TDs have voted to make it compulsory to stand during the Dail prayer

Peregrine

Manach wrote: »

Nothing unusual about the typical AH reaction to anything that smacks of deference to a nation's traditions that are still held in place of honour by a segment of the people. Concepts that had held a nation together are being frayed and thorn on the progressive's altar of their notation of modernity.

Oh, get off your high horse, Manach. Forcing non-believers to stand for your prayers at the threat of being stripped of pay being described as "a nation's traditions" and "concepts that held a nation together". Listen to yourself.

If the progressive's alter of modernity is fraying and thorning your precious concepts to grant people religious freedom then I'll have a few courses of that.

Zaph

Having a prayer before business starts is ridiculous in this day and age, but tacking on an extra 30 seconds for "reflection" is just laughable. We'll now be treated to the sight of a bunch of TDs standing around like lemons for half a minute. Maybe religious people are happy to reflect on things after their prayer, but I know personally that I'd have as much interest in reflecting on whatever as I would in praying. There's also the question of what happens to the TDs who don't want to get involved in this farce. Will they all hang around outside until those inside are done before trooping in? And if so, how much is that going to further disrupt proceedings while they're all getting settled? Just get the buggers into the chamber and to work as quickly as possible. It also discriminates against anyone who isn't a practising Catholic wanting to become Ceann Comhairle, as presumably no non-Catholics will want to get involved with Catholic prayers.

hatrickpatrick

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't understand why they keep making public blunders like this. Nobody would bat an eyelid if they opened a simple chapel, I'm actually surprised there isn't a chapel in the dail, it kind of shows they don't really care about praying just looking like they're praying.

Taking the "if you didn't send a snapchat from the gym, you didn't go to the gym today at all" approach to religion :pac:

Our government seems to be following what I call Netanyahu's law of calculus: As one's PR image slides, one apparently cares less and less about maintaining it, let alone.repairing it.

hatrickpatrick

Manach wrote: »

Nothing unusual about the typical AH reaction to anything that smacks of deference to a nation's traditions that are still held in place of honour by a segment of the people. Concepts that had held a nation together are being frayed and thorn on the progressive's altar of their notation of modernity.

Peregrine wrote: »

Oh, get off your high horse, Manach. Forcing non-believers to stand for your prayers at the threat of being stripped of pay being described as "a nation's traditions" and "concepts that held a nation together". Listen to yourself.

If the progressive's alter of modernity is fraying and thorning your precious concepts to grant people religious freedom then I'll have a few courses of that.

Manach, the bolded aspect of Peregrine's reply I've quoted is the key aspect. Whatever you think about having a prayer in the Dáil, can we at least all agree that threatening to not only dock pay but to exclude our public representatives from performing their duties by taking part in debates, voting on bills etc if they refuse to observe it is absolutely outrageous?

Supposing somebody runs on a manifesto of secularism - unlikely at the moment but let's just suppose their main policy platform revolves around removing all religious influence from how the state is run (schools, hospitals, childcare etc). Now suppose that person gets elected. If the secularism was the main focus point of their election campaign, it is fair to say that they were primarily elected on that basis. For them to then participate in a public religious ceremony in the Dáil - while at work, after all - would be a very clear, direct, and specific dereliction of their duty to represent their constituents and to stand for the values on which they were elected.

Therefore, in light of this new ruling, that TD would ironically (in a face-palming sort of way) be banned from doing their job - for the offence of actually doing their job in the first place.

That is one illustration of why this kind of thing is a terrible idea.

hatrickpatrick

ScumLord wrote: »

It's compulsory to stand according to the OP. So either stay out or prey?

This typo gave me a mental image of the Ceann Comhairle standing at the entrance to the chamber with a large box paintballing rifles, saying "right folks, either get involved or get out"

Peregrinus

ScumLord wrote: »

It's compulsory to stand according to the OP. So either stay out or prey?

No. Either stay out or stand. In both cases, whether you pray or not is up to you

ScumLord wrote: »

What happens if you refuse to stand?

The Ceann Comhairly will reprimand you.

pjohnson

22 pages of outrage over tds voting to "stand'. Any wonder we have obesity issues?

LordSutch

pjohnson wrote: »

Approaching 3pm....yup its time for boards anti-catholic thread!

pjohnson wrote: »

Approaching 3pm....yup its time for boards anti-catholic thread!

The prayer . . .

"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.
Amen."

But is it specifically a "Catholic" prayer?
Looks more like an all encompassing Christian prayer to me, which is fair enough.

stefanovich

howamidifferent wrote:

Backwards we go...How is this even conceivable, we have the #TechCork17 summit taking place while these mopes vote to stay in the stone age....

