Constitutional Convention insults secular citizens with 2% vote on Church & State

Michael Nugent

The Irish Constitutional Convention has responded insultingly to the many citizens who asked it to discuss Separation of Church and State. Only 2% of Convention members have voted to discuss the topic, despite it receiving more support than any other topic in the Convention’s public feedback process, and it will therefore not be on the Convention's agenda.

Before the vote, the Convention had asked for public opinion on what to discuss, through written submissions published on its website and at public meetings held around the country. In both of these areas of feedback, Separation of Church and State received more public support than any other single topic.

Yet when voting after receiving this feedback, it finished a distant last with just 2% of the vote. To make things worse, that was not even a vote on whether to separate Church and State – it was just a vote on whether to discuss it. Not discussing the topic is harmful enough in itself, but a 2% vote is shocking.

We accept that different people have different priorities, and we did not expect to automatically have our priorities on the agenda. We understand why people would see Political and Institutional Reform to be central to the Constitution, and we are part of the network that supports ESC Rights.

But the derisory 2% vote for Church and State remains an insult to the many Irish citizens who responded to the Convention’s request for feedback, who told the Convention of the direct religious discrimination that breaches our human rights, and which the Convention has so overwhelmingly chosen not to discuss.

if the Constitution had discriminated in the same way on the ground of race rather than religion, would only 2% of the Convention members have voted to discuss it? Probably not. But even overt religious discrimination seems to be either invisible or acceptable in Ireland, in a way that other forms of discrimination are not.

The way that they have voted on different issues shows how deeply ingrained religious discrimination has become in Ireland, when even people who support sexual and gender equality do not want to address the direct religious discrimination that breaches the human rights of their fellow citizens.

They voted by 79% to support same-sex marriage, and by 62% to support an explicit provision on gender equality. Yet 38% of the same people want to keep unchanged the blasphemy ban from the 1937 Constitution, and 49% of them want there to be a law against blasphemy in a modern Republic.

This is how the Convention members have now voted on what two topics to discuss as the final item on their agenda:

49% – Political and Institutional Reform
18% – Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
14% – Environment
11% – Family and Issues of Morality
6% – Bill of Rights
2% – Separation of Church and State

Removing the religious discrimination from the Constitution would not harm anybody’s rights. The discrimination has no real value to the Constitution as a legal document. Without it we could have a fair and inclusive Republic based on freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination, and equality before the law.

Atheist Ireland will continue to lobby the Convention to consider the religious elements of the two topics they have voted to discuss – Political and Institutional Reform and Economic, and Social and Cultural Rights. We have religious oaths for political offices, and existing ESC rights in employment, health and education are tainted by religious discrimination.

Sulla Felix

While I'll probably die holding my breath, I'd like to think that it'll be deal with under the some combination of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th categories.

Michael Nugent

Sulla Felix wrote: »

While I'll probably die holding my breath, I'd like to think that it'll be deal with under the some combination of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th categories.

They'll only be discussing 1 and 2 - Political and Institutional Reform and ESC Rights.

We'll certainly try to get them to consider the aspects of both of those topics where there is religious discrimination.

However, so far they are not the best 100 people in the country to be trying to convince of the importance of combatting religious discrimination.

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

. . . This is how the Convention members have now voted on what two topics to discuss as the final item on their agenda:

49% – Political and Institutional Reform
18% – Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
14% – Environment
11% – Family and Issues of Morality
6% – Bill of Rights
2% – Separation of Church and State

The percentage figures given add up to 100%. It seems, then, than each convention member could vote for one, and only one of the five topics, on the understanding that the two most popular topics would be discussed.

So I think it’s a bit of a misprepresentation to say that “only 2% of Convention members have voted to discuss the topic”. Only 2% of the convention members thought it was the most important of the five topics, the one that they would vote to discuss in priority to all others.

I’d like to know what was said in the debates about this. Clearly, these topics overlap. If you’re talking about a ban on blasphemy, that could obviously be discussed under the rubric of separation of church and state. But it could also be discussed in the context of the bill of rights (free speech, freedom of consicence, freedom of religious practice) or under the topic of economic, social and cultural rights. All questions regarding education, obviously, can be addressed under the heading of economic, social and cultural rights, and many of them also under the heading of political and institutional reform.

In fact, I think most things that you might bracket under the separation of church and state could also be bracketed under one of the other topics. It may be that, in discussion, separation of church and state came to be seen as the topic you would need to include if you wanted to focus on things like removing mandatory religious oaths, and modernising the preamble, and people felt yes, that would be nice, but it’s not the most important thing, and if we pick some of the other heads they will enable us to address religious discrimination and other matters that need to be addressed.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

The percentage figures given add up to 100%. It seems, then, than each convention member could vote for one, and only one of the five topics, on the understanding that the two most popular topics would be discussed.

Yes, that's how it worked. Although with a transferable vote process.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So I think it’s a bit of a misprepresentation to say that “only 2% of Convention members have voted to discuss the topic”. Only 2% of the convention members thought it was the most important of the five topics, the one that they would vote to discuss in priority to all others.

Well, you could say that about any vote. "Only X% of the electorate voted for Y as President" is shorthand for "Only X% of the electorate thought Y was the most suitable candidate, the one that they would vote to elect ahead of all others."

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’d like to know what was said in the debates about this. Clearly, these topics overlap. If you’re talking about a ban on blasphemy, that could obviously be discussed under the rubric of separation of church and state. But it could also be discussed in the context of the bill of rights (free speech, freedom of consicence, freedom of religious practice) or under the topic of economic, social and cultural rights. All questions regarding education, obviously, can be addressed under the heading of economic, social and cultural rights, and many of them also under the heading of political and institutional reform.

