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

RobertKK

osarusan wrote: »

Is the penalty of being expelled or fined the standard punishment for contravening Dail procedures, or is it specific to this particular proposal?

All Dail procedures.

circadian

RobertKK wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they attend mass or not. It is not a Catholic prayer.

Why do people have a problem showing a respect to what the majority want?
No one is attacked in the prayer.
It is a very innocuous few words that it is hard to believe anyone would take offense at respecting the other people who want this this, and showing common decency by respecting their wishes.
No one is harmed, people choosing to be offended, not enough going on in their lives that they have to make a fuss, maybe they were not getting enough media coverage recently.

Maybe the people who are making a fuss should just go around in wheelchairs so they don't have to stand up, because that is how stupid the fuss that is being made is.

A mandatory show of respect. How about a mandatory show of respect for others that may not want to stand during this while sitting in their place of work?

zedhead

RobertKK wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they attend mass or not. It is not a Catholic prayer.

Why do people have a problem showing a respect to what the majority want?
No one is attacked in the prayer.
It is a very innocuous few words that it is hard to believe anyone would take offense at respecting the other people who want this, and showing common decency by respecting their wishes.
No one is harmed, people choosing to be offended, not enough going on in their lives that they have to make a fuss, maybe they were not getting enough media coverage recently.

Maybe the people who are making a fuss should just go around in wheelchairs so they don't have to stand up, because that is how stupid the fuss that is being made is.

Why does standing show any more respect than sitting? What if you don't respect the words being said or the action happening - what is so awful about quietly abstaining?

RobertKK

circadian wrote: »

A mandatory show of respect. How about a mandatory show of respect for others that may not want to stand during this while sitting in their place of work?

It is a mandatory rule of the Dail now, so they either respect the Dail or they don't.

RobertKK

zedhead wrote: »

Why does standing show any more respect than sitting? What if you don't respect the words being said or the action happening - what is so awful about quietly abstaining?

They can wait in their office with their TV screen showing what is going on in the Dail if it upsets them so much.
Then go and take their seat.

zedhead

RobertKK wrote: »

They can wait in their office with their TV screen showing what is going on in the Dail if it upsets them so much.
Then go and take their seat.

That doesn't answer my question.
Why does one have to stand to show respect? Why is the act of standing somehow showing more respect than sitting?

Why should someones work day be disrupted because they disagree with the majority. Why is quietly abstaining not allowed?

How do you force someone to respect something that has not been earned and why should you?

osarusan

RobertKK wrote: »

It is a mandatory rule of the Dail now, so they either respect the Dail or they don't.

Which do you think is a more appropriate procedure?


one where you stand if you want to (most people did anyway by all accounts) but there is no punishment for not standing.

or

one where you either go/remain outside, or else stand for the prayer, with failure to do so possibly punishable by expulsion or a fine.

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they attend mass or not. It is not a Catholic prayer.

Its a christian prayer, very little difference to anyone not of a christian faith or non-religious. And as you well know the main problem isnt with the paryer but with the punishment for not standing and displaying reverence to a belief system you do not agree with.

RobertKK wrote: »

Why do people have a problem showing a respect to what the majority want?
No one is attacked in the prayer.

Because in this case the minority are being discriminated against, and punished for not believing or respecting the beliefs of others.

Being punished for not holding specific beliefs or deferring to those who do hold those beliefs is a trade mark of some pretty awful regimes.

Is it a wonder the government wont reveal which way we voted in the UN vote for Saudi Arabia joining the women's comission

RobertKK wrote: »

It is a very innocuous few words that it is hard to believe anyone would take offense at respecting the other people who want this, and showing common decency by respecting their wishes.
No one is harmed, people choosing to be offended, not enough going on in their lives that they have to make a fuss, maybe they were not getting enough media coverage recently.

Again its not the words people have a problem with its the fact if you do not show deference or respect for the words you are then summarily punished for having different beliefs

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe the people who are making a fuss should just go around in wheelchairs so they don't have to stand up, because that is how stupid the fuss that is being made is.

This snide remark you think is clever is in reality just pathetic, if you cannot back your arguments up without trying to insult people then you need to grow up.

RobertKK

osarusan wrote: »

Which do you think is a more appropriate procedure?


one where you stand if you want to (most people did anyway by all accounts) but there is no punishment for not standing.

or

one where you either go/remain outside, or else stand for the prayer, with failure to do so possibly punishable by expulsion or a fine.

It doesn't bother me either way.

I just find it very interesting how worked up certain people are when it comes to these very privileged people.

topper75

zedhead wrote: »

Nobody is forcing any of those people to enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex, nor are they being forced to support such marriages. They are not being barred from their place of work unless they show randomly defined notion of respect for these marriages and if they refuse they are not being penalised pay or refused entry.

Its quite different.

How would you feel if they extended this to everyone in ireland having to stand and observe this prayer time?

I don't think you understand what was passed. Nobody is forced to pray. The prayer is simply established as part of the order. You can wait outside if that is your preference. It is not being extended to all workplaces any more than we are all forced to marry a person of the same sex!!

zedhead

topper75 wrote: »

I don't think you understand what was passed. Nobody is forced to pray. The prayer is simply established as part of the order. You can wait outside if that is your preference. It is not being extended to all workplaces any more than we are all forced to marry a person of the same sex!!

I absolutely understand what has been passed. I didnt say anyone was forced to pray - just that they are forced to show respect should they want to enter their place of work at the start of the work day. Their options are to be penalised or to wait outside until this happens.

I didn't say it was being extended to all workplaces, I asked how would you feel if it was. If it is perfectly ok to happen in the dail then surely it should be ok to happen in any workplace?

osarusan

topper75 wrote: »

The prayer is simply established as part of the order.

And this is the difference - it cannot now simply be 'ignored', you can't have nothing to do with it, and be unaffected by it (like same sex marriage).

It is part of the order - therefore it must be reacted to - whether this is leaving, or standing, or being penalised - it now requires an action, an involvement, there is an impact, that previously did not exist (and does not exist with SSM).

RobertKK

VinLieger wrote: »

Its a christian prayer, very little difference to anyone not of a christian faith or non-religious. And as you well know the main problem isnt with the paryer but with the punishment for not standing and displaying reverence to a belief system you do not agree with.



Because in this case the minority are being discriminated against, and punished for not believing or respecting the beliefs of others.

Being punished for not holding specific beliefs or deferring to those who do hold those beliefs is a trade mark of some pretty awful regimes.

Is it a wonder the government wont reveal which way we voted in the UN vote for Saudi Arabia joining the women's comission



Again its not the words people have a problem with its the fact if you do not show deference or respect for the words you are then summarily punished for having different beliefs



This snide remark you think is clever is in reality just pathetic, if you cannot back your arguments up without trying to insult people then you need to grow up.

We have some people here making out it is a Catholic prayer, then talking about Catholics while ignoring it is Christian in nature.
Though Muslims also believe in Jesus as a prophet.
I don't see the problem in showing respect for what the majority wanted, it is like the same sex referendum, a majority voted for it, but some idiot or idiots decided to take it to court, the only way it could be reversed if the same people voted again and decided differently.
No one gets harmed by standing up. They can take it to court if possible but I don't think they would get far.

All they are asked to do is stand up at the start, people can vote for these people if they like people who chose not to pay all their tax, believe Dell should have been nationalised, believe the a lot of charges should be scrapped because the rich would hang around to pay for their fantasy Utopia.
It is the usual crackpots in the Dail that have taken issue.

The vote in the Dail was transparent, the UN vote was not.

I was not trying to insult anyone, unless you think one should tell people in wheelchairs to stand.

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

All they are asked to do is stand up at the start, people can vote for these people if they like people who chose not to pay all their tax, believe Dell should have been nationalised, believe the a lot of charges should be scrapped because the rich would hang around to pay for their fantasy Utopia.
It is the usual crackpots in the Dail that have taken issue.

Dont get me wrong I think coppinger smith muprhy barret et al are all idiots HOWEVER that doesnt change the fact that I also think the majority demanding their beliefs be respected and ignoring the beliefs of the minority and going out of their way to punish them for holding those beliefs is quite simply discrimination.

There's a difference between respecting someones beliefs and respecting someones right to hold those beliefs, the majority in the dail are currently demanding the former and rejecting the latter for anyone else which is just pathetic and a double standard.

Again demanding your beliefs be respected while declaring the beliefs of someone else in this case worthy of punishment is abhorrent.

ScumLord

I just don't understand what the religious get out of forcing others to pretend to follow their lead and believe what they believe. To punish people for not going through the motions of a religious act is deplorable but we see a continuation of it in this thread with people saying if you don't want to be religious you shouldn't be allowed days off for religious holidays, maybe the religious shouldn't get the holidays in the first place, instead of being thankful that they get their day they want the rest of us to be working while they're off treating their religious holiday the same way it was treated by the pagans who originally came up with it, IE: drinking and other debauchery.

There should be a campaign to help religious people realise they're not catholic because they don't believe half of catholic doctrine and have zero intention of ever following it without threat of punishment. They're lapse Christians at best.

We also need an alternative to these past era political parties that want to push their morals onto others just because they are their morals. I'd love to a see a party that refuses to use PR to hide their agenda, that does what's right not popular, that uses science and logic to find the best solution and try to get as close to that ideal through cooperation.

I will never vote FF or FG again, they're obsolete and they clearly incapable of representing me.

Chris Martin

After all this talk, can see the following happening;
Either fewer turning up (number of people needed for Dail reduced from 20 to 10) possibly preparing for such an instance, or people will just remain seated, people might make a few remarks for first few weeks but then it'll settle into nothing again.

That being said, it is acute discrimination against those who aren't of the Christian faith and may deter non-Christians from attending but the counter measure is already in place for that.
Not to raise an argument as I'm trying to be equal while maintaining my opinion, but I don't really buy the whole tradition aspect of it either. Traditions change. Blacks were slaves. Women were mothers. Men were workers. Have to adapt when it's in societies greater interest and although this 'tradition' is paltry in comparison, I can't see what good can come out of it. Let each have their own faith but there's no need to broadcast it, in my opinion.

Annasopra

What happened when Moosajee Bhamji was a TD?

suicide_circus

Very bizarre thing to have voted on let alone voted for. Can we see how individual TDs voted on this?

circadian

suicide_circus wrote: »

Very bizarre thing to have voted on let alone voted for. Can we see how individual TDs voted on this?

This was posted on Facebook earlier https://tdreview.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/tds-vote-to-make-standing-mandatory-for-prayer/

tomwaterford

RobertKK wrote: »

It has been tradition to say a prayer.
It is not unusual.

People are taking issue with standing up.
I would have no problem standing up if I was in a group of people of some other religion who wanted this, I would do it to show respect to them, not stay sitting to look down my nose at them.

It's time for that tradition to change its the 21st century

Once upon a time people would kneel before a bishop/priest etc....those days are thankfully gone

circadian

ScumLord wrote: »

We also need an alternative to these past era political parties that want to push their morals onto others just because they are their morals. I'd love to a see a party that refuses to use PR to hide their agenda, that does what's right not popular, that uses science and logic to find the best solution and try to get as close to that ideal through cooperation.

I will never vote FF or FG again, they're obsolete and they clearly incapable of representing me.

I voted Roisin Shorthall last time around. She hasn't disappointed so far. I'm really warming to the SDs but they have a lot of ground to make up. Worth looking into if you haven't already.

Rumpy Pumpy

I see very little wrong with this proposal. A minute of contemplation at the start of the day can only be good.

If it give the dissidents from the loony left a moment to consider if their ideological religion is somehow better than the Republic we now live in, then all the better.

Storm in a teacup kind of stuff.

ScumLord

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

I see very little wrong with this proposal. A minute of contemplation at the start of the day can only be good.

If it give the dissidents from the loony left a moment to consider if their ideological religion is somehow better than the Republic we now live in, then all the better.

So by good you mean punish people you don't like? Not even people, caricatures invented by media to make you think the world is going crazy. I guess that's as good a reason to pray as trying to convince people you're a good person.

VinLieger

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

I see very little wrong with this proposal. A minute of contemplation at the start of the day can only be good.

If it give the dissidents from the loony left a moment to consider if their ideological religion is somehow better than the Republic we now live in, then all the better.

Storm in a teacup kind of stuff.

But its not a minute of reflection, its 30 seconds of a christian prayer that if you refuse to stand for are punished by being ejected from the chamber for the rest of the day and fined the days pay.

After the prayer there is 30 seconds reflection

Jack the Stripper

This will buck a trend on impeding brexit.

Chris Martin

VinLieger wrote: »

But its not a minute of reflection, its 30 seconds of a christian prayer that if you refuse to stand for are punished by being ejected from the chamber for the rest of the day and fined the days pay.

If this bit is true, it's really worrying.
I understand you could look at it as 'it's just a minute standing, what's the big deal,' but imagine instead of standing and praying, you were asked to stand for the English national anthem. (Not trying to incite prejudice, I'm actually English).
If I was asked to stand for a rendition of 'God save the Queen,' I'd tell em to f off. I believe this is similar to what an atheist or worse, a different religion, would feel towards standing in Christian prayer.
Atheists hate religion being forced upon them.
Different religions may have varying levels of tolerances towards Christianity, being a Catholic country, you'd have to take certain liberties, but standing for their prayer at risk of expulsion and pay cut is a throw back to 80 years ago for all the wrong reasons.

Peregrinus

VinLieger wrote: »

But its not a minute of reflection, its 30 seconds of a christian prayer that if you refuse to stand for are punished by being ejected from the chamber for the rest of the day and fined the days pay.

Chris Martin wrote: »

If this bit is true, it's really worrying.

Just to put this in perspective:

There's no special punishment prescribed for not standing for prayers. The standing order say that members should stand for prayers, and any breach of standing orders can be dealt with by the Ceann Comhairle using a scale of measures, of which the most severe possible is suspension, with loss of pay. That particular punishment can only be imposed by the Ceann Comhairle if approved by a vote of the house.

In fact very few breaches of standing orders are punished with suspension. You get suspended if you persistently interrupt the business of the house by raising matters already rule out of order, or if you are judged to be abusing the privileges of the house by, e.g., repeating defamatory statements about a named person (knowing that you cannot be sued for doing so).

The great bulk of breaches are dealt with in a much more low-key way - the member is reminded how he should conduct himself, or the member is reprimanded, or the member is asked to apologise. Breaches of decorum - members holding private conversations in the chamber when someone else is speaking, members interrupting a speech at a time when that is not permitted, members reading during debate, etc - are nearly all dealt with at the lowest level; the offending member is simply reminded that he shouldn't be doing what he is doing.

I've said before that this focus on the standing, and the exaggerated claims about enforcements, are silly, and are just a distraction from the real issue, which is whether prayers should be said at all.

Thoie

If they really want to pray, why not make it at the end of the day, asking for blessing for the day to come, or blessing on the work that happened during the day? That way non-praying people could leave before it happens. Those who want to can hang around for a few minutes until the others leave, then they can have their prayer session together in private. They can even do handstands if they feel so inclined while no-one else is there.

Sofiztikated

Thoie wrote: »

If they really want to pray, why not make it at the end of the day, asking for blessing for the day to come, or blessing on the work that happened during the day? That way non-praying people could leave before it happens. Those who want to can hang around for a few minutes until the others leave, then they can have their prayer session together in private. They can even do handstands if they feel so inclined while no-one else is there.

Because that would involve having consideration for others.

ScumLord

Thoie wrote: »

If they really want to pray, why not make it at the end of the day,

Because that wouldn't be in front of the public, they wouldn't be able to pander to the grey vote/church and give the finger to people of other/no religion.

Zebra3

There should be no prayer of any religion and no period of reflection.

TDs are there to work.

It's also time to draft a new constitution.

There should be no prayer room set aside either. There's plenty of religious buildings in Dublin and if TDs want to pray so badly, they can do so at home or in their taxpayer paid for hotel room. If the Dail gets a prayer room, we could have demands from religious extremists all across the PS for prayer rooms in hundreds of buildings across the state.

topper75

Democracy for Dummies. I didn't think that would be a commercially viable title - but here we are.

Chapter 1: Majority Rule and What it Means for YOU

Hotblack Desiato

RobertKK wrote: »

Is it really that hard for small a minority to show respect to their fellow TDs who democratically voted for this?

They can easily put it on Dail record they are standing up, not that they believe, but that they respect their fellow TDs who wanted this.
But that would be too simple.

Nobody who seeks to impose religion on others deserves respect. That is exactly what these TDs have done and it seems that none of them can even begin to see why anyone would have a problem with this.

Morons the lot of them.

Hotblack Desiato

topper75 wrote: »

Democracy for Dummies. I didn't think that would be a commercially viable title - but here we are.

Chapter 1: Majority Rule and What it Means for YOU

No majority has the right to abuse the rights of the minority.

MonkieSocks

Democracy Manifest at it?s finest

osarusan

Today was the first day the new rules were in effect, and 6 politicians stayed seated:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0509/873776-politics/

Among those who remained seated today were members of Solidarity/People Before Profit including Richard Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith, and Gino Kenny.

Ruth Coppinger and Mick Barry unfurled banners in the chamber which said "separate church and state".

There was no reaction from Ceann Comhairle Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

pjohnson

PBP should surely be next major political party. They represented the vast majority in this thread so I hope people support them.

Zebra3

Good to see some of our elected representatives had the balls to take a seat against Catholic supremacy.

Long live a secular republic.

Parchment

osarusan wrote: »

Today was the first day the new rules were in effect, and 6 politicians stayed seated:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0509/873776-politics/

Not a fan of these politicians but i respect this move. Standing for a prayer is such nonsense.

pjohnson

Zebra3 wrote: »

Good to see some of our elected representatives had the balls to take a seat against Catholic supremacy.

Long live a secular republic.

Viva la PBP

Mr.Micro

Get rid of the Dail, lol. Let the church rule...it does anyway. We going backwards as a country.

Walter H Price

pjohnson wrote: »

Viva la PBP

A party i could never support or vote for on Economic and social grounds but fair play to them on this

Parchment

Parchment wrote: »

Not a fan of these politicians but i respect this move. Standing for a prayer is such nonsense.

Then they went and ruined it by holding up banners.

The_Valeyard

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Get rid of the Dail, lol. Let the church rule...it does anyway. We going backwards as a country.

Really? Bit of an over reaction

Abortion is probably on the way

Gay marriage passed by large majority

Good Friday drinking laws relaxed.

More educate together schools

And RE hours reduced from primary school.


And you claim we are going backwards????
Bit if an over reaction.

Mr.Micro

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Really? Bit of an over reaction

Abortion is probably on the way

Gay marriage passed by large majority

Good Friday drinking laws relaxed.

More educate together schools

And RE hours reduced from primary school.


And you claim we are going backwards????
Bit if an over reaction.

Perhaps, but allowing religion to have an influence in the State shoukd not be acceptable. If it was down to the TD s probably none of the above would be passed, it's only the people who made things happen.

suicide_circus

The problem is when certain lines get blurred.

"Respect people's right to believe in religion" quickly morphs into "Respect people's religion" and then into "Respect religion".

Most of us have at least a few loved ones with deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs and I for one see the comfort this provides them and wouldn't take it away from them for a moment. But when some one is in the pay of the state, on state time it is wholly inappropriate that they should engage in public benediction in the parliamentary chamber. What next? Astrology in the Depth of Finance? Alchemy in the leaving cert?

circadian

suicide_circus wrote: »

The problem is when certain lines get blurred.

"Respect people's right to believe in religion" quickly morphs into "Respect people's religion" and then into "Respect religion".

Most of us have at least a few loved ones with deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs and I for one see the comfort this provides them and wouldn't take it away from them for a moment. But when some one is in the pay of the state, on state time it is wholly inappropriate that they should engage in public benediction in the parliamentary chamber. What next? Astrology in the Depth of Finance? Alchemy in the leaving cert?

Satanism in the Department of Education.

expectationlost

Deleted User wrote: »

Then they went and ruined it by holding up banners.

i think that was clever as it makes it harder for the CC to ignore, if they just sat there then he could ignore it, but its more likley now that other TDs will complain to the Committee on Procedures about the signs. I noted that were careful to wait until the moment of silence to unveil the banners they didn't do so during the prayer itself.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Then they went and ruined it by holding up banners.

how did they ruin it. the banners stated what the majority actually think.

Are Am Eye

pjohnson wrote: »

PBP should surely be next major political party. They represented the vast majority in this thread so I hope people support them.

Please God.