Rape != statutory rape. Buy a fucking dictionary.

What are you quoting there Daniel? Usually a quote would be between two quotation marks?

Daniel-remind me what crime Michael Jackson was CONVICTED of, will you? And-can Norris not be proud of a person, but not proud of one specific act? Remember- Yitzhak was told to plead guilty, and thus denied him access to appeal. Try and do some research before you criticise too harshly-and reading the tabloids is not research.

@ Aonghus Collins 15 year old boys can’t consent to sex with 45 year old men. How would you like it if you found out your 15 year old son/cousin/brother/nephew was having a “consenual” anal sex with a 45 year old man?

If this was a Bishop defending these actions there would have been murder over it.

Would you have an issue with it if it were 15 and 17 year old boys having consensual anal sex Daniel?

And, what, Daniel, if the 15 year old swore he was 16 and had ID to prove it?

No flies on you Billy. Sure Micheal Jackon NEVER touched those boys huh? GIVE ME A BREAK.

Grooming 15 year old boys for sex is wrong. Having anal sex with a 15 year old boy is wrong.

Norris tried to get the guy off when he should have been pleading with the courts to get Ezra psychological help because it’s never okay for an adult to have sex with a minor. They CAN’T consent.

If you are an adult male and you want to have sex with a 15 year old boy you’re sick. Please try to debate that. Please go on tell me how it is okay. I beg you.

Daniel, when Graeme Rix was convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old girl, Chelsea Football Club did not condone his actions. They even gave him his job back. The judge said he had “no realistic alternative” but to send Rix to jail, and suggested that it wasn’t really fair to do so. The circumstances are identical, both were “consensual”, one just happened to be homosexual affair.

Now I know Chelsea FC don’t have anyone running for president and this case is more sensitive for that reason, but how is Norris’s defence of his former partner’s character any worse than Chelsea FC’s defence of Graeme Rix? Is it just that he sullied government stationary in the process?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/304412.stm

@ Daniel

You classify “statutory rape” which may involve consensual sex as “rape” which is sexual intercourse against the will of the victim.

You cannot seem to accept that anal sex for a fifteen year old male is acceptable in Israeli law providing his partner satisfies three requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Israel

“According to the Israeli Penal Code of 1977 the age of consent in Israel is 16 for any form of sexual relations. A special case arises when a person between ages 14–16 had sexual relations with an older partner; in this case the older partner would be exempt of criminal liability if three conditions are met: The age difference between the partners was less than three years, the younger partner gave consent and the act was done out of “regular friendly relations” and without the abuse of power.[27]”

For the record I don’t condone sex with fifteen year-olds of either sex, but your interpretation of the facts is what’s wrong here.

Lack of consent is fundemental to rape. A Child cannot give consent to be sodomised.

@Daniel Don’t you remember what you were like at fifteen?
if some hot milf offered me sex with no strings attached, I would have been able to make a pretty damn informed decision!

@Daniel-
It doesn’t matter whether I believe, or if you believe Jackson molested kids. He was found NOT GUILTY by a jury. Not because of any technicality-NOT Guilty. No follow up civil cases were ever brought, unlike OJ Simpson. Does that not tell you something? What are you saying-the law only counts if you agree with the verdict?

That a 15 year old can’t consent to buggery is a fact. They don’t realize the implications and gravity of their acts and are not considered to be able to make informed adult decisions. Thank God Norris is gone.

@ Ricky Connolly at 15 I would shagged anything that would let me. That’s the point: adults have to be responsible party and say “sorry you’re not emotionally mature enough for this”. In many cases what you stated has happened, and those women have gone to jail too.

@ Maurice Kiely @ Daniel

Your use of the terms “sodomized” “buggery” mark you both out as homophobes.

Since its now becoming clear this hate campaign was orchestrated by the main political parties to keep Norris out off the ballot can I assume you also support either Labour of Fine Gael?

@Michael

I’m sort of an apolitical animal Michael – I don’t vote much.

Could you give me an acceptable term that i could use in future for buggery or sodomy?

@ Michael I never used either of those words and in any case they aren’t homophobic. They aren’t slurs of any sort.

On the record I have no problem with homosexuality whatsoever. I don’t don’t believe we should tell consenting adults what they are allowed to do with their own bodies. However children are adults and performing sexual acts with children is wrong regardless if the victim or perpetrator is male or female. Homosexual and heterosexual people are equally outraged with David Norris’ defense of the indefensible.

