Dail Prayer

Wombatman

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

The change to Standing Order 27 is due to be voted on this afternoon requiring deputies to stand as a prayer is read each day.

Delirium

according to Ruth Coppinger, the vote has been postponed.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/851756598557110272

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XM_3zf6mPc

Arbie

Indefensible that this still exists.

Stellaluna

Alas, it looks set to continue:

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/860107433213136897

Gbear

Stellaluna wrote: »

Alas, it looks set to continue:

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/860107433213136897

That's an embarassing result.

What a shower of clowns.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder

did the bigger parties employ the whip on this?
i'd be surprised to see this result if it was a free vote.

recedite

In this kind of situation, the outcome of the vote has everything to do with who proposed it, and very little to do with its subject matter. Sad but true.

The main Dail clowns will be rubbing their hands with glee, happy that they have taught Solidarity/PBP some manners. (I'm not even sure what all those letters stand for, but assuming its the latest incarnation of a party for any lefties who are to the left of Labour)

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

...a party for any lefties who are to the left of Labour)

That could be any other party in the Dáil. Labour voted for the prayer.

moonboy52

Not surprised at all, but I thought we had maybe reached that place, where a token gesture of separation between church and state was possible.

learn_more

moonboy52 wrote: »

Not surprised at all, but I thought we had maybe reached that place, where a token gesture of separation between church and state was possible.

Yes good point. Sends out all the wrong signals.

fisgon

I think that if people see this as an issue, they should write to their TD, list of email addresses here...

http://maureenosullivan.ie/latest-news/tds-email-addresses/

Obviously the vote is passed, but the bizarre spectacle of the national parliament indulging in a Christian prayer every day and forcing people to stand for it is really stomach churning, and like something you might have seen sixty years ago, and TDs who voted for this should hear that there are constituents who see this as another slap in the face for the non religious.

I just wrote to 2 of my TDs, email below.....

Dear Deputy

I am a constituent of yours and I am writing because of the recent decision by Fine Gael/Fianna Fail to support the situation in the Dáil where all TDs now have to stand for the Dáil prayer.

This is, frankly, a ludicrous and worrying development. In no other workplace in the country - apart from religious institutions - do people have to say or stand for a Christian prayer before they start work. In fact, if such a thing were to be brought in in a workplace in the public or private sector, it would under no circumstances be accepted, and for very good reason.

By imposing a Christian prayer on all TDs before the Dáil begins its work, you are saying that the national parliament is in fact a religious institution, and that those who do not subscribe to the Christian religion, or those who do not wish to pray before they begin their work, are less part of the organization, and less welcome in the Dáil. By extension, you are saying to those of us in the general population who are not religious that we too are less part of the country, something that we already feel, given the dominance of our education system by religious bodies.

I gave you quite a high preference in the last general election. I will have to reconsider that decision when I next come to vote. Imposing a prayer on a parliament is something that only happens in theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Yours

Peregrinus

While I appreciate the sentiment, it's simply not true to say that "Imposing a prayer on a parliament is something that only happens in theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia"; parliamentary prayers are extremely common in Western democracies, particularly in the Anglosphere; they have them in Westminster, in the Australian federal parliament and all state parliaments, in the Canadian federal parliament and most provincial parliaments, in New Zealand, and of course in the US Senate and House of Representatives, and in nearly all state legislatures. (For the record, I've no idea whether they have them in Iran or Saudi Arabia.)

I'd also suggest the focus on "imposing a Christian prayer on all TDs " is misplaced. To pick nits, it's not imposed on anyone; nobody is required to attend for prayers, and most members don't. And this notion that, if people do something in your presence that you wouldn't choose to do yourself, you thereby suffer an imposition and an injury is just laughable; it invites a "toughen up, princess!" response.

Much more to the point; the problem here is not the imposition of individual TDs who might come over all faint if they see someone praying; the problem is the injury done to the republic by the fact that the prayers are said, and this would be the same problem even if every single TD and senator was a happy-clappy evangelist who not only stood for the prayers but waved their hand in the air and cried "Hallelujah". And that's the point that needs to be explained.

fisgon

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd also suggest the focus on "imposing a Christian prayer on all TDs " is misplaced. To pick nits, it's not imposed on anyone; nobody is required to attend for prayers, and most members don't. And this notion that, if people do something in your presence that you wouldn't choose to do yourself, you thereby suffer an imposition and an injury is just laughable; it invites a "toughen up, princess!" response.

.

The TDs who are present are now forced to stand for the prayer. This is of course an imposition, you stand for something to show a degree of respect for it, like standing for the national anthem. In this sense, they are now forced to take part in the ritual.

Also, if you are in your workplace, and a prayer is required to be said in your presence, before you begin work, of course this is an imposition. It is not about "ah sure what harm can it do", or about being precious or easily offended, it is about forcing our elected representatives to take part in a religious ritual whether they like it or not. And I never mentioned that they were suffering an "injury".

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

judeboy101

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Same thing that would happen to them if they refused to sit down, suspension of dail pending their removal.

TheChizler

judeboy101 wrote: »

Same thing that would happen to them if they refused to sit down, suspension of dail pending their removal.

But technically the Dail hasn't commenced at this point has it?

