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

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

No. Just trying to understand why you give a religious lobby group a free pass but not AI.


I've seen the thread title, don't see how that means AI claim to have a mandate to speak on behalf of secular citizens (which would also encompass Christians and other religious groups).

So when he said "secular citizens" you think he actually meant "Atheist Ireland members? Really??? Why???

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So when he said "secular citizens" you think he actually meant "Atheist Ireland members? Really??? Why???

I didn't say that.

I said I haven't seen anything to say that AI claimed to have a mandate to speak on behalf of all secular citizens as you have claimed.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Michael has no mandate to speak on behalf of "secular citizens" of Ireland nor tell them why they can and can't be "insulted" about.

Where did I suggest to anyone that I believe that I have a mandate to tell them “tell them why they can and can't be "insulted" about”?

You’re also repeating an allegation that you have already acknowledged to be false. You have already acknowledged over a week ago that you understand that I am not claiming to speak on behalf of “secular citizens.”

Here’s our exchange about that:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

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.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

So you have already acknowledged that I am speaking about, not for, some secular citizens.

Also, the headline does not refer to “all” secular citizens, and the post makes clear which secular citizens I am talking about. I am talking about (quote from original post) “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.”.

Any misapprehension that you might have been under by your misinterpretation of the headline has already been clarified, both by the text of the post itself and by our subsequent exchange on it, and you have already acknowledged that over a week ago, and yet you seem to be posting now as if you are unaware of that.

Michael Nugent

Here’s an analogy without reference to atheists or secularists that might help to clear up your confusion.

When Atheist Ireland condemns the use of blasphemy laws in Islamic States to breach the human rights of Christians, Muslims and members of other religions, do you believe (or do you think that anybody believes) that we are claiming to speak on behalf of all Christians, Muslims or members of other religions in those countries?

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Where did I suggest to anyone that I believe that I have a mandate to tell them “tell them why they can and can't be "insulted" about”?

You’re also repeating an allegation that you have already acknowledged to be false. You have already acknowledged over a week ago that you understand that I am not claiming to speak on behalf of “secular citizens.”

Here’s our exchange about that:


So you have already acknowledged that I am speaking about, not for, some secular citizens.

Also, the headline does not refer to “all” secular citizens, and the post makes clear which secular citizens I am talking about. I am talking about (quote from original post) “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.”.

Any misapprehension that you might have been under by your misinterpretation of the headline has already been clarified, both by the text of the post itself and by our subsequent exchange on it, and you have already acknowledged that over a week ago, and yet you seem to be posting now as if you are unaware of that.

Yes, I took you on your word at the time. That was Before I had read your article in full which makes it clear that you are a) referring to all secular citiizens and b) Telling them they have been "insulted".


How the 2% vote insults secular citizens
It insults the many Irish citizens who want to live in a pluralist democratic Republic, but who are denied the human rights of freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination, equality before the law, the right to private and family life, and the rights of the child.
It insults the many Irish citizens who are excluded from identifying with the Constitution from the very first line, which is unambiguously sectarian and is not appropriate for a pluralist democratic Republic. (Preamble)
It insults the the many Irish citizens who do not believe that all authority comes from “the Most Holy Trinity”, and who do not believe that we must “humbly acknowledge all our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ.” (Preamble)
It insults the many Irish citizens who do not believe that “All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people.” (Article 6)
It insults the the many Irish citizens who do not believe that a Republic should “acknowledge that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God,” or “hold His Name in reverence, and respect and honour religion.” (Article 44)
It insults the many Irish citizens who might aspire to be President, a Judge, Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Chair of the Dail or Seanad, Attorney general, or a member of the Council of State, but who cannot conscientiously swear the religious oath imposed on them. (Articles 12, 31, 34)
It insults the many Irish citizens who believe that public officeholders representing the State should not be obliged to reveal either their religious or nonreligious philosophical beliefs in order to take up public office, as has already been decided by the European Court of Human Rights. (Articles 12, 31, 34)
It insults the many Irish citizens who want our Constitution to protect equality before the law in a way that is consistent with the principle of nondiscrimination, as repeatedly recommended to the Irish Government by the United Nations and the Irish Human Rights Committee. (Article 40.1)
It insults the many Irish citizens who believe that a pregnant women should have the same right to physical and mental health as any other citizen, and who want to enable the Oireachtas to pass laws that base healthcare decisions on compassion, human rights, personal autonomy, and the medical needs of patients. (Article 40.3.3)
It insults the many Irish citizens who believe that the State should provide education for all children based on human rights, and not provide indirectly for education through sectarian religious patron bodies that openly discriminate on the ground of religion, as recommended repeatedly by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. (Article 42.2.4)
It insults the many Irish citizens who want the State to be forbidden not only from discriminating between different religions, but also from discriminating between religious and nonreligious bodies. (Article 44.2.3)
It insults the many Irish citizens who agree with the European Court of Human Rights that secularism is a philosophical conviction worthy of respect in a democratic society, and who want to live in a Republic that promotes neither religion nor atheism.


=====


None of the above is true, you have made a number of false assumptions. YOU may FEEL insulted, but nobody has insulted "secular Citizens".

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

..........

None of the above is true, you have made a number of false assumptions. YOU may FEEL insulted, but nobody has insulted "secular Citizens".

In his opinion, it is. You, possibly due to dragging out your long, boring and petty vendetta, apparently differ.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

In his opinion, it is. You, possibly due to dragging out your long, boring and petty vendetta, apparently differ.

I differ, because you can be a "secularist Citizen" without putting the secularist agenda before Everything else.


The article falsely assumes that for secularists, secularism is first last and Everything which is complete bullshine.

robindch

This thread is being closed temporarily to give people a chance to develop a point of view worth debating.