A Daniel Doran

You never used those terms?

Admittedly I lumped you and Maurice together – you each used one of those terms.

Remember this?

“Lack of consent is fundemental to rape. A Child cannot give consent to be sodomised.”

That was you Daniel.

Did you “forget” about your right-wing religious homophobic language in a post on this very page?

Or did you think I’d let you away with a bland denial with the proof on the page above it?

Also Daniel,

You and your fellow travellers don’t seem to understand the term “child”.

Since this is pretty basic to human civilization this is a worry.

There are three distinct stages in human development

Child
Puberty
Adult.

Children are defined as being “pre-pubescent” , i.e. before Puberty.

I realize you may be coming to all this a bit late and poorly prepared, but let’s see if I can help you catch up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

“Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child’s body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction”

“Although there is a wide range of normal ages, girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 12 or 13. Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15–17, while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16–18″

So calling a fifteen year old male a “child” is wrong, just as to call him an adult would be wrong.

Just so that, if you’re ever prompted to allege that someone is a child rapist or a pedophile, but the victim was in their mid-teens, you’ll understand if the perpetrator takes a cases against you for defamation and wins in Court.

norris a disgrace….glad to see him gone…

While the controversy from the Magill article was an obvious smear campaign, the latest drama can’t be dismissed the same way.

It was a smear campaign, however in this case the “smear” was (somewhat) accurate.

@ Fiachra

Absolutely correct and the obvious question is “Who Benefits?”

It would seem to be the main political parties.

Judging from the known Labour and Fine Gael shills posting on this forum and elsewhere, I’d say that’s right on the money.

I wouldn’t be at all surprise to find out that word was sent out around the country to Labour and Fine Gael controlled Councils not to support Norris.

Don’t blame the campaign team (although, in fairness, the full story is yet to be told and doubtless scribes are already furiously putting pen to paper) – it would seem the main problem was that Norris wasn’t totally honest with them…. You can’t put out fires if you’re not being told where the fire is or even that there is a fire in the first place….

The “campaign team” members were a disgrace.
They folded at the first sign of a spark, never mind a fire.
They acted like they didn’t know the first thing about Norris or his history.
They seemed to have neither the will nor the competence to defend Norris’ position.

I and others posting here did a better job of batting back and exposing the main party shills and their motivation than Norris’ so-called campaign team.

To see adults scatter because some mainstream party shills pretending to be right wing religious homophobes farted was an embarrassment.

How many of them ran because they were spineless and clueless?
How many did deals with other candidates to scupper Norris?
Were they all totally devoid of foresight in this matter?
I would have expected much more of them.

the only thing good about this news, is not having to read any more of your bile on every Norris article

LOL – Agreed Conor!! She’s an awful pain in the ball sack….

I think Norris’ departure has set the bar high for the other Presidential Candidates.
I wonder will be see Good Tidings here taking an equal interest in their history?

I don’t agree.

He should have stuck it out and proved the complicity of the main political parties in this smear campaign.

Hardly, For many people David was a good candidate because his history in fighting the oppression that gay people faced in ireland as well as injustice in general. In essence his bravery. Not necessarily because he was gay himself.

How can you equate homosexuality with child rape?

no 15 year old has any business having sex in the first place regardless of sexual orientation . Ezra should have had the common sense not to have sex with a child, consensual or not. David was wrong to support a man who allegedly had sex with a 15 year old to satisfy his own needs. if it was an older man having sex with a 15 year old girl it would be equally as bad if not worse with the risk of pregnancy .

People have sex. And teenagers have sex. Deal with it. While you may think it’s not right it certainly doesn’t stop them. Many gay teenagers have no support system in place for them so they have to turn to less than tasteful areas to explore and come to terms with themselves. I’m in no way approving or romanticising this behaviour, I am just bringing it to people’s attention. It happens and it’s too common a story across the homosexual community.

Michael, you and several other commenters on this thread have repeated stated that this was rape. Ezra was convicted of the statutory rape of the boy, which means that it was consensual but that he was over the age of consent. It was not child rape.

