No Day of Mourning?

Glenman

I think that the cabinet should have chosen to have a national day of mourning for the Pope's funeral on Friday. Its a bit of a disgrace.
I know many Irish would see it as a day off work rather than a day dedicated to the Pope's memory but nonetheless many of us would like to be able to watch the funeral and remember a great man.

stakey

errr... great man? thats a matter of opinion (a strange opinion too), but we wont go into that...

whilst its not at the level i would like to see, currently we enjoy a much better seperation of church and state than that which our parents and grandparents had to put up with. I'd prefer to see it kept that way, no day of mourning please, because alot of us are not mourning!

Eoghan-psych

Glenman wrote:

I think that the cabinet should have chosen to have a national day of mourning for the Pope's funeral on Friday. Its a bit of a disgrace.
I know many Irish would see it as a day off work rather than a day dedicated to the Pope's memory but nonetheless many of us would like to be able to watch the funeral and remember a great man.

Great man?

Yes, he's done such pioneering things to help stem the AIDS epidemic, and has been an outspoken supporter of civil rights for all sectors of society.

Oh, hang on - this thread is about the *pope*. Scratch my last comment.

flogen

all sarcasm and POV's aside, this is off topic. I just checked the politics forum and there's nothing similar there, so I think it's a good place to put it, after all, you are criticising the government for not having a day of mourning more than anything else.

apologies to politics mods if this isn't suited!

cdebru

so would we have a day if the cheif rabbi died or the church of ireland primate of all ireland or the main muslim cleric or is because he is a head of state so will we expect another one when prince rainier dies or any other head of state

if you want to watch it take the day of work don't impose your catholic mourning on everybody else

Sparks

Since when did we become an official R.C. Theocracy? If we're going to have official national days of mourning for religious leaders, we have to have them for all of them or else the state's discriminating against religious groups - and then you have to answer the question of the non-religious, who are the second or third largest demographic in religion polls in this country...

Sleepy

Good to see a small step towards the seperation of state and church. Hopefully it's the first of many.

Religion should have no role in government. As was already demonstrated this afternoon, with the statement regarding school closures on Friday, the Departmen of Education is under extreme powers of influence from the church.

Big Ears

well I was about to post about this being a vast majority of Cathilcs state and that we should have a day of mourning but from what ive been reading from boards the past few days there are much more anti-Catholics around .(of course there isn't too may old folk using boards compared to young people and that a higher percentage of them would want a national day of mourning).

But from what im getting it seems as if half the country are celebrating his death rather than his life .

The government seems to be seperating church from state and thats why it seems theres no day of mourning .

OT: there should have been a day of mourning for the tsunami disaster .

Guy:Incognito

Big Ears wrote:

OT: there should have been a day of mourning for the tsunami disaster .

So where do you draw the line. Is there a list of currently alive people who are deemed important enough to warrant a national day of mourning over others? What sort of disaster warrants a national day of mourning and at what number of deaths does it qualify for one.

Sleepy

The notion of national days of mourning is quite silly from my perspective tbh.

It's just an excuse for a day off and by closing businesses for the day everyone's losing money. I thought the work a day for the tsunami relief fund was a much more practical way of marking the loss of life while contributing to the disaster relief fund and personally was very proud to have the opportunity to take part in it.

mike65

The state is at least nominally secular and not religious though one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise over the decades. So there should NOT be an offical day of mourning. If the pious want to take a day of offical holliday or an unpaid days leave then fine go ahead but let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Bertie is a great man for making waffly statements. I dunno what he meant by his words last night. He should have just thought for a moment and made a firm decision.

Mike.

pwd

I take it as a very positive sign that there will be no day of mourning. The catholic church has been dreadful for this country.
Besides, days of mourning cost lots of money. We didn't have one for the omagh bombing. We had one for 911 but that was ok because it was ingratiaing ourselves with the superpower and trade partner, no day of mourning for tsunami because most of those countries are extremely poor and insignificant and would probably prefer foreign aid to be honest than meaningless gestures.

Manach

I have no idea where the origin of the phrase "seperation of church and state" comes from, but I suspect if it comes from America, then the people whose fervent wish to have this come to pass may get their own equivalent of George W. Bush elected.

abccormac

I don't believe that businesses should be forced to close, I think it would mean a lot more if they closed voluntarily.

Despite the fact that I am an atheist, and that I disagreed with his stance on homosexuality and contraception amongst many other things, I admired the man as a person of principle. He was not afraid to take a stance aginst world powers, such as the soviet union. or the US over the Iraqi war, and he spoke out many times about the evils of a world that leaves a huge proportion of its population in poverty, while a tiny percentage live in a world of affluence. And to be honest it really annoys me to see so many people here joining in a race to condemn him.

cdebru

Manach wrote:

I have no idea where the origin of the phrase "seperation of church and state" comes from, but I suspect if it comes from America, then the people whose fervent wish to have this come to pass may get their own equivalent of George W. Bush elected.

what does that mean GWB is non religous

cdebru

abccormac wrote:

I don't believe that businesses should be forced to close, I think it would mean a lot more if they closed voluntarily.

Despite the fact that I am an atheist, and that I disagreed with his stance on homosexuality and contraception amongst many other things, I admired the man as a person of principle. He was not afraid to take a stance aginst world powers, such as the soviet union. or the US over the Iraqi war, and he spoke out many times about the evils of a world that leaves a huge proportion of its population in poverty, while a tiny percentage live in a world of affluence. And to be honest it really annoys me to see so many people here joining in a race to condemn him.

there has been one post criticising the man everyone else just doesn't think the state should put one religous leader ahead of another after all this is supposed to be a secular republic

Yoda

I was rather shocked, though I suppose not surprised, to see the Irish and Vatican flags flying at half-mast on the quays in Dublin today.

I, for my part, do not mourn this pope's passing. He was an interesting man, an intelligent man, a dynamic man. He did some good with regard to the politics of Eastern Europe in previous decades. But his views on homosexuality were appalling (in particular for a man who grew up in the shadow of German concentration camps), and his views on the use of contraceptive devices were no less than monstrous in the light of the threat of HIV.

Ivan

I'm one of the most anti-religious people I know, not the concept, just the implementation of it.

But even I cant argue that he was a good man and he did ALOT of good things.
Including negotiate a peace treaty, promote better relationships between the different religions and even convert the man that tried to kill him.

Well not so much the last one, but the hundreds of other good things he did like the first two.

It seems to me like its more about rememberance of a very good man, more than anything vaguely religious, which is perfectly acceptable to me.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

abccormac

there has been one post criticising the man

Sorry, I was referring to boards in general, not just this thread, I should have been more clear.

pwd

Mother teresa didn;t get a day of mourning either. In fact her death was largely overshadowed by that of a cnut in the back of a fancy car.

gandalf

OK guys keep it civil !!!

limerick_man

I will respect him ad love him ... if i get a chance I NEED A DAY OF MOURNING to gather my thoughts, you know!!!!!

limerick_man

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Yes, he's done such pioneering things to help stem the AIDS epidemic, and has been an outspoken supporter of civil rights for all sectors of society

What???
Are you talking about HIV/AIDS!!! His offical stance on that was 'dont wear condems', He has probably caused alot of the western worlds problems!!!!!

Civil Rights ... I'd expect him to speak out to help people ... he is the pope!!

Personnally didnt like him, except that he realsied our small little nation and decided to come here to boost peace! He failed but we now have peace (for the time being)!

gandalf

Like alot of posters here I am not religious in the traditional sense (I am a lapsed Catholic) and while I disagreed with some of John Paul II's views I would recognise that he did a lot of good for the world and as such should be recognised in having a day of mourning. Whether I would actually attend a service is something I am still no sure of, but I would use the day for reflection.

One thing that made me think was a comment from someone in work today. If Ireland won the World Cup we would get a day off for that, yet this is a far more significant event with a man who has touched alot of peoples lives on this Island, been directly involved in toppling the oppressive Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, I for one think there should be a day to recognise this.

seamus

Friday: Day of mourning for Pope's death
Thursday: Record sales for offlicences around the country.

It's about time that a good half of this country realised that a sizeable chunk of the rest of us aren't practising Catholics (or even Catholic at all). I would take exception if our company gave a mandatory day off. As far as I'm concerned, the head of another State has died. By all means send our condolences, attend his funeral, but we don't need a day of mourning. If GWB or Tony Blair died of natural causes we similarly wouldn't have a day of mourning for someone who's not a citizen of our country.

leeroybrown

I'm definitely in agreement with those who say that a day of national mourning is unnecessary. If people feel the need to honour the Pope they should be able to sacrafice some time from their spare time.

abccormac

If we win the world cup work won't see me for weeks

What???
Are you talking about HIV/AIDS!!! His offical stance on that was 'dont wear condems', He has probably caused alot of the western worlds problems!!!!!

He also preached total monogamy and no sex before marriage, which would do a pretty good job in preventing the spread of AIDS. I disagree with the churches stance on contraception, but to lay the blame for the spread of AIDS at the feet of the church completely ignores the catholic attitude to sex outside of marriage.

seamus

abccormac wrote:

He also preached total monogamy and no sex before marriage, which would do a pretty good job in preventing the spread of AIDS. I disagree with the churches stance on contraception, but to lay the blame for the spread of AIDS at the feet of the church completely ignores the catholic attitude to sex outside of marriage.

They're two things very slighty at odds though. (We're going way off topic here). People will have premarital sex and see it as a minor breaking of the rules - a loss of control. But contraception is something that remains in the realms of logic. One isn't at the whim of instinct as to whether they put a condom on or not.

I don't know if I'm getting myself across properly. Certainly, Catholicism is not to blame for the spread of AIDS. But that the Church would hold the "no condoms" line when the most religiously inclined countries (i.e. 3rd world countries) are in the grip of an STD epidemic, is bringing misguidedness and misinformation to a whole new level of wrongness.

abccormac

They're two things very slighty at odds though. (We're going way off topic here). People will have premarital sex and see it as a minor breaking of the rules - a loss of control. But contraception is something that remains in the realms of logic. One isn't at the whim of instinct as to whether they put a condom on or not.

I don't know if I'm getting myself across properly. Certainly, Catholicism is not to blame for the spread of AIDS. But that the Church would hold the "no condoms" line when the most religiously inclined countries (i.e. 3rd world countries) are in the grip of an STD epidemic, is bringing misguidedness and misinformation to a whole new level of wrongness.
Today 22:34

I get what you're saying, and I agree that the church shouln't be telling people not to use condoms, but as far as the church is concerned, contraception is a sin for which you will be punished by God, as is sex outside marriage, and having a ****. They preach what they believe in and as far as they are concerned, you have to accept ALL of it. If people did, then we wouldn't have an AIDS epidemic in the third world. We would also have to carry our balls around in a wheelbarrow.

And this has got way off topic

Sparks

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Nope. The population is predominantly RC. The state most certainly is not.