Absolam

Pretty sure that if a TD attends the prayers and chooses not to stand during them they can be sanctioned by the Ceann Comhairle, whose job it is to keep order in the House. What sanctions probably depends on how the TD goes about it, or how often they do it; generally TDs just get a ticking off for breaches of decorum, but for serious misbehaviour they can, with the approval of the House, be suspended.

judeboy101

TheChizler wrote: »

But technically the Dail hasn't commenced at this point has it?

The session hasn't started but the CC can censure

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

I can't see the CC sitting idly by whilst TDs flout the rules of the House... particularly when those rules have only just been endorsed by it.

mickmac76

Was dismayed to see this vote pass with such a large majority during the week. I emailed my local TDs but didn't hear anything back from them as expected. I think if a TD refuses to stand they lose a days pay according to a report in the media earlier in the week.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Pretty sure that if a TD attends the prayers and chooses not to stand during them they can be sanctioned by the Ceann Comhairle, whose job it is to keep order in the House. What sanctions probably depends on how the TD goes about it, or how often they do it; generally TDs just get a ticking off for breaches of decorum, but for serious misbehaviour they can, with the approval of the House, be suspended.

This. Generally for breaches of decorum the Ceann Comhairle either turns a blind eye, or reminds the deputy how is is supposed to conduct himself. If the CC thought a member was just distracted or forgetful, he'd probably just remind the him to stand. If he thought somebody had come along to prayers for the express purpose of not standing up and engaging in a spot of grandstanding, he'd quite possibly do nothing, since there's nothing more deflating to a grandstander than to be ignored.

What would force the CC to act is if some other, more slow-witted member made a point of order, calling attending to the fact that Deputy X has remained seated during prayers. Prayers at this time would actually be over - nobody's going to interrupt the prayer to make a point of order - so the immediate requirement to stand would have passed. The CC would likely offer a reminder, and not look for a response from the deputy concerned. If the deputy nevertheless responded by objecting to the requirement to stand, he'd be told that if he was dissatisfied with the standing orders he should raise the matter with the procedures and privileges committee. If he persisted in trying to talk to the Ceann Comhairle about it he'd be told he was out of order - the Ceann Comhairle doesn't write the standing orders and has no role in amending them. If he still persisted he'd be ruled out of order and told he was obstructing the business of the house and, eventually, if he still wouldn't shut up, named and suspended. But the suspension would not be for failing to stand during prayers; it would be for failing to take his seat at a later point in the proceedings, after having been told he was out of order.

fisgon

mickmac76 wrote: »

Was dismayed to see this vote pass with such a large majority during the week. I emailed my local TDs but didn't hear anything back from them as expected. I think if a TD refuses to stand they lose a days pay according to a report in the media earlier in the week.

I emailed 2 of my TDs, and one FF TD replied within a few hours, on a Saturday evening!

His reply was more about Dail procedure than the substantive issue, but he did engage and did obviously read what I had written. So perhaps it will make no difference, but you won't know if you don't try.

And if enough TDs get enough emails from enough constituents - about this, the maternity hospital, abortion etc. - showing that the non religious exist and are active - and more importantly, that we vote - then this will have an impact.

You can bet your ass that the anti abortion lobby are gearing up for a blitz of emails and calls and calling in favours as we speak. They are well organized and loud, and so their opponents need to make their voices heard too.

Hotblack Desiato

fisgon wrote: »

You can bet your ass that the anti abortion lobby are gearing up for a blitz of emails and calls and calling in favours as we speak. They are well organized and loud, and so their opponents need to make their voices heard too.

They're also very well funded and the sources of this funding have not been disclosed.

Anti-aborts - free coaches from all over the country, professionally printed placards abundant.

Pro-choice - make your own way there at your own cost and display your home made placard.

The differences are obvious.

Peregrinus

For those interested:

Dail reports on the debate on the change to standing orders (which happened on 2 May) start on this page.

The actual votes on the various amendments put forward (none of which were accepted) and eventually on the motion itself (all held on 4 May) start on this page.

Voting seems to have been fairly strictly along party lines so, yeah, they were whipped (on both sides, as far as I can see). Some of the discussion in debate suggests that what is motivating at least some deputies (or, at any rate, the excuse they are offering) is that this particular solution (prayer plus silent period for reflection) was discussed and recommended by the Dail Committee on Procedure. I can't find any copy of a report from the Committee dealing with this, or any transcript of debates/discussions within the Committee about it.

lazygal

The committee on procedure and privilege and the Dail business committee generally conduct their business in private and don't appear on the official report.

fisgon

Ruth Coppinger on George Hook today, talking about the prayer, and her intention not to stand for it.

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/9/35896/08th_May_2017_-_High_Noon_Part_2/

I would disagree with her on a number of things, but on this she is dead right. "We weren't elected to pray!" she says.

Hook is his usual ultra-montane, ignorant, irrational self, who treats an elected member of our national parliament with contempt, just because he doesn't like what she has to say.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

fisgon

Watched the video there, the signs of "Separate Church and State" were a little weak, seemed that they were printed out on A4 paper five minutes before, though I agree with the sentiments. Maybe a bit of grandstanding from the two with the signs.

Still, listening to the prayer is really quite unsettling - the CC finishes with "...through Christ our Lord, Amen". He says "our" - unclear if he is referring to the chamber or the whole country, but the effect is the same - this is a Christian body for a Christian country, if you are not part of this belief system, if Christ is not your Lord, then tough.

I was half expecting him to go on and say "Now please be seated for a reading from the book of Isaiah".