Dara, rape is rape. A child cannot give consent to sexual intercourse so intercourse with a child is, by definition, rape. I’m assuming that your saying the child was over the age of consent is a mistake

Great comments Cork and very true, people need to snap out of the delusion the church has imposed on them for so long and realise that the world is moving on, Yes youngsters have sex (shock horror) however young straight people are somewhat catered for by schools and their peers whereas there is zero sex education for young gay people (of which I was one) and quite often the only place to turn for some guidance is to a more mature individual, which is either going to turn out to be a very bad thing or a good thing (I say this not to condone sex with minors by any means, but speaking only from my own experience growing up). Sex education which caters for everyone must be introduced in schools and by doing so certain individuals will not feel alienated or discriminated against and will not have to turn to mature individuals of the same persuasion for guidance or worse still be forced into self harm or suicide due to a complete sense of fear and alienation.

Rape and statutory rape are two very different things.

@Michael Please read this comment http://www.thejournal.ie/david-norris-calls-a-halt-to-presidential-campaign-2-191558-Aug2011/#comment-67021 Inform yourself and reconsider your statement “Rape is rape” as it is wholly untrue.

Also just out of curiosity, at 15 were you sexually active? and if so if some beautiful 40 something milf came up to you and wanted to pop your cherry would you really have said no? I’m pretty sure you would have been a hero to your friends, the only difference here is that it is two homosexuals.

Kieran,

Actually they are not, at least under Irish law, since there is no such crime as statutory rape.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

Lets have the full text then -

Statutory rape

The term statutory rape is not used in the legislation but it is the term that is commonly used for unlawful sexual contact with a person aged under 17 years. Until June 2006, charges for this offence were brought under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. In the case of CC v Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Supreme Court held that Section 1 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 Act was unconstitutional. Read more about what happens when law is found to be unconstitutional here. View the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CC v Ireland here.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision is that Section 1 of the 1935 Act is no longer a part of the Act. The rest of the Act was not affected. A new Act, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (pdf) was passed to replace the unconstitutional provisions in the 1935 Act. It also repealed and replaced Section 2 of the 1935 Act. The original 1935 Act has now been amended many times.
Defilement of a child aged under 15 years

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 makes it a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under the age of 15 years. This is what is meant by the term ‘defilement’. The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment.

A sexual act for the purposes of the law includes sexual intercourse and buggery between people who are not married to each other and any sexual act which could constitute aggravated sexual assault.

The 2006 Act provides that the accused may argue they honestly believed the child was aged 15 years or over. The court must then consider whether or not that belief was reasonable. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act.
Defilement of a child aged under 17 years

Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sex Offences) Act 2006 (pdf) as amended by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007 (pdf) makes it a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 17 years. The maximum sentence is five years, ten years if the accused is a person in authority. A person in authority means:

* A parent, step-parent, guardian, grandparent, uncle or aunt of the victim, or
* any person acting in loco parentis (in place of parent or parents) to the victim, or
* any person responsible for the education, supervision or welfare of the victim.

The maximum sentence is greater for a second or subsequent offence.

The accused may argue that he or she honestly believed that the child was aged 17 years or over. The court must then consider whether or not that belief was reasonable. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

A girl aged under 17 years who has sexual intercourse may not be convicted of an offence on that ground alone.

Well I’m glad that someone had common sense to read the full article, as you Michael obviously didn’t.

Me too.

totally

Terrible result. 1950′s attitudes return. This is worse than facing a recession.

@Michael – Have to admit buddy, I’ll miss your comments about “1950s morality”, “religious right-wing smear campaigns”, “Zionist/Labour conspiracies” and “bigoted homophobia”.

They sure were entertaining reads.

No doubt you’ve a bright future ahead of you in Irish politics, Oisin.

“Homophobia” and “Zionist” are words I seldom use.
I used the words “homophobe” and “Israeli”.
I think you’re confused again Oisin.

@Michael – I’m afraid I wouldn’t get too far in politics, I actually try to keep the promises I make, and, I in spite of my general misanthropic outlook, I’m firecely proud of being Irish and I’d actually want to make Ireland the best at everything I could. Either of those qualities alone would ensure I wouldn’t last two seconds in the Dáil, if anyone would be insane enough to even give me a single vote that is.

Besides I have an overabundance of skeletons in my closet, and that’s where I prefere to keep them. ;)

But just as a parting gift, especially for you, I think you might be interested in my comments here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/norris-quits-presidential-race-his-statement-in-full-191639-Aug2011/

:)

Excellent result! Good on you John o Connell or whatever your name is. Objectively Dara, people making up their own minds on what happened doesn’t affect what actually happened – that doesn’t change, however you try to spin it to sit with your own convictions. Norris’s buddy had sex with a minor. End of story. He was found guilty of that.
Proper order.