It's called respect.

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

The prayer . . .

"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.
Amen."

But is it specifically a "Catholic" prayer?
Looks more like an all encompassing Christian prayer to me, which is fair enough.

I can see why a non-Catholic Christian might be more comfortable with an inclusively Christian prayer rather than an exclusively Catholic prayer. But it might not be "fair enough" from the perspective of a Jewish citizen, a Muslim citizen, a non-religious citizen, or even a citizen of any religious belief who thought that the institutions of the state should be secular.

stefanovich

The_Valeyard wrote:

It's an optional prayer before work begins, no one is forced to attend.

Exactly. Are these other posters suggesting that non religious TDs attend and remain seated as a sign of disrespect?

LordSutch

Peregrinus wrote: »

LordSutch wrote: »

The prayer . . .

"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.
Amen."

But is it specifically a "Catholic" prayer?
Looks more like an all encompassing Christian prayer to me, which is fair enough.

I can see why a non-Catholic Christian might be more comfortable with an inclusively Christian prayer rather than an exclusively Catholic prayer. But it might not be "fair enough" from the perspective of a Jewish citizen, a Muslim citizen, a non-religious citizen, or even a citizen of any religious belief who thought that the institutions of the state should be secular.

Maybe, you might be right? But this country like many was built on Christian values, hence a Christian prayer.
I would have been hopping mad if it was a specific RC prayer, but it's not.

Ireland claims to be a Christian country.
Most Irish people claim to belong to one Christian Church or another.

I do see your point though.

tomwaterford

LordSutch wrote: »

Ireland claims to be a Christian country.
Most Irish people claim to belong to one Christian Church or another.

Afaik the Irish constitution gives equal rights to all religions??

Whatll happen the day a muslim/Hindu/etc is elected?



They really havnt much to be doing/bothering them in the dail,if they have time to be arseing about with pointless things like this?

tomwaterford

stefanovich wrote: »

Exactly. Are these other posters suggesting that non religious TDs attend and remain seated as a sign of disrespect?

In much the same way,as when I go to mass/had priests attend school....I wouldn't kneel (have too much self respect)

I dont see why anyone should have to stand for prayer.....if this went on in Saudi Arabia/some other arab country etc...,people would be up in arms as its a backward step

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

Maybe, you might be right? But this country like many was built on Christian values, hence a Christian prayer.
I would have been hopping mad if it was a specific RC prayer, but it's not.

Well, if we're picking nits, while there's no exclusively Catholic statement in it, it is from a Catholic source. It's from the Litany of Saints in the Roman Gradual.

LordSutch wrote: »

Ireland claims to be a Christian country.
Most Irish people claim to belong to one Christian Church or another.

I don't know that Ireland claims to be a Christian country any more than Ireland claims to be a Catholic country. Both statements would be true in the sense that Irish history, culture and society are strongly marked by Christian (or Catholic) influences and beliefs. But the Irish state doesn't aspire to be either Christian or Catholic.

Peregrinus

tomwaterford wrote: »

In much the same way,as when I go to mass/had priests attend school....I wouldn't kneel (have too much self respect)

I dont see why anyone should have to stand for prayer.....if this went on in Saudi Arabia/some other arab country etc...,people would be up in arms as its a backward step

This goes on in lots of countries, including the UK and the US. In fact, the tradition of parliamentary prayers is one that comes to us from Westminster, not from Rome.

It's generally considered polite to respect other people's beliefs, and the expression and practice of them, even if you don't share them; hence the rule about standing. Nobody has to stand for parlaimentary prayers; members don't have to attend at all for prayers, but if they choose to attend they are expected to stand.

The business of trying to present this rule as a personal affront to people who want to attend the prayers but not stand up seems to me (a) to display a keen appetite for victim status, and (b) to completely miss the point. The important issue here is not whether members who choose to attend parliamentary prayers should be expected to stand (for what its' worth, I think that's a perfectly reasonable expectation, and in no sense oppressive to unbelieving members); it's whether parliamentary prayers should be said at all.

infogiver

dav3 wrote: »

What is also worrying is that we have TDs who genuinely believe that god is talking to them and guiding them in the Dáil chamber. If they genuine believe this, and they must if they voted for it today, then it confirms what we already know. We have a large number of insane people that hear voices in their head running the country.

What would god actually say to them in relation to the National Maternity Hospital? I doubt it would be 'Ah yeah lads, that whole Maternity Hospital thing was a bit of a mad idea wasn't it, giving control over to the nuns who ran the Magdalene Laundries and to this day refuse to pay compensation, what was I thinking...lol'.

Perhaps imaginary conversations with god are the least of our worries when we still have the church trying to influence the state and politicians.

From a few months back...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/archbishop-tells-politicians-not-to-forget-their-faith-during-abortion-debates-757439.html

It must be utterly terrifying for you then when you hear that prayers are said before the business of governing many of the most powerful countries on the planet, and that many of the people with a lot of power are God/deity botherers in one way or another.
But it's surely a comfort to you that the ruler of N Korea doesn't bother any deity at all, and he's fine.

tomwaterford

Peregrinus wrote: »

This goes on in lots of countries, including the UK and the US. In fact, the tradition of parliamentary prayers is one that comes to us from Westminster, not from Rome.

It's generally considered polite to respect other people's beliefs, and the expression and practice of them, even if you don't share them; hence the rule about standing. Nobody has to stand for parlaimentary prayers;

Surly it's long since time to drop the prayer thing now???



I taught the new rules says the exact opposite??

Peregrinus

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly it's long since time to drop the prayer thing now???

Yes.

tomwaterford wrote: »

I taught the new rules says the exact opposite??

In the sense that the exact opposite of dropping it is not dropping it, yes.

But, in that sense, not discussing the issue at all would also be the "exact opposite" of dropping it.

Perhaps this thread has been poisoned by the title, which focusses on the fact that the practice of standing for the prayers (which has always been observed) has now been incorporated into Standing Orders.

The practice of standing is unobjectionable, and I cannot take seriously a suggesting that incorporating it into Standing Orders is oppressive. But this focus on the standing has led to the whole discussion focussing on the members of the Dail, and the supposed injury done to unbelieving members.

That's not the point. The point is whether having parliamentary prayers does an injury to the republic. As far as that goes, standing or not standing is a giant red herring.

dav3

infogiver wrote: »

It must be utterly terrifying for you then when you hear that prayers are said before the business of governing many of the most powerful countries on the planet, and that many of the people with a lot of power are God/deity botherers in one way or another.
But it's surely a comfort to you that the ruler of N Korea doesn't bother any deity at all, and he's fine.

More worrying than terrifying. Worried that our elected representatives have chosen to continue saying prayers and forcing people to stand before conducting important debates relating to abuse in the catholic church, attempts by the catholic church to gain control of the National Maternity Hospital and a possible abortion referendum. Their actions and future actions in the current Dáil are a cause for concern.

One thing that people take heart from, is that at this very moment in time in history, Ireland will never be more religious than it is right now. Tomorrow it will be less religious than it is today, and the day after that it will be less religious again. Until eventually we will have a situation where religion will no longer play a part in dictating how people should live their lives in this country.

Peregrinus

dav3 wrote: »

One thing that people take heart from, is that at this very moment in time in history, Ireland will never be more religious than it is right now. Tomorrow it will be less religious than it is today, and the day after that it will be less religious again. Until eventually we will have a situation where religion will no longer play a part in dictating how people should live their lives in this country.

I must say you have great faith!

realdanbreen

VinLieger wrote: »

Reality is less than 25% of the population of a supposedly catholic country attend mass on a weekly basis, and thats the churches figures

There's a lot more to being a catholic than going to mass on Sunday. The childish notion that if you don't go to mass every sunday then you're not a catholic is amusing at this stage.

realdanbreen

Hans Bricks wrote: »

I'm mortified for Ireland's reputation. How did this trivial, nunnery ****e become an agenda item at a fcuking national parliamentary sitting amongst adults ?

"Should we have a mandatory prayer time before half of us don't even show up in future ?" :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The USA have elected a crude and ego driven chump as their president. The French are on the verge of electing a racist bigot as their president and you are 'mortified' about our reputation because their will be both a prayer and reflection before dail business?

tomwaterford

realdanbreen wrote: »

The USA have elected a crude and ego driven chump as their president. The French are on the verge of electing a racist bigot as their president and you are 'mortified' about our reputation because their will be both a prayer and reflection before dail business?

What's wrong with ireland leading the way in the 21st century and dropping the prayer thing?


It's day has long since passed

realdanbreen

Donal55 wrote: »

Something new in the Dail. A distraction I spose from Garda Corruption and Homelessness.

What frustrates me most when I see the homeless situation brought into an argument is the fact that if our so called 'pillars of the community', teachers, consultants, doctors, well heeled clergymen, solicitors etc were to contribute 1% of their income to solving homeless then we would not have a homeless problem.

realdanbreen

tomwaterford wrote: »

What's wrong with ireland leading the way in the 21st century and dropping the prayer thing?


It's day has long since passed

Ireland is leading the way by not giving into 'kardashian' type modernism and sticking to our traditions.

tomwaterford

realdanbreen wrote: »

Ireland is leading the way by not giving into 'kardashian' type modernism and sticking to our traditions.

Long since time to drop the religion ****e so!


Change isn't always bad

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

There's a lot more to being a catholic than going to mass on Sunday. The childish notion that if you don't go to mass every sunday then you're not a catholic is amusing at this stage.

LOL its literally in the 10 commandments, "keep holy the sabbath day"

I do find it amusing that those of us opposed to the prayer were labeled as hypocrites earlier in the thread for taking the easter bank holiday off and celebrating christmas etc yet going by the same argument the vast majority of "catholics" in this country are equally as hypocritical due to their picking and choosing of which parts of the religion they want to observe.

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Ireland is leading the way by not giving into 'kardashian' type modernism and sticking to our traditions.

You do like to paint with a broad brush don't you

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

What frustrates me most when I see the homeless situation brought into an argument is the fact that if our so called 'pillars of the community', teachers, consultants, doctors, well heeled clergymen, solicitors etc were to contribute 1% of their income to solving homeless then we would not have a homeless problem.

Wow a religiously conservative socialist, i though they were just a myth

BabyCheeses

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How does not forcing every TD to stand up for the Dail prayer undermine the "national fabric" (or as someone else verbosely and turgidly put it, "sacrifices it on the progressives' altar")?

Because they wish to enforce Catholic doctrine on the public. They are all the same people who didn't want gay people to be treated as equals.

Raging_Ninja

realdanbreen wrote: »

What frustrates me most when I see the homeless situation brought into an argument is the fact that if our so called 'pillars of the community', teachers, consultants, doctors, well heeled clergymen, solicitors etc were to contribute 1% of their income to solving homeless then we would not have a homeless problem.

I think you'll find they contribute more than 50% of their income. You sound just like the alco saying "just one more pint".

How much more tax do you think we should pay before everyone elses problems are gone?

kylith

realdanbreen wrote: »

There's a lot more to being a catholic than going to mass on Sunday. The childish notion that if you don't go to mass every sunday then you're not a catholic is amusing at this stage.

Tell that to the pope, he sees going to mass as very important.

“On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.”

But if you think the pope has childish notions about what it means to be Catholic...

Presumably this 'more' you mention means that the majority of non-mass-going Irish Catholics observe the very important tenets of the faith like eschewing meat on Fridays, not having pre-marital sex, not using contraception, observing fast days; except that they don't. They don't follow the teachings of the RCC at all.

In fact the 'more' you speak of means 'puts catholic on census' or 'saying is Catholic when asked' which is bullcrap because one of the teachings of the RCC is that if you don't attend mass and don't observe the teachings then you're not a member. Like, I can say I'm a member of a golf club all I like, but if I don't pay dues and don't even know how to play golf then having signed up for the newsletter 15 years ago is meaningless.

realdanbreen

VinLieger wrote: »

Wow a religiously conservative socialist, i though they were just a myth

Another thing that frustrates me, 'cop out' labels like socialist, conservative, right wing, left wing, blah blah blah. There are only two ways to govern, rule, and that is the right way and the wrong way.

Woodville56

It really is unthinkable that a country where over 70% of the population regard themselves as Catholic/Christian should have vestiges of a Catholic or Christian ethos in public life, isn't it ? Whereas the 25% who don't profess any faith practice would replace it with their own secularist "ethos" and then everything's hunky dory? I just don't get it - the motion for abandonment of prayer at the start of Dail sessions was roundly and emphatically defeated by democratic means - so just get on with it ! There are bigger more important issues to debate, but sure why waste an opportunity to have another lash at Catholic Ireland. Personally, I agree the idea of penalizing those deputies who do not observe the prayer / silence in the Dail is ludicrous, but equally distasteful is the intolerance from the minority of deputies who would seek to impose their own secularist agenda. I'm sure a compromise that's respectful of all religious traditions and none can be worked out , but then again it's the Dail we're talking about ?

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Another thing that frustrates me, 'cop out' labels like socialist, conservative, right wing, left wing, blah blah blah. There are only two ways to govern, rule, and that is the right way and the wrong way.

Aww a snowflake too, did i trigger you?

VinLieger

Woodville56 wrote: »

I'm sure a compromise that's respectful of all religious traditions and none can be worked out , but then again it's the Dail we're talking about ?

Yup and that would be 60 seconds of silent reflection that was proposed by SF but voted down by both FF and FG

As for the rest of your post secularism isn't an ethos, its actually more along the lines of a lack of any specific ethos

Sebastian Dangerfield

realdanbreen wrote: »

The French are on the verge of electing a racist bigot as their president

They're not though...

nozzferrahhtoo

pjohnson wrote: »

Approaching 3pm....yup its time for boards anti-catholic thread!

Oh hardly, your persecution complex is showing. The issue has nothing to do with being anti-catholic and is everything to do with pointing out how ridiculous it is to make prayer compulsory AT ALL, let alone in the setting of public government.

Faith, as the faithful often rush to tell me when faith is attacked, is private and personal. It has not place in the workplace. The faithful have their entire personal time and personal lives to engage in their personal hobby of choice. Why they need to parade their piety in public and in the work place and, worse, force others to do it with them, is what is in question.

I sometimes play computer games as a hobby, though not nearly as much as I did 20 years ago. Should I insist when I enter my work place that I be granted 10 minutes of work time to play games? Should I insist that everyone else should be compelled to log in and play with me?

Or should I realize my personal hobby belongs in my personal time and leave everyone else out of it?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Dont see a problem, dont want a quick prayer before work starts, then they out before the order of business begins.

Peoples personal hobbies should not be impinging on the workplace at all, let alone to the point of "Don't like it, say out". It is their work place too and some people like to show up early for work for a variety of reasons.

Some people like to have a **** before work too. More power to them, they do it in their own time where they find some privacy for it. They should not be doing it IN the work place itself though, and they certainly should not be implementing rules saying "If you do not like the fact I am **** at my desk, then stay away during **** time".

So if physical masturbation should not be sanctioned in this way then why should this form of mental masturbation be?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Before your work begins, not interfering with your day at all.

Again, lots of people show up early for work to pre-prepare and other reasons. Some people, to take one completely random example to show you how variable the motivations are, do so because of disabilities and their comfort is extremely facilitated by getting into work before the majority of their co-workers to get in and get settled. There are any number of reasons why people do, and would, show up early for work.

So now such people should be told "Make the same pointless and empty propitiations as my hobby demands, or stay out of the work place until WE deem you should be let attend"?

There is a whole BAG of "Get over yourself" people making such demands need to get into. And I would move from your "It is not interfering with your work day at all" to a simple response of "other people not standing up or ceasing their own activities when you pray is not interfering with your prayer at all". Simply no one NEEDS or benefits from this nonsense.

And that makes one wonder why they even care. I have attended many ceremonies in catholic churches for example, for various reasons like baptisms and weddings. I did not stand when others did. I did not kneel when others did. I did not get up and eat tasteless sticky crackers when others did.

Did anyone care or feel bothered by this? Not a single person that I am aware of no. I interfered with no one and I was IN THEIR CLUBHOUSE not my own work place. This was not even noticed in the same way that, for example, wearing Jeans on some golf courses would be.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The Dail has not commenced business or proceedings. It's not work time. Not praying, why be there.

There is a difference between "work time" and "the work place". The concerns people appear to have are towards the latter, that ANY work place should have sanctioned rules pertaining to the personal hobbies of the workers in a given work place. Let alone to the point that anyone who happens to be in the work place at that that should be compelled to partake.

Not to mention that there simply is no reason being offered here by anyone, least of all you, as to why such a thing is even required / useful / necessary in the first place. Personal faith is a personal issue. Personal hobbies have no place in the work place. Be it sport, gaming, ****, or talking to your imaginary friend.

The work place is for, sit down for the shock here, work.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Just out of the way all hush hush, no sight if your faith anywhere, might displease some atheists.

Hardly, though the same nonsense HAS been spewed on any number of other issues. Homosexuality for example by the kind of people saying "Oh I have no problem with homosexuals once they do not do their PDAs where I can see them".

Personal faith is just that, personal. It has no business being forced into any aspect of the work place, and it has no business being facilitated and sanctioned at the level of the state in public buildings of public office.

Why can their personal hobby not be kept to personal time? Why is it no less ridiculous to demand prayer time at any level than me coming in and demanding time to kick a football around the office, or have a **** at my desk? If the majority of the work place were ManU supporters should it be demanded that there be time to sing ManU football songs? Or should peoples HOBBY be kept out of the work place entirely?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

It could be seen as anti-catholic / Christian wrapped up in the guise of pro separation of church and state.

And an apple could be seen as an elephant if you pretend hard enough, which would be all you would be doing here too.

But of course that does not stop people playing the persecution card when they have nothing else to say. Yet somehow magically I can write paragraph after paragraph without resorting to fantastical whinging of "Oh this is all so anti atheist". Amazing.

big syke wrote: »

Before work day begins is you own time.

To a point, but you would still be in the work PLACE and a certain level of decorum, and keeping your private life separate from the work place, is generally expected in such a context. And that is basically what the issue is here, not some anti catholic crusade that people fantasize about because they have nothing else to argue.

They are concerned with the precedent that something that is in pretty much all ways essentially a private hobby is being forced by those who choose to show up for work early, on others who also choose to show up to the work place early. And for what reason? No one requires or needs that. I work with 2 muslims for example. I show up for work early. They show up early but after me and I have seen them have a quiet pray at their desk. They disturb no one, encroach on no one and no part of the work place, and they sure as hell do not demand everyone else stay quiet, join in, or in any way partake of THEIR personal inane mumbling.

Further to that precedent in the work place however, there is also a concern at having a building of public office in a diverse and pluralist society seen to sanction or be affiliated with one particular religion. AGAIN this is not some atheist crusade to have religion stamped out, but a pluralist equality issue where anyone of a different faith or no faith at all does not feel they are in a country where the very state and government itself is seen to endorse a religion of which a given group of citizens might not be part or might, in fact, have historic or contemporary issue or pain with.

That is the point of secularism, not some anti-catholic crusade, and why secularism != atheism. Many many theists, Catholics included, are also secular. And I certainly would not want to live in a world WITHOUT the diversity of culture, dress, music and so forth that all our religions color society with. I just do not think such personal hobbies and personal culture belong in the work place, lte alone a STATE work place.

big syke wrote: »

If they do not wish to partake do not come into work early!!!

Which is a disgusting and horrific precedent to be setting. There is any number of reasons people go to the work place early. From work load and stress, to actual physical disabilities. But who gives a hoot about such people when piety and displays of it are concerned, huh?

big syke wrote: »

It is not as if they will be working while they sit

You simply do not know that, or what people who come to work early get up to in that extra time.

big syke wrote: »

If it is implemented in you workplace your working day has not begun you have no right to enter your workplace anyway

Which is complete bull that you have simply made up. People come into work early ALL the time and they have every right to do so unless their employer expressly suggests otherwise. Does it not bother you or give you ANY pause therefore that in order to defend this nonsense, you have to make up your own version of reality to do so?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Very true. Some people outraged at Catholics having a quick prayer in an empty chamber before work or business has begun.

An entirely disingenuous summary of what peoples issue actually is here. Showing you do not either understand what people are actually saying on this thread, or you do not in any way CARE as your own version pleases you more.

If people were coming into work early, sitting at their work place, and having a quiet pray to themselves I doubt many, if any, people on this thread would be taking an issue with it. So perhaps try and keep up with what people DO have an issue with, rather than some weird version of your own that they do NOT have an issue with.

As I said above for example, there are 2 muslims in my work place who come to work early before the majority, but after me, and they very clearly engage in their own version of such inane mumbling, and I have ZERO issue with it, nor does anyone else, nor should we.

But do not let that stop you stuffing straw into a man much easier to attack than the people who are ACTUALLY posting on the thread.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

So if you stand and pray you are an idiot. You are only 'progressive' if you sit. That's a bit biased now.

I myself do not think that anyone who prays is an idiot. But conversely I ALSO do not think that sitting talking to an imaginary friend, as an adult, for whom there is not even the remotest shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the existence of....... can be said to be indicative of any level of intelligence either.

But as I pointed out the fact people want to have a quick pray, at their house or in their seat at work, is not the issue here.

RobertKK wrote: »

People losing their minds over a prayer, standing up, no harm is being done to anyone, people choosing to be offended is where the problem lies.

Hardly. If that is all YOU can glean from the issue then that is your failing, not theirs. Peoples objections, and the reasons for them, go a lot deeper than the superficial non-entity you and Valeyard insist on describing. Where DO you people get all this straw?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Yeah, Christians are part of the real world and greatly contribute to it.

And Christians have historically been greatly part of the industry of plucking chickens and have greatly contributed to it too. But there, like here, there is no sign their Christianity had anything to do with WHAT they contributed or HOW. So you are making a correlation-causation fail similar to the nonsense State Religion correlation-causation fails you have made in the past.

realdanbreen wrote: »

You know much and all as we live in a democracy and everyone has entitlements etc etc, maybe the 5% of non believers in this country need to suck this one up.

Perhaps you do not understand how a democracy works. In one, everyone has a voice, and can and in some cases SHOULD be using it to explain to the majority why their decisions are bad ones and should be argued against.

What a democracy is NOT, and should not be, is a case of "We have voted so now everyone who lost the vote should simply shut up about it". Democracy NEEDS the minority to explain to the majority why they think their way is better. Otherwise change never occurs.

RobertKK wrote: »

People celebrating a day dedicated to love named after a Catholic saint.

Nice historical revisionism from you there but any cursory reading of history would divest you of this error. The day was celebrated for OTHER reasons in the past and was commandeered by fetishists for your particular figure head.

Time off is a great thing and it would likely not only exist but exist in pretty much the same points on the calendar it does now, without you people commandeering it with your unsubstantiated narratives of nonsense.

Beyondgone wrote: »

Oddly, much as it may annoy the atheists, Muslims, Wickens and Hari-Krishnas, Ireland is a Catholic country. It's part of the National fabric.

Is it though? I remain FAR from convinced that it is.

Beyondgone wrote: »

The idea of fecking that fabric out the window may suit some trendy ideals, but a swift trip to your local Catholic church any given Saturday evening/sunday morning will reveal that loads don't agree.

I am not sure what a "quick trip" would tell you other than some people sit in their clubhouse. A "quick trip" would tell you nothing about what their opinion is on this issue, or who they actually agree with. Quite a lot of bums on seats in churches are every bit as secular as the atheist enjoying their lie in on a Sunday Morning.

I fear "quick trips" allow one to see only what they WANT to see, and to interpret what they see in the way they want their narrative to do so.

Manach wrote: »

Nothing unusual about the typical AH reaction to anything that smacks of deference to a nation's traditions that are still held in place of honour by a segment of the people.

This is as much nonsense as what Valeyard was pedaling above. I have not seen a single person on this thread yet take issue with deference or reverence of tradition. AT ALL.

Their issue is with where, why and how it is performed.

It would behoove some people here to learn the difference. My having an issue with you **** on a street corner for example is NOT the same thing as me having an issue with you **** at all.

Manach wrote: »

Concepts that had held a nation together are being frayed and thorn on the progressive's altar of their notation of modernity.

Not convinced it "held a nation together" at all. Religion DOES have the potential to sometimes bind people together. So too does following a premier league football team. But it also, often with horrendous results, has the potential to be divisive or by the focal point for existing divisions, which this Island and this world in general has ALSO seen in horrific abundance too.

But by all means demonstrate that it has held a nation together rather than, at best, merely been one of the focal points for a nation that was holding ITSELF together. Because alas this is what religion does often......... associates itself with some ideal or benefit that it itself adds nothing to or, worse, positively hampers or harms.

stefanovich wrote: »

It's called respect.

I myself tend only to respect things that are deserving of it. So what PERCISELY is it people think should be shown respect here I wonder? And why? Respect is not some phlogiston product permeating all and sundry. It is earned and deserved.

elperello

There are a lot of other things our parliamentarians should not stand for as well as this prayer/reflection nonsense.

Just make your own list of things that are wrong in this country.

Walter H Price

Woodville56 wrote: »

It really is unthinkable that a country where over 70% of the population regard themselves as Catholic/Christian should have vestiges of a Catholic or Christian ethos in public life, isn't it ? Whereas the 25% who don't profess any faith practice would replace it with their own secularist "ethos" and then everything's hunky dory?

Secularism is not an Ethos, i dislike Sinn Fein entirely and would never vote for them based on their economic and social policy's ,but what they proposed was the correct solution here , a period of silent reflection where deputy's may have a quiet thought to themselves or pray to whichever god they believe in, privately. I cant help feeling that with the evident shift against the church in recent weeks with the outcry over the new maternity hospital , the citizens assembly decision on the 8th , the census data and the calls for the baptism ban to be removed, that this was a callous move on behalf of certain TD's and the major political parties to reaffirm that this is a catholic country.

That 70% figure is not devout or for a large part even practicing , i know plenty of cultural Catholics p!ssed off about that hospital , the NMH board and about the Dail prayer now, too tbh. Its a disgraceful backwards decision and the fact it was so heavily backed is a sad sad reflection on our elected representatives in my view.

whisky_galore

techdiver wrote: »

Yeah imagine having to wait outside your office or place of work every morning for a prayer to be said before entering??

I usually say a little prayer at work, along the lines of "Dear God will the boss ever fcuk off today?"

Boom_Bap

pjohnson wrote: »

22 pages of outrage over tds voting to "stand'. Any wonder we have obesity issues?

There is no need to troll this thread.

If you've nothing to add on the subject, then don't post.

RobertKK

I still don't think it is a big deal, and the people who say it is a Catholic prayer are being very selective as it is Christian in nature.

Jesus did say to "love one another" so maybe that is the problem here...people would rather hate something that makes others different rather than simply stand to show respect to their fellow humans who as a large majority voted for these measures in their workplace.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

I still don't think it is a big deal, and the people who say it is a Catholic prayer are being very selective as it is Christian in nature.

Jesus did say to "love one another" so maybe that is the problem here...people would rather hate something that makes others different rather than simply stand to show respect to their fellow humans who as a large majority voted for these measures in their workplace.

Exactly, it's discriminatory against non-Christians, not just non-Catholics.

And it is a terrible shame that some people hate something that makes others different and would bar them from their place of work or fine them for not participating in a ritual for a particular god.

zedhead

RobertKK wrote: »

I still don't think it is a big deal, and the people who say it is a Catholic prayer are being very selective as it is Christian in nature.

Jesus did say to "love one another" so maybe that is the problem here...people would rather hate something that makes others different rather than simply stand to show respect to their fellow humans who as a large majority voted for these measures in their workplace.

Be it catholic or christian or muslim or whatever i think people just generally believe religion has no place in work and especially not in government.
Even so ignoring the fact the prayer has no place there, I still don't understand how somebody sitting and ignoring the prayer is being disrespectful. As someone mentioned, any time I have been in a church for services I have not had to stand or kneel when the majority of the congregation has, and that shows no disrespect so why should this be any different. Where is the respect for everyone else who does not wish to observe this?

AryaStark

LordSutch wrote: »

The prayer . . .

"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.
Amen."

But is it specifically a "Catholic" prayer?
Looks more like an all encompassing Christian prayer to me, which is fair enough.

Why is it 'Fair enough' ... Can you explain why, in the work place, people have to stand and show respect to something that has no place in the work place.

I am so embarrassed to be Irish at the minute. This thread gives me some comfort as there are some normal people who understand what is wrong but it is not enough.

pure.conya

cruizer101 wrote: »

What really worries me here is the numbers it won by 97 votes to 17, with 19 abstentions. So its not like it just scraped through, a vast majority of our public representatives voted to dedicate time to a load of bolloxology. What the proper f**k like :mad:

why wouldn't they, sure they're laughing all the way to the bank, we put them there, they vote to give themselves payrises and less days to work every year without any hint of the public not accepting it so it's fair game ot think they'll continue to dow hat they like when they like and to hell with the rest of us, we cna all go and $hite for oursleves

AryaStark

stefanovich wrote: »

Exactly. Are these other posters suggesting that non religious TDs attend and remain seated as a sign of disrespect?

They should remain seated as they are not religious and do not want to pray.

They should not be made wait outside and then come in after the prayer and disrupt the beginning of the days work.
Why would somebody who is religious be upset by somebody who is not religious sitting during the prayer?

This is something that I would like the answer to. Is it not more disrespectful to stand and pretend that you are being respectful and care about what is going on.

That would be like me getting down on my knees beside a muslim praying just not to be the only one standing when they are all on their knees... this would not be tolerated by anyone.

Why do believers want non believers to pretend that they respect their ways... why not let them keep ignoring it and pretending it is not happening?

Woodville56

kylith wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

I still don't think it is a big deal, and the people who say it is a Catholic prayer are being very selective as it is Christian in nature.

Jesus did say to "love one another" so maybe that is the problem here...people would rather hate something that makes others different rather than simply stand to show respect to their fellow humans who as a large majority voted for these measures in their workplace.

Exactly, it's discriminatory against non-Christians, not just non-Catholics.

And it is a terrible shame that some people hate something that makes others different and would bar them from their place of work or fine them for not participating in a ritual for a particular god.

But it's not about hate really - much as some of those who disagree with prayer in the Dail would like to portray it. The motion was put to a vote and was overwhelmingly rejected. I don't think those who voted in favour of the prayer are hateful of the views of those who oppose it - they just have different / Christian values and those values inform their voting preferences, which at this point in time represent the views of the majority of members of the Dail. I agree that the proposal to penalize those who do not wish to be associated with the prayer is inappropriate and uncalled for, but is it so onerous for the minority to respect the expressed vote of the majority ? It's only a minute in total out of the working day ?