that offer homeopathic cures for various ailments including cancer. Should they be left off?

hatrickpatrick

old hippy wrote: »

I'd like to give you a definite answer on this but I can't. Things get into a hazy area when it comes to discrimination in my book.

That's fair enough. I'll give you my own two cents: In my view, discrimination occurs with actions, not with words. For instance, if someone says "I don't like it when there are Spanish people in this pub" that's being a dick, but it's not discrimination. Discrimination would be that person actively taking steps to physically prevent Spanish people from coming into the pub.

Similar analogy, a talk show host could say that he or she doesn't like having Spanish people on the air, but that would only transition from offensive speech to discrimination if that person actively prevented Spanish people from talking or phoning into the show.

A bouncer in a nightclub abroad could insult me for being Irish, but it would only count as discrimination if he subsequently refused me entry on the basis of being Irish. Simply telling me that Irish people are scum would piss me off, but unless he's taking action to further those views, I'd regard it as protected speech on his part.

Again though I'm quite the fundamentalist when it comes to free speech, for a wide variety of reasons, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me In this case, putting up homophobic posters is dickish, but unless they're taking action of some kind which involves force, I don't regard it as discrimination. They aren't making anyone go to their meetings.

They may be a bunch of assholes, but personally I don't think being an asshole in and of itself should be banned. And for another reason as well - much like when people are banned on AH for expressing outrageously offensive views, I would always prefer they be left alone so as everyone could see just how stupid and ignorant some people are Hiding bigotry away by banning expression of it won't do as much to stop it, as exposing those people to public debate and ridicule would.

Manach

Just merely a foretaste of the liberal paradise to come, as demostated by the banning opposing viewpoints by re-interpreting by the College Authorities of what pluralism means to suit their own agenda. Apparently they are now the arbitrators of what counts as acceptable speech and literally God help anyone who gainsay them
I'd hope the Legion will take this opportunity to publish to a wider audience their excellent message of Catholic orthodoxy while highlighting that rank hypocrisy of those who sheltered behind the same pluralism a generation ago.

Sleepy

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If the college doesn't want its name associated with something they have every right to remove funding and support. The people can still be a part of a group if they fund themselves.

Should a society be allowed to discuss the downsides of immigration or the bible's opinion on homosexuality? Yes. Should a society be allowed to promote that another group of students as inferior? No.

None of us have true freedom of speech, try yelling about a bomb in an airport or a fire in a crowded place.

I think that's a fair point. No one is stopping them from belonging to an organisation that believes what they do. Just stating that they can't use the universities branding or expect their funding and support for that organisation.

freedominacup

Dravokivich wrote: »

If I was to tell you blankly, to stop being Pheobas, because being Pheobas is not normal. How'd you take that? How'd you take it, if I ran a poster campaign that's sole purpose was to not only help you to stop being Pheobas, but to tell you you shouldn't be and you should be more like Drav and accept me as your guide into who you should be?

Exchange Pheobas for homo and Drav for no-homo. Or whatever it is you feel for and tell me you're not shocked, insulted or targeted against. This is why NUIG have suspended them.

Frankly if I thought you were as nuts as the LOM I'd laugh in your face and tell you to get a life. It'd be like being attacked by an angry rabbit, there'd be a moment of confusion but the outcome wouldn't be very favourable for the rabbit.

_Redzer_

Manach wrote: »

Just merely a foretaste of the liberal paradise to come, as demostated by the banning opposing viewpoints by re-interpreting by the College Authorities of what pluralism means to suit their own agenda. Apparently they are now the arbitrators of what counts as acceptable speech and literally God help anyone who gainsay them
I'd hope the Legion will take this opportunity to publish to a wider audience their excellent message of Catholic orthodoxy while highlighting that rank hypocrisy of those who sheltered behind the same pluralism a generation ago.

I think this is the must depressing thing of all. Some people honestly don't see what they did as wrong. Those "pray the gay away" treatments are very harmful, not to mention the messages they send that being gay is something to be fixed.

It's not some liberal paradise. This kind of shíte shouldn't be happening in the first place.

whatstherush

Manach wrote: »

Just merely a foretaste of the liberal paradise to come, as demostated by the banning opposing viewpoints by re-interpreting by the College Authorities of what pluralism means to suit their own agenda. Apparently they are now the arbitrators of what counts as acceptable speech and literally God help anyone who gainsay them
I'd hope the Legion will take this opportunity to publish to a wider audience their excellent message of Catholic orthodoxy while highlighting that rank hypocrisy of those who sheltered behind the same pluralism a generation ago.

Their viewpoint wasn't banned, so the rest of your post is faux outrage based on your own misunderstanding.

freedominacup

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I think this is the must depressing thing of all. Some people honestly don't see what they did as wrong. Those "pray the gay away" treatments are very harmful, not to mention the messages they send that being gay is something to be fixed.

It's not some liberal paradise. This kind of shíte shouldn't be happening in the first place.

I think those of us advocating in favour of free speech are quite well aware that it's not some liberal paradise. It's those who are arguing that banning was the correct course of action that believe they are aiming towards a liberal paradise.

Christy42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's fair enough. I'll give you my own two cents: In my view, discrimination occurs with actions, not with words.

Of course it can happen with words. Bullying for race or creed is discrimination and that can occur with words. The issue is is that most posters are talking from a point of view where they know they aren't going to get discriminated against. If I start discriminating against you, you know that very few people are going to join in. You can very quickly opt out of getting discriminated against.

Someone struggling with their sexuality, scared of what their friends or family might think and without the confidence of age does not have that assurance. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to bully. It does not give you the right to suggest that the way of living for others is not right. As for an earlier posts claim that it was mainstream Catholic teaching, then this teaching segment of their teaching should be banned. The simple fact is that if someone said that black people should live chaste existences they would be shouted down. There is no difference for this, there is discrimination and bullying.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

Just merely a foretaste of the liberal paradise to come, as demostated by the banning opposing viewpoints by re-interpreting by the College Authorities of what pluralism means to suit their own agenda. Apparently they are now the arbitrators of what counts as acceptable speech and literally God help anyone who gainsay them
I'd hope the Legion will take this opportunity to publish to a wider audience their excellent message of Catholic orthodoxy while highlighting that rank hypocrisy of those who sheltered behind the same pluralism a generation ago.

I think you'll find scant audience out there for the LOM.

Da Shins Kelly

I'm just gonna point out again that they were given the opportunity to defend themselves and make clear the aims of their society and the posters, and they chose not to. They were offered the chance to dispute all of this and didn't. To be honest, I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

Furthermore, this isn't simply a free speech issue. They're promoting an organisation outside of the college. That's against society rules. So there's that.

Also, the college has an ethos and a set of rules, like any workplace. It isn't just open season, so students and staff are obliged to take note of that. It is also subsidising the societies on campus. They hand out money to take trips, hold events and get speakers in. If a society starts promoting something that is against the ethos of the college or is using college money to advocate something that goes against college rules, they're well within their rights to withdraw money and support for them. When you're using other people's money to do this stuff, you have to adhere to rules and appreciate that that privilege can be taken away from you.

Finally, there have been plenty of instances where the various Christian society members have been involved in controversies (including a 'graveyard' for aborted fetuses drawn onto the grounds of the college) and this isn't the first time there's been a conflict with the LGBTQ community, and it's all been tolerated on the grounds of free speech. Free speech is all good and well, but with it comes a level of responsibility, and you have to be prepared to face the consequences of saying whatever the hell you want, including a backlash.
For some reason I feel like if this was a thinly veiled attack on an ethnic minority, with a similar level of care give to the choice of language, there'd be less people crying about free speech.

If these people want to create a space where they can talk about their views, fine, but the way they're going about it is all wrong. It's creating a hostile climate where they're just going to be met with more hostility.

Corkfeen

freedominacup wrote: »

I think those of us advocating in favour of free speech are quite well aware that it's not some liberal paradise. It's those who are arguing that banning was the correct course of action that believe they are aiming towards a liberal paradise.

See,withdrawing funding and revoking their status as a society is not limiting their free speech. It's merely the college no longer being willing to back such a group. They're a Christian Charity society however they labelled a group as inferior and supported a dodgy organisation in the process,no longer behaving like a charity.

Annasopra

freedominacup wrote: »

No that should be tougher and engage the fools expressing the homophobic sentiments head on and expose their nonsense for what it is rather than going running to mammy to complain about the bold girls hurting their feelings. They should have left that at home when packed their bags and headed for college.

Yeah ok

I'll just go back to my 15 year old suicidal self and say that crap.