Now let’s get on with finding someone who isn’t morally dissolute for the Aras. I think Michael D ain’t bad.

“Norris’s buddy had sex with a minor. End of story. He was found guilty of that.”

We all know this Maurice – this isn’t even a straw man argument .
You’re just posting because you can’t stop talking nonsense.

@Maurice, Michael D?
Do you seriously want FG/Labour to stay in government? Are you crazy?

Norris can hardly be considered left wing. I don’t think he even has any economic views beyond banal populist brainfarts.

It’s a ceremonial office Ricky. Your premise is the equivalent of, asking the Pope his opinion on the CDS market and it’s part in the debt crisis. The office is what it is, lets not pretend that it’s something it’s not.

Here here

Good man – a great idea. We should organise a campaign to do so. Note; My understanding is one must physically write the name of the preferred candidate ie not use a rubber stamp.

Fantastic John…I’m doing that too :))

You do realise that you’ll be spoiling your vote and it will just be binned.

Me too…great idea! I hope everyone who would have voted for him does it.

thats the best idea yet,I will vote afterall….lol

@Susan – I take it you’re a naturalised citizen then, since you have a vote to spoil?

You do realise a spoilt vote is just a waste of paper, right? I mean why even bother showing up to vote at all?

Bugger, two Susans in a row, what are the odds?

Previous comment was to Susan Shaffer Singleton.

Bugger two Susans in a row?

You’re certainly making up for a well-spent youth.

@Michael – LOL. Genius. :D

However, I would like to point out the small issue of the punctuation in my original comment, which you appear to have missed.

Apart from that, classic. :D

Michael…of course I realise I will be spoiling my vote but when there is no one else to vote for in this undemocratic election then Im quite happy to spoil my vote in protest…and will be doing so :)

Just my two cents worth – spoiling your vote is actually better than not turning up. Not turning up is seen as apathy whereas spoiling your vote can be counted and measured.

@Oisin O Dalaigh- yes I am a naturalized citizen, and yes I will spoil my ballot if thats what happens when you write in the candidate of your choice. Looks like I will have plenty of company too.

I think a show of spoiled votes would be an appropriate response for the way the mainstream parties smeared Norris into oblivion.

The country obviously isn’t very mature at all when it favors someone like Norris to be president. It’s mostly young kids I suppose who are banging each other left right and centre according to a report in the news today.

@Maurice, what point exactly are you making?

Than there probably is no one capable of being President – anywhere. Every human being has at one point made a bad decision. It’s called being human.

(sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Couldn’t agree more.

Its nearly as bad as seeing Norris labelled as supporter of “pedophiles”, as if a fifteen year old was somehow likely to be prepubescent.

Well said. There is much about that case that seems dubious, and on top of that there’s a HELL of a difference between a 15-year-old boy presenting himself as an adult within the gay community and getting involved with an older man within that space, and a 15-year-old receiving unwanted attention from an older man within an allegedly safe space and in which the older man was presenting himself as a responsible authority figure.

Just to add to your comment , I believe that powerful people in powerful places did not want Norris on the ballot paper and I think this was reflected in the selective information in the media. I discovered this comment on a blog line , incidently I believe it is a comment on the blog that revealed the Norris story. I am not sure about the veracity of the comment, but the fact that it never was reported or investigated by the media is a bit eerie. Perhaps this would have made no difference to peoples view, but the media should report all sides??http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/my-take-on-the-norris-campaign/, comment no 7 is the piece !!

Puberty doesn’t equate to responsible adult with full knowledge of the consequences of their acts, Michael.

Glad to see you dropped your argument format. It’s so easy to read between those straight lines. Hoping you couldn’t be attacked huh? You’d make a bad lawyer.

@ Maurice.

Straw man argument.

People bandying about the terms “child abuser” and “pedophile” should know that this infers sex with pre-pubescents, not teen agers, a significant number of whom are parents themselves by the age of fifteen in Ireland.

I agree Michael, but does that make it OK? Isn’t is rather a cause for concern that so many young people, hardly out of their childhood, should become parents?