In fact, I think most things that you might bracket under the separation of church and state could also be bracketed under one of the other topics. It may be that, in discussion, separation of church and state came to be seen as the topic you would need to include if you wanted to focus on things like removing mandatory religious oaths, and modernising the preamble…

Their formal session discussions are private, and conducted at tables of ten people each, with feedback then given from each table, and they can also communicate with each other online.

At the session that they discussed this, none of the public feedback mentioned any overlap between these topics and Church and State, though of course you are correct that the overlap exists.

As I mentioned above, Atheist Ireland will continue to lobby the Convention to consider the religious elements of the two topics they have voted to discuss. We have religious oaths for political offices, and existing ESC rights in employment, health and education are tainted by religious discrimination.

There are also some overlaps that might not be immediately obvious, such as making schools institutions of the State so that they are answerable for discrimination under international human rights complaints mechanisms.

Peregrinus wrote: »

...and people felt yes, that would be nice, but it’s not the most important thing, and if we pick some of the other heads they will enable us to address religious discrimination and other matters that need to be addressed.

It may indeed be that some of them felt this (though we have no evidence to cause us to believe it). However, even if that was to be true, it would show how deeply ingrained religious discrimination is in Ireland, and how desensitized people have become to it.

if the Constitution had discriminated in the same way on the ground of race rather than religion, and only 2% of the Convention members voted to discuss it, few people would say that removing the racial discrimination "would be nice, but it’s not the most important thing, and if we pick some of the other heads they will enable us to address racial discrimination and other matters that need to be addressed."

wretcheddomain

I think you have to be honest about this though.

The Top 2 were:

- Political and Institutional Reform
- Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

These comprised 67% of the vote. Does this mean that they insulted 'Family and Issues of Morality' with only 11%. Of course not. Does it mean they have no interest in family and issues of morality? Of course not. They simply voted according to what's more important. I also made a submission for separation of church and state but if I were in the meetings, I would have agreed that Political and Institutional Reform is the foremost current problem Ireland needs to address. The 'social rights arm' of the secularist movement now have an opportunity with 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' to advance their thoughts on these very subjects. However, I don't think we should assume the worst that this was due to a deeply ingrained religious upbringing or whatever, as I myself would have voted for these two above secularism.

In other words, while separation of church and state does involve removing references to religion in the constitution, the two they selected provide more immediate and actual concerns which weigh more on the average persons mind than some stupid religious oath.

Michael Nugent

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I think you have to be honest about this though.

The Top 2 were:

- Political and Institutional Reform
- Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

These comprised 67% of the vote. Does this mean that they insulted 'Family and Issues of Morality' with only 11%. Of course not. Does it mean they have no interest in family and issues of morality? Of course not. They simply voted according to what's more important. I also made a submission for separation of church and state but if I were in the meetings, I would have agreed that Political and Institutional Reform is the foremost current problem Ireland needs to address.

You can't insult 'Family and Issues of Morality" no more than you can insult "Secularism". What I suggested is that they insulted secular citizens, by the disparity between the feedback given to them when they actively sought public opinion, and the lack of action that they have taken on the issue that received most public support.

As I put it in the original post: "We accept that different people have different priorities, and we did not expect to automatically have our priorities on the agenda. We understand why people would see Political and Institutional Reform to be central to the Constitution, and we are part of the network that supports ESC Rights.

But the derisory 2% vote for Church and State remains an insult to the many Irish citizens who responded to the Convention’s request for feedback, who told the Convention of the direct religious discrimination that breaches our human rights, and which the Convention has so overwhelmingly chosen not to discuss."

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The 'social rights arm' of the secularist movement now have an opportunity with 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' to advance their thoughts on these very subjects. However, I don't think we should assume the worst that this was due to a deeply ingrained religious upbringing or whatever, as I myself would have voted for these two above secularism. In other words, while separation of church and state does involve removing references to religion in the constitution, the two they selected provide more immediate and actual concerns which weigh more on the average persons mind than some stupid religious oath.

Basic human rights such as freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination and equality before the law are more fundamental than higher level rights such as economic, social and cultural rights. In human rights law, the fundamental rights should be applied immediately, without being balanced against other competing rights, and without having to be gradually implemented based on resources. I support ESC Rights, but fundamental rights should be addressed first.

And describing breaches of fundamental human rights as "some stupid religious oath" (I know you seem to be paraphrasing others who might see it that way) is part of that problem. It's much more than the religious oaths, it is the overt Christian nature of the document, including the duty of the state to acknowledge that the homage of public worship is due to "Almighty God" and to hold his name in reverence and respect and honor religion, which has to be taken into account when interpreting any of its provisions.

wretcheddomain

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You can't insult 'Family and Issues of Morality" no more than you can insult "Secularism". What I suggested is that they insulted secular citizens, by the disparity between the feedback given to them when they actively sought public opinion, and the lack of action that they have taken on the issue that received most public support.

Typical atheist, taking it literally! :P

When I referred to insulting 'Family and Issues and Morality', I was referring to the people who hold these values dearly. Hence, if only 2% voted for this topic then I don't think it's an insult to those people in society to whom it would affect.

As I put it in the original post: "We accept that different people have different priorities, and we did not expect to automatically have our priorities on the agenda. We understand why people would see Political and Institutional Reform to be central to the Constitution, and we are part of the network that supports ESC Rights.

Good.

But the derisory 2% vote for Church and State remains an insult to the many Irish citizens who responded to the Convention’s request for feedback, who told the Convention of the direct religious discrimination that breaches our human rights, and which the Convention has so overwhelmingly chosen not to discuss."

See previous comment on 'Family and Morality'.

Basic human rights such as freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination and equality before the law are more fundamental than higher level rights such as economic, social and cultural rights. In human rights law, the fundamental rights should be applied immediately, without being balanced against other competing rights, and without having to be gradually implemented based on resources. I support ESC Rights, but fundamental rights should be addressed first.

I agree that these rights are very important and the sooner they're realised the better. But when you have 100 people in a room discussing the most important parts of Irish society, it's quite easy to see why they would up-vote 'Political Rights and Institutional Reform' and 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' given they believe more tangible results may follow. Even if I vehemently disagreed with their choices, I can still see the rationale behind their choice in this regard.

And describing breaches of fundamental human rights as "some stupid religious oath" (I know you seem to be paraphrasing others who might see it that way) is part of that problem. It's much more than the religious oaths, it is the overt Christian nature of the document, including the duty of the state to acknowledge that the homage of public worship is due to "Almighty God" and to hold his name in reverence and respect and honor religion, which has to be taken into account when interpreting any of its provisions.

I personally hold the 'belief' that those oaths are daft and stupid and can't wait for their repeal.

Moreover, I find the whole process of this quite stupid. Every single one of those topics should be discussed. It's ridiculous to only pick 2.

Michael Nugent

wretcheddomain wrote: »

When I referred to insulting 'Family and Issues and Morality', I was referring to the people who hold these values dearly. Hence, if only 2% voted for this topic then I don't think it's an insult to those people in society to whom it would affect.

The context of the how the vote came about is part of why 2% for Church and State is more of an insult to those who suggested it, than 2% for Family and Issues of Morality would have been to those who suggested that.

The public were not presented with those six categories. The public were asked for our opinion, with a blank slate.

The six categories emerged from the Convention Secretariat trying to group together the topics raised by members of the public.

The category with most written submissions published on the Convention website, and the category with most people speaking for it at the public meetings, was Separation of Church and State.

So the Convention asked the public for feedback on what they should discuss, received that feedback, and essentially ignored the topic that most people wanted them to discuss, by a massive margin.

wretcheddomain

I understand that - but that was only because a large campaign was under way to artificially raise its numbers that high. If that campaign was not performed, as it wasn't in other categories, then you would have found very few who would have bothered with it.

Michael Nugent

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I understand that - but that was only because a large campaign was under way to artificially raise its numbers that high. If that campaign was not performed, as it wasn't in other categories, then you would have found very few who would have bothered with it.

That's not actually the case.

The most orchestrated campaign by far was for ESC Rights, which ended up on the agenda. Without that campaign, I doubt many of the Convention members would even be familiar with the term ESC Rights. That campaign involved a coordinated network of organisations, some with full-time paid employees, working over a period of many months, holding seminars and lobbying politicians, and coordinating written submissions.

The second most orchestrated campaign was for the Environment. Again, this involved several organisations over a period of many months, lobbying politicians and coordinating written submissions.

Ours was probably the third most orchestrated, and it was esssentially run by one organisation, with no staff and very limited resources. We only really started after the Convention had dealt with blasphemy, because up to then we had to focus our resources on ensuring that that was passed.

And when we did encourage people to make written submissions, we did not coordinate them with boilerplate submissions, but instead asked people to write in their own words why they felt the issue should be addressed.

Indeed, the Convention Secretariat specifically told us that it was noticeable that the Church and State submissions were individually written by people describing their own opinions when compared to some other submissions.

Finally, there was a late campaign for Family and Issues of Morality, resulting in a lot of submissions starting partway through the public meeting process.

The only two of the six categories for which there was not an orchestrated campaign were political and institutional reform and bill of rights. And I suspect if I checked, there may well have been a small campaign for bill of rights as it does not seem to me to be the type of thing a lot of people would independently see as a priority, but I might be mistaken about that.

recedite

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The category with most written submissions published on the Convention website, and the category with most people speaking for it at the public meetings, was Separation of Church and State.

So the Convention asked the public for feedback on what they should discuss, received that feedback, and essentially ignored the topic that most people wanted them to discuss, by a massive margin.

Any idea why?
Is it that these 100 people had their own priorities and just decided to ignore the public.
Or is it that they thought the subject matter was too tricky/controversial to discuss?

wretcheddomain

recedite wrote: »

Any idea why?
Is it that these 100 people had their own priorities and just decided to ignore the public.
Or is it that they thought the subject matter was too tricky/controversial to discuss?

I believe it was sidelined because the current Top 2 were deemed more tangibly important for current Irish society. I'm just speculating of course.

I don't believe there was an anti-secularist agenda among the 100 people in the same way there wasn't 100 anti-family-rights agenda for that not to be chosen.

I still cannot fathom why only two out of six have to be chosen. What a farcical position.

recedite

Deemed by who, though. What gives them the right to ignore the mandate given by the public?
The second one is a wishy washy title, "Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" it covers everything and nothing. A very attractive topic for a talking shop.

Michael Nugent

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I still cannot fathom why only two out of six have to be chosen. What a farcical position.

before they voted on what issues to discuss, they voted on how many issues to discuss, and they chose two.

I guess that was because they have two meetings in February, and decided to discuss one topic per meeting.

wretcheddomain

Michael Nugent wrote: »

before they voted on what issues to discuss, they voted on how many issues to discuss, and they chose two.

I guess that was because they have two meetings in February, and decided to discuss one topic per meeting.

Well obviously they've concocted some rationale behind it but in terms of importance, it becomes a really low and bad effort.

All 6 should be discussed equally and the necessary resources should have been provided to cater for this.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The Irish Constitutional Convention has responded insultingly to the many citizens who asked it to discuss Separation of Church and State. Only 2% of Convention members have voted to discuss the topic, despite it receiving more support than any other topic in the Convention’s public feedback process, and it will therefore not be on the Convention's agenda.

Before the vote, the Convention had asked for public opinion on what to discuss, through written submissions published on its website and at public meetings held around the country. In both of these areas of feedback, Separation of Church and State received more public support than any other single topic.

Yet when voting after receiving this feedback, it finished a distant last with just 2% of the vote. To make things worse, that was not even a vote on whether to separate Church and State – it was just a vote on whether to discuss it. Not discussing the topic is harmful enough in itself, but a 2% vote is shocking.

We accept that different people have different priorities, and we did not expect to automatically have our priorities on the agenda. We understand why people would see Political and Institutional Reform to be central to the Constitution, and we are part of the network that supports ESC Rights.

But the derisory 2% vote for Church and State remains an insult to the many Irish citizens who responded to the Convention’s request for feedback, who told the Convention of the direct religious discrimination that breaches our human rights, and which the Convention has so overwhelmingly chosen not to discuss.

if the Constitution had discriminated in the same way on the ground of race rather than religion, would only 2% of the Convention members have voted to discuss it? Probably not. But even overt religious discrimination seems to be either invisible or acceptable in Ireland, in a way that other forms of discrimination are not.

The way that they have voted on different issues shows how deeply ingrained religious discrimination has become in Ireland, when even people who support sexual and gender equality do not want to address the direct religious discrimination that breaches the human rights of their fellow citizens.

They voted by 79% to support same-sex marriage, and by 62% to support an explicit provision on gender equality. Yet 38% of the same people want to keep unchanged the blasphemy ban from the 1937 Constitution, and 49% of them want there to be a law against blasphemy in a modern Republic.

This is how the Convention members have now voted on what two topics to discuss as the final item on their agenda:

49% – Political and Institutional Reform
18% – Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
14% – Environment
11% – Family and Issues of Morality
6% – Bill of Rights
2% – Separation of Church and State

Removing the religious discrimination from the Constitution would not harm anybody’s rights. The discrimination has no real value to the Constitution as a legal document. Without it we could have a fair and inclusive Republic based on freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination, and equality before the law.

Atheist Ireland will continue to lobby the Convention to consider the religious elements of the two topics they have voted to discuss – Political and Institutional Reform and Economic, and Social and Cultural Rights. We have religious oaths for political offices, and existing ESC rights in employment, health and education are tainted by religious discrimination.

Who gave you the right to speak for "secular citizens"? I am a secular citizen and while it's a bit like grading your six children in order of favourite I am happy with their decision.

IfPeople

Michael Nugent wrote: »

before they voted on what issues to discuss, they voted on how many issues to discuss, and they chose two.

I guess that was because they have two meetings in February, and decided to discuss one topic per meeting.

Michael, where did you get the figures? Where can we get more information about the voting? It sounds like you were there, do you think they perhaps voted that way knowing that atheist issues come under other headings?

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who gave you the right to speak for "secular citizens"?

I am speaking about, not for, some secular citizens.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am a secular citizen and while it's a bit like grading your six children in order of favourite I am happy with their decision.

Did you make a submission to the Convention supporting separation of Church and State?

If not, I am not even talking about you.

Michael Nugent

IfPeople wrote: »

Michael, where did you get the figures? Where can we get more information about the voting? It sounds like you were there, do you think they perhaps voted that way knowing that atheist issues come under other headings?

The vote was conducted by email among the members last week. The figures have not been officially published yet, but two members of the Convention have confirmed them to us.

I understand that the Convention will be publishing them after they conduct another vote of Convention members as to the scope of issues to be discussed under the heading Political and Institutional Reform.

We have had no indication that members voted that way on the basis of secular items coming under other headings, though of course they should do. We will have to wait and see.

PS Welcome to the forum!
.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I am speaking about, not for, some secular citizens.


Did you make a submission to the Convention supporting separation of Church and State?

If not, I am not even talking about you.

Fair enough, though your headline ! Constitutional Convention insults secular citizens with 2% vote on Church & State!
suggests otherwise.

I'm not sure why you've concocted this conspiracy theory. Different people will have different priorities. Some will join Atheist Ireland some will join Greenpeace being "insulted" that people would find other issues more important (like below) strikes me as arrogant.

Dear Delegates, I would like the Constitutional Convention to discuss economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights during its final session. Human rigDear Delegates, I would like the Constitutional Convention to discuss economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights during its final session. Human rights like the right to access healthcare when I need it, to have a home that is adequate for me and for my family, to have an income so that I can live a life of dignity, are important to me. These rights are also rights that Ireland has promised to protect. I call on the members of the Constitutional Convention to consider these issues and to recommend putting these rights in Bunreacht na hÉireann. Yours sincerely, Caitlin Lewis

You are free to place removing references to God and the Church from the Constitution before equal rights for gays and I am free to hold the reverse.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure why you've concocted this conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy theory do you imagine I have concocted?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Different people will have different priorities. Some will join Atheist Ireland some will join Greenpeace

Did you read my opening post?

I wrote: "We accept that different people have different priorities, and we did not expect to automatically have our priorities on the agenda. We understand why people would see Political and Institutional Reform to be central to the Constitution, and we are part of the network that supports ESC Rights."

Brown Bomber wrote: »

being "insulted" that people would find other issues more important strikes me as arrogant.

I'm not remotely insulted by people having different priorities.

The insult I referred to comes from the Convention asking for public opinion on what items they should discuss; then the category with most written submissions published on the Convention website, and the category with most people speaking for it at the public meetings, being Separation of Church and State; then the Convention essentially ignoring by a massive margin the topic that most people told them that they wanted them to discuss.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are free to place removing references to God and the Church from the Constitution before equal rights for gays and I am free to hold the reverse.

The Convention has already dealt with gay marriage. That conflict does not exist.

expectationlost

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The insult I referred to comes from the Convention asking for public opinion on what items they should discuss; then the category with most written submissions published on the Convention website, and the category with most people speaking for it at the public meetings, being Separation of Church and State; then the Convention essentially ignoring by a massive margin the topic that most people told them that they wanted them to discuss.

well they didn't ask the public which items should be discussed they ultimately asked the convention members...

Lucy8080

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough, though your headline ! Constitutional Convention insults secular citizens with 2% vote on Church & State!
suggests otherwise.

I'm not sure why you've concocted this conspiracy theory. Different people will have different priorities. Some will join Atheist Ireland some will join Greenpeace being "insulted" that people would find other issues more important (like below) strikes me as arrogant.



You are free to place removing references to God and the Church from the Constitution before equal rights for gays and I am free to hold the reverse.

You don't understand B.B.

A.I. recognise why folks would prioritise the Two selected topics.

But, would you please have the decency to be offended!

I'm struggling to muster offence on this one...but surely someone can.

Cliona99

(quick ot question; what does the environment have to do with the constitution? Never knew there was a forum for atheists

Cliona99

Okay, this thread has been educational! Thanks

I didn't hear a peep about any of this until five minutes ago, so I didn't make any submissions for/against any topic.

I am not feeling "insulted" but I am STUNNED at the bizarre decision making process of this Convention.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

What conspiracy theory do you imagine I have concocted?

You are implying that the game has been rigged against you, are you not? That the public input section was mere window dressing?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I wrote: "We accept that different people have different priorities, and we did not expect to automatically have our priorities on the agenda. We understand why people would see Political and Institutional Reform to be central to the Constitution, and we are part of the network that supports ESC Rights."

If you accept it then move on.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not remotely insulted by people having different priorities.

The insult I referred to comes from the Convention asking for public opinion on what items they should discuss; then the category with most written submissions published on the Convention website, and the category with most people speaking for it at the public meetings, being Separation of Church and State; then the Convention essentially ignoring by a massive margin the topic that most people told them that they wanted them to discuss.


The Convention has already dealt with gay marriage. That conflict does not exist.

It's not X-Factor. This group of people are tasked with contributing to positive change and not to count votes. Have you considered that your argument didn't convince them that it was more important than the two areas they selected?


Besides, can you support your claims of any "massive margins" of the submissions and public debates being secular issues?

expectationlost

heres the ballot they used just to see how it was presented https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/32602/284166.docx courtesy of convention member RangeR


What issues should the Convention consider? (Mark 1 beside your first choice, Mark 2 beside your second choice and so on)

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(e.g. rights to social security and assistance for the family, an adequate standard of living, adequate housing, health care, education, culture and benefit from scientific progress)

Political and Institutional Reform
(reform of the Oireachtas – Dail Eireann, Seanad Eireann and the relationship with the Executive, reform of local government, the roles and powers of the President, the Ombudsman and the C&AG, freedom of Information, the referendum process and the appointment of judges)

The Family and issues of morality
(e.g. Article 40.3.3 - abortion and the right to life, the definition of the family, the right to die)

Bill of Rights
(the protection of fundamental human rights, having regard to the terms of the Good Friday and St. Andrew’s Agreements)

Church and State
(e.g. removal of all references to God in the Constitution, incl. in the Preamble, discontinue religious involvement in schools and hospitals, removal of the religious oath for office-holders)

The Environment
(e.g. the right to a clean/safe/sustainable environment; the State has a duty to respect, protect, maintain and improve the environment)






all the submission are here BB https://www.constitution.ie/ maybe the staff counted them?

Nodin

Lucy8080 wrote: »

You don't understand B.B.

A.I. recognise why folks would prioritise the Two selected topics.

But, would you please have the decency to be offended!

I'm struggling to muster offence on this one...but surely someone can.

What are you on about?

Brown Bomber

expectationlost wrote: »

heres the ballot they used just to see how it was presented https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/32602/284166.docx courtesy of convention member RangeR

Thank you very much for that, it was interesting to see what the "competition" was. Ideally we would see reform in all of these areas. There is some serious tunnel vision going on to be "insulted" that the seperation of Church and State places last amongst those other very important issues.

expectationlost wrote: »

all the submission are here BB https://www.constitution.ie/ maybe the staff counted them?

Yeah, seen that. I clicked through the first couple of pages to get a sample and seen no evidence of Michael/Atheist Ireland's claim that the separation of church and state was most requested; nevermind by any "massive margins".

expectationlost

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you very much for that, it was interesting to see what the "competition" was. Ideally we would see reform in all of these areas. There is some serious tunnel vision going on to be "insulted" that the seperation of Church and State places last amongst those other very important issues.

I didn't know off hand what ESC rights were I had to go look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights
it talks there about the Theory of rights, and the three generations of rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_generations_of_human_rights it something you have to dig into to get your head around but I guess it the idea of what are fundamental rights, which are the most fundamental I think this is what Michael Nugent is talking about

First-generation human rights

First-generation human rights, often called "blue" rights, deal essentially with liberty and participation in political life. They are fundamentally civil and political in nature: They serve negatively to protect the individual from excesses of the state. First-generation rights include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion and voting rights

Second-generation human rights
They are fundamentally economic, social and cultural in nature. They guarantee different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights would include a right to be employed, rights to housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment benefits

its not just Michael Nugent who puts a greater importance, (more fundamental) on freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) above ESC rights.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, seen that. I clicked through the first couple of pages to get a sample and seen no evidence of Michael/Atheist Ireland's claim that the separation of church and state was most requested; nevermind by any "massive margins".

the evidence is there you just havn't bothered to count it, neither have I though cos I'll try to get the breakdown off RangeR

recedite

These "second generation" rights are a bit wishy-washy, because they are not so much rights as aspirations.
Like the example BB quoted;

a random submission wrote:

Human rights like the right to access healthcare when I need it, to have a home that is adequate for me and for my family, to have an income so that I can live a life of dignity, are important to me. These rights are also rights that Ireland has promised to protect. I call on the members of the Constitutional Convention to consider these issues and to recommend putting these rights in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The delegates can talk all weekend about all that good stuff, and have a great time sipping coffee while saying the State should provide every citizen with a well paid job, a nice house, fully comp. healthcare, a defined benefit pension etc etc.

Yeah, we all want that....

But realistically speaking, how about dealing the actual human rights first. Freedom from violence, persecution, discrimination, that sort of thing. Luckily we already have most of these, being a first world country. But the separation of church and state is the starting point in guaranteeing freedom from religious discrimination.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

. . . But the separation of church and state is the starting point in guaranteeing freedom from religious discrimination.

Actually no, it isn't. "Separation of church and state" is a fairly vague idea, but there are lots of examples of countries with a separation of church and state, and quite aggressive religious discrimination, and other examples of countries where they don't have separation of church and state but do have excellent records on freedom of religion.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are implying that the game has been rigged against you, are you not? That the public input section was mere window dressing?

No, I have never suggested that. I think they have been making up the process as they go along, because they have no template to adhere to. And I don't mean "making it up" in a flippant way, I mean that they have been deciding on on ongoing basis what they are going to do next.

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

heres the ballot they used just to see how it was presented https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/32602/284166.docx courtesy of convention member RangeR

What issues should the Convention consider? (Mark 1 beside your first choice, Mark 2 beside your second choice and so on)

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(e.g. rights to social security and assistance for the family, an adequate standard of living, adequate housing, health care, education, culture and benefit from scientific progress)

Political and Institutional Reform
(reform of the Oireachtas – Dail Eireann, Seanad Eireann and the relationship with the Executive, reform of local government, the roles and powers of the President, the Ombudsman and the C&AG, freedom of Information, the referendum process and the appointment of judges)

The Family and issues of morality
(e.g. Article 40.3.3 - abortion and the right to life, the definition of the family, the right to die)

Bill of Rights
(the protection of fundamental human rights, having regard to the terms of the Good Friday and St. Andrew’s Agreements)

Church and State
(e.g. removal of all references to God in the Constitution, incl. in the Preamble, discontinue religious involvement in schools and hospitals, removal of the religious oath for office-holders)

The Environment
(e.g. the right to a clean/safe/sustainable environment; the State has a duty to respect, protect, maintain and improve the environment)

That's quite worrying, as it suggests that the religious discrimination elements of Political and Institutional Reform and ESC Rights are not intended to be included in those two topics if they are (as they have been) selected as the two to discuss.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is some serious tunnel vision going on to be "insulted" that the seperation of Church and State places last amongst those other very important issues.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that when I have repeatedly clarified that that is not what I referred to as being insulting.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I clicked through the first couple of pages to get a sample and seen no evidence of Michael/Atheist Ireland's claim that the separation of church and state was most requested; nevermind by any "massive margins".

I didn't say that Church and State was requested "by massive margins", I said that discussion of it was rejected by a massive margin.

What I said about the public support for including Church and State was that the category with most written submissions published on the Convention website, and the category with most people speaking for it at the public meetings, was Separation of Church and State.

expectationlost

Church and State
(e.g. removal of all references to God in the Constitution, incl. in the Preamble, discontinue religious involvement in schools and hospitals, removal of the religious oath for office-holders)

i thought this was quite starkly put, discontinue religious involvement in schools and hospitals

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

i thought this was quite starkly put, discontinue religious involvement in schools and hospitals

Yes, it is very starkly put, and it does not reflect Atheist Ireland's submission.

What we recommended with regard to those type of issues was to amend the Articles on Fundamental Rights to explicitly give equal protection to religious and nonreligious philosophical believers, and to frame Articles generally so that they are based on human rights and duties and not on religious beliefs.

This is a summary of what we recommended:

(a) Remove specific references to God, such as all authority coming from the Holy Trinity and our obligations to our divine Lord Jesus Christ (Preamble); powers of government deriving under God from the people (6); blasphemy being an offence (40); the homage of public worship being due to Almighty God and the state holding his name in reverence (44); and the glory of God (Closing Line).

(b) Replace all religious oaths for public officeholders with a single neutral declaration that does not refer to either the religious or nonreligious philosophical beliefs of the person. As well as President (12), Council of State (31) and Judges (34), please note that there is also in practice a religious oath for Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Chair of the Dail and Seanad, and Attorney General, as these officeholders are obliged to be members of the Council of State and are thus obliged to swear the oath for that office.

(c) Amend the Articles on Fundamental Rights to explicitly give equal protection to religious and nonreligious philosophical believers, particularly where the Articles are unduly influenced by Roman Catholic teachings. This includes the Articles on equality (40), the family (41), education (42) and religion (44). Frame Articles generally so that they are based on human rights and duties and not on religious beliefs.

Brown Bomber

expectationlost wrote: »

I didn't know off hand what ESC rights were I had to go look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights
it talks there about the Theory of rights, and the three generations of rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_generations_of_human_rights it something you have to dig into to get your head around but I guess it the idea of what are fundamental rights, which are the most fundamental I think this is what Michael Nugent is talking about

Here is a better working defintiton from Amnesty Intl on ESC Rights. http://www.amnesty.org/en/economic-social-and-cultural-rights


rights at work, particularly just and fair conditions of employment, protection against forced or compulsory labour and the right to form and join trade unions;
the right to education, including ensuring that primary education is free and compulsory, that education is sufficiently available, accessible, acceptable and adapted to the individual;
cultural rights of minorities and Indigenous Peoples;
the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including the right to healthy living conditions and available, accessible, acceptable and quality health services;
the right to adequate housing, including security of tenure, protection from forced eviction and access to affordable, habitable, well located and culturally adequate housing;
the right to food, including the right to freedom from hunger and access at all times to adequate nutritious food or the means to obtain it;
the right to water – the right to sufficient water and sanitation that is available, accessible (both physically and economically) and safe.


Separation of Church and State was lucky to get 2% against what is essentially the rights of citizens not to live in abject poverty. For anyone to be offended that someone/many would consider that it is more important that our fellow citizens, including children should be at least entitled to the living conditions of our incarcerated rapists and murderers before getting nuns out of hospitals etc is hysterical nonsense.

expectationlost wrote: »

its not just Michael Nugent who puts a greater importance, (more fundamental) on freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) above ESC rights.

Michael "BAN THE BURQA!!" Nugent is for "freedom of religion"???

expectationlost wrote: »

the evidence is there you just havn't bothered to count it, neither have I though cos I'll try to get the breakdown off RangeR

Michael has made the claim, not I.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I didn't say that Church and State was requested "by massive margins", I said that discussion of it was rejected by a massive margin.

My mistake. Apologies

Michael Nugent wrote: »

What I said about the public support for including Church and State was that the category with most written submissions published on the Convention website, and the category with most people speaking for it at the public meetings, was Separation of Church and State.

And you have yet to offer any evidence of this.

And I don't want to sound patronising so don't take this the wrong way but you do understand what a "submission" is? And have you considered that your submission(s) were weaker than those selected and therefore your "insult" is unjustified?

expectationlost

we don't have all those ESCC rights now in our constitution (which is why its topic of discussing) and we're not all starving to death, although we do have many people struggling.


here's the details of the summaries thanks to RangeR http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87963973&postcount=141

the first doc 2#ccven AoA workbook.docx has the descriptions of the extra topics and who they are written by


Im not surprised it was Prof. David Farrell who chose to not portray secularism in a positive way in terms of obligation for that state to provide for secular shcools and hospitals rather then a sudden removal or the church/orders from schools.

3. Church & State – Prof. David Farrell
Introduction: There is a mix of submissions, some calling, in various ways, for the Constitution to be secularised (to remove religious references) and others calling for it to be left as it is.
Submission
Notes

Religious oath for office holders: Should office holders be required to swear a religious oath? Could they be offered a secular option instead?

The Preamble to the Constitution: Should all religious references be removed (as was proposed, for instance, by the 1996 Constitution Review Group)

Secularise the Constitution overall: Several submissions argued for the removal of all religious references throughout the Constitution, with particular reference to revising article 44.

Separating Church and State: A question raised in one submission is whether religious orders should continue to have a role in managing schools and hospitals and other national institutions.

expectationlost

so it seems the convention secretary notes absolute form letters, but there are your numbers

25 securlarism submissions?

[IMG]http:///www.dublinstreams.com/temp/submissions.jpg[/IMG]

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/32602/284299.xlsx .docx

Topic Number of Submissions Number of Submissions(incl.attachments) Key Point
Environmental Protection 132 18 Constitutional protection of the environment
Economic, Social & Cultural Rights 104 19 Protection of economic, social & cultural rights Emails from Amnesty 60
Secularism 25 11 Removal of religious references in the Constitution
Family 19 13 Review of Articles 41 and 42 10Adoption Rights now! submissions
Right to a Home *1 18 2 'Right to Home' clause in the Constitution
Various *2 10 8 Each individual submission covers a range of topics
Abortion 5 1 Abortion legislation NWCI
Referendum 4 1 Citizen initiated referendums & referendum methods
Seanad 4 0 Reform rather than abolition of the Seanad
Dail reform 3 1 Candidacy
President 3 1 Role and powers of the President
Court Service and Judges 3 1 Court Service, Judicial Appointment & Public Law
Local Government 3 1 Structure of local government
Private Property Rights 3 3 The balance between right to Private Propery and the Common good
Voting Rights 3 3 Extent voting rights to Irish citizens
Freedom of Information 2 2 Embedding strong freedom of information provision in the Constitution
Preamble 2 2 Update the preamble of the Constitution
Equality Budgeting 1 1 Changes to Article 22 of the Constitution dealing with Money Bills to introduce mandatory equality budgeting to increase transparency and quality of decision making
Ombudsman 1 1 Constitutional recognition for the Office of the Ombudsman
Citizenship 1 1 Irish language and citizenship
Name of State 1 1 Change the name of the State in the Constitution to the Republic of Ireland
Mental Health 1 0 Access to mental healthcare
Fundamental Rights 1 1 Expansion of enumerated rights
Wildlife 1 0 Constitutional protection of animals
Equality 1 0 Bodily integrity
Children's Rights 1 0 Prohibition of circumcision
Economic Policy 1 0 Inclusion of a reference to economic policy in the Constitution
Comptroller and Auditor General 1 0 Update of articles Re C&AG
Gender Recognition 1 0 Transgender recognition
Neutrality , Coats of Arms, Flags and Emblems 1 1 Neutrality , Coats of Arms, Flags and Emblems
Infrastructural Assets 1 1 Prevent sale of infrastructural assets
Right to Build a Home on own Land 1 0 Building a home on own land is a survival necessity
Bill of Rights 1 1 A Bill of Rights Amendment
1916 1 1 Acknowledge the sovereign constitution and their 1916 proclaimation
Irish Language 1 1 English language to be recognized equally as official national language Reform Group
Commonwealth 1 1 Ireland should consider rejoining Commonwealth Reform Group
Third Level Education 1 1 Third level fees for students should be reduced especially for non-EU students
Honour Awards 1 1 Irish citizens should be allowed to accept British titles of nobility Reform Group
Emergency Powers 1 1 Amendent article 28.3.3 in the Irish Constitution
Right to Die 1 1 Respect the right to die and to assisted peaceful dying
Replace Irish Constitution with a Swiss style Constitution 1 1 Replace Irish Constitution with a Swiss style Constitution
Total of Other Submission up to & including 25 October 2013 367 103

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

so it seems the convention secretary notes aside absolute form letters, but there are your numbers

25 securlarism submissions?

That list, despite apparently being sent by the Convention Secretariat to one of its members yesterday, is dated 25 October.

That was when the Convention was finishing the agenda items that the Government had asked it to consider, and starting to publicly focus on the AOB category, and hold the public meetings around the country.

At the closing date for submissions (end of November) this was our calculation of the number of submissions published on the Convention website for the six categories that the Convention had by then grouped into topics into for consideration:

190 Separation of Church and State
166 ESC rights 
160 Environment                        
110 Family and Issues of Morality                         
53 Political and Institutional Reform
32 Bill of Rights

Our Regional Officer attended each of the public meetings, and took note of the number of speakers on each topic.

Of the approximately 500 people who attended the public meetings:

64 people spoke for Separation of Church and State and 8 opposed
61 people spoke for political and Institutional reform
52 people spoke for the Environment and 3 opposed
34 people spoke for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
27 people spoke for Family and Issues of Morality
.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That list, despite apparently being sent by the Convention Secretariat to one of its members yesterday, is dated 25 October.

That was when the Convention was finishing the agenda items that the Government had asked it to consider, and starting to publicly focus on the AOB category, and hold the public meetings around the country.

At the closing date for submissions (end of November) this was our calculation of the number of submissions published on the Convention website for the six categories that the Convention had by then grouped into topics into for consideration:

190 Separation of Church and State
166 ESC rights
160 Environment
110 Family and Issues of Morality
53 Political and Institutional Reform
32 Bill of Rights

Our Regional Officer attended each of the public meetings, and took note of the number of speakers on each topic.

Of the approximately 500 people who attended the public meetings:

64 people spoke for Separation of Church and State and 8 opposed
61 people spoke for political and Institutional reform
52 people spoke for the Environment and 3 opposed
34 people spoke for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
27 people spoke for Family and Issues of Morality
.

I have asked you a number of times now can you support your clams with any actual evidence, I'll take the above as a no,

Whatever the numbers of the submissions -- and I am sure you would agree that it should be quality before quantity -- the amounts will give a false impression of public opinion anyway.

Militant atheists and militant environmentalists are better organised and make far more noise than (say) an individual citizen who strongly believes that our elderly population have an entitlement to live in a heated home in the winter and enough food to get them through each day.

For example, can you imagine Alone lobbying and rallying the shock troops on boards.ie to distort the numbers? The way you have - twice!

Brown Bomber

expectationlost wrote: »

we don't have all those ESCC rights now in our constitution (which is why its topic of discussing) and we're not all starving to death, although we do have many people struggling.
.

Okay, bur can you understand the rationale of how 49 out 50 random Irish people could consider the codification of these rights to protect us all and our future generations before separation of Church and State?

What good is secularising the schools if not every child has a right to an education?

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What good is secularising the schools if not every child has a right to an education?

The Constitution already recognizes that every child has a right to an education.

The religious influence in the Constitution prevents secular parents from vindicating that right for their children.

.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have asked you a number of times now can you support your clams with any actual evidence, I'll take the above as a no,

I said that Separation of Church and State was the topic with most submissions published on the Convention website, and that it was the topic that had most people speaking for it at the public meetings.

You asked for evidence to support that.

I gave you the figures.

You said that you would take that as a no.

You're hilarious

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I said that Separation of Church and State was the topic with most submissions published on the Convention website, and that it was the topic that had most people speaking for it at the public meetings.

You asked for evidence to support that.

I gave you the figures.

You said that you would take that as a no.

You're hilarious

Michael,

You are making claims. Not providing any evidence.

This is from the first 5 pages o thef submissions section to get a snapshot. Best effort based on the titles only. Separation of Church and State = SCS

Page 1 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90
Environment: 8
Family: 2
SCS: 0

Page 2 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90
Family: 8
Environment: 1
SCS: 1

Page 3 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90

ESC Rights: 13
Family: 2
SCS: 1

Page 4 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90

ESC Rights: 10
Family: 3
Environment: 1
SCS: 1

Page 5 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90
ESC Rights: 5
Environment: 4
Family: 5
SCS:0


Totals:

ESC 28
Famly 20
Environment 14
SCS 3

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Militant atheists and militant environmentalists

"A militant atheist is an atheist who won't shut up when a religious person tells him to".

Sigh. Time for a long-overdue update of the forum charter methinks.

Brown Bomber

Miltant =

mil·i·tant (ml-tnt)adj.1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant

Militant Atheist =

"Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a (anti-religious) cause: a militant political activist Atheist.