Worse than a straw man argument is trying to drag a thread off topic with a non-sequitur, but since you asked -

Fifteen year olds are capable of having an intense, loving relationship and having sex.

Not all are mature enough at that age to cope well with this.
Few Irish teens seem have the sense to take precautions to prevent pregnancy.
Fewer still seem to have the maturity, sense of responsibility and commitment to rear a child together.
Ergo we have a plethora of single mothers, many of whom rely on their mothers to help or entirely rear the baby.

Taking on a child to early or entering into an intense physical relationship too young can be incredibly disruptive to the teenager and their family.
Schoolwork suffers and opportunities for a good junior and leaving cert reduce while third level studies become very difficult.
This reduces the quality of the persons life or the opportunities for betterment they might otherwise enjoy and in extreme cases they become unemployable and totally dependent on the state.

Therefore it probably reasonable and beneficial for society and the persons involved for the legislature to seek to restrict sexual activity to teenagers above a certain age and to prevent exploitation of young people.

However all is not black and white.

I think criminalizing teenagers for “doing what comes naturally” by imposing a prison sentence is wrong in general, exposing them to exploitation, drug addiction and sexually transmitted disease while in prison, although I accept some fifteen and sixteen year olds are not “innocent” and can be deeply manipulative.

I hold the contrary view of adults above a certain age, say 20-25 for the sake of argument, who should be deterred from engaging in sexual activity with young teens – in such cases a custodial sentence may be appropriate, even though I accept that the older party may not be intentionally manipulating the younger.

In both situations the balance of probabilities must be invoked to arrive at a fair decision.
My concern at the moment is the stigma of the term “statutory rape” between consenting teens or even between a consenting teen and an older person.
“Defilement” is even more abhorrent to me and reflects a prurient past I had hoped we’d left behind.
“Carnal Knowledge of a minor” may be more appropriate.

In terms of possible improvement to Irish law, the exceptional cases terms of the Israeli legal system seem to offer a reasonable balance for younger teens where their older partner complies with the three requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Israel

Israel

According to the Israeli Penal Code of 1977 the age of consent in Israel is 16 for any form of sexual relations. A special case arises when a person between ages 14–16 had sexual relations with an older partner; in this case the older partner would be exempt of criminal liability if three conditions are met: The age difference between the partners was less than three years, the younger partner gave consent and the act was done out of “regular friendly relations” and without the abuse of power.[27]

And for the record -

I don’t condone or agree with a 45-year-old man having sex with a fifteen year old teenager.
I have no problem with anyone seeking clemency for someone convicted for a crime.
Justice without mercy is mere tyranny using the written word to crush people.

Bye Mike, we’re you going?

See, that would have been much more sarcastic if I hadn’t messed it up…

where are you going.

Bugger.

i’ve already left, you get a nice view of how messed up ireland really is from over here, good luck!

Or the facility to choose “none of the above”.

I agree completely, especially if it’ll help improve your grammar and syntax.

i didnt realise this was an english class

I never realised it was a platform for opinions advocating eugenics, but I guess you learn something new every day.

i didn’t realise you couldn’t ahve an opinion on the internet. see, we’re both learning :)

Yes we are, the internet, especially The Journal, is truly a wonderful educational resource, isn’t it. :)

It would be nice if we could breed-out the tendency amongst Catholic nutters and David Norris supporters to excuse child rape.

Catholic nutters tend to be against sex of any sort – chastity is their big thing.

And none of David Norris supporters advocated child rape.

Pity we couldn’t weed out the Fine Gael and Labout shills who have worked closely together to block someone even getting on a ballot for fear the democratic vote mightn’t suit “Dear Inda” or “Lovely Eamonn”.

Still, its better to see the dirty side of Labour and Fine Gael now and be better prepared for the futuer revelations from the Moriarty and Mahon Tribunals.

Unless they block those too – shock, horror!

I’m Catholic and I love sex Michael. And how about all those huge families we had in Ireland before contraception came in. How do you think they got here? The Stork?

Go back to your cave.

Keep the faith Fergal.

Don’t think Fergal’s faith is in any doubt, Maurice. That said, you could always throw him a couple of Our Father’s, just to be sure, like.

The Our Father is a nice prayer. I’d recommend the Salve Regina as well.
Are you anti-Catholic Gavin? I sensed you were bigoted and anti-Catholic.

Anyways, Guten Abend, ich muss zum Abendessen:)

Anti-catholic? I wouldn’t like to narrow things down that much, Maurice. Bigoted? No. Bigoted infers intolerance, and you can do or think whatever you bloody well want to as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. However, I also reserve the right to point out and poke fun at rank hypocrisy and irrationality whenever it rears it’s head, especially when it comes in the form of fundamentalist religion, as it does here with F. O’Neill here.

Ich hoffe, Sie genießen Sie Ihr Abendessen. Aber, wenn Sie kauen Wurst, bitte denken Sie eine Herr Norris.

I certainly didn’t think of Herr Norris when I was chewing my Frankfurter:)

How have I been bigoted or hypocritical? I’ve stated I like homosexuals in another post. I don’t approve of or like the act of sodomy. I think it’s dirty:)

Never said you were either. I mentioned rank hypocrisy and irrationality as they pertained to the original poster, who has form in both as can be seen on his postings on this site. Rank hypocrisy is part and parcel of a fundamentalist viewpoint of any religion, whereas any superstitious or religious belief has little or no credible foundation when rational deductive processes and reason are applied. But hey! It’s a free (and increasingly secular) country.

Religion and spiritual beliefs work for many people – they make sense of an otherwise puzzling universe. Rational deductive reasoning on the other hand doesn’t account for many of the experiences people have of life – scientism is hugely deficient in many of these areas. Scientism may be the dominant discourse du jour in Ireland, but it fails to satisfy many intelligent, erudite, cultured people. By the way, I studied a scientific discipline at college, so I’m not at all against the findings of science – which, if you’re au fait with the literature, now claim to prove that the spiritual realm exists. But I believe in the search for Truth with a capital T. That’s scientific, regardless of whose nose is put out of kilter, be that the conservatives in the Catholic Church or elsewhere.

So Muarice, you’re saying “I’m gung ho searching for Truth but until I find It I’ll satisfy myself with this Judaeo-Christian mumbo jumbo” – is that fair?

Yes. It’s an acknowledgement that science can’t and probably never will explain the world and everything in it to the satisfaction of the intellect. It’s a sense that there’s something more than just atoms whirling around each other, following immutable complex laws devoid of any creative intelligence. I can’t buy it personally.

The Judao Christian religion, particularly Catholicism, offer me the best explanation yet as to the reason for and nature of our existence. The problem of evil for example is one on which the teachings of the Catholic Church are most excellent. I’d recommend St. Paul to the Romans Gavin.

Really, Maurice? Have you studied the Koran? The Torah? How long did you spend immersed in Zen Buddhism before you concluded that a more Eurasian religion made more sense to you? Did you even attempt to get to grips with Hinduism at all? It’s incredibly fortunate that the “best explanation yet as to the reason for and nature of our existence” was the one that you’d been spoonfed since you were a nipper, and that you needn’t have bothered with all the theological globetrotting – it was right under your nose all the time!
Transubstantiation – really? Come on.

No I haven’t studied the Koran, nor the Torah in any detail. I’m
familiar with Zen Buddhism and more familiar with Hinduism, and I find
nothing in them to contradict my Catholic beliefs, except perhaps the
lack of a Deity in Buddhism and the polytheism of Hinduism. But I
don’t profess to be an expert on world religions and I think what I
have is superior to these Religions insofar as I’ve studied them.

You’ve obviously studied all these so perhaps you can explain to me
where they differ from my own Catholic beliefs in love, charity and
compassion, moral rectitude, subsidiarity… I’m always willing to
learn more.
And don’t come with some New Agey revelations that combine the lot and
throw in some pop psychology to boot. I meet a lot of Irish
“Buddhists” who haven’t the foggiest noton about Buddhism but are
just seeking anywhere but in “what is in front of their noses”.
Maybe a new pair of glasses?

Transubstantiation is an article of faith – it can’t be proved in a
laboratory. It’s underpinned by the Aristotelian philosophy of
accidents and substance and species. My knowledge, as I say, is
limited, but I’m sure you will find interesting reading somewhere if
you care to search.

So, Maurice, you haven’t studied the Koran, the Torah and are only familiar with Buddhism but yet you’re confident that the answers to all your queries upon life, the universe and everything can be found within the doctrine that had a stranglehold on the region you were born in. The same could be said for any of the millions of Hindus born in Bangalore. Or the Muslims born in Baghdad. The Jew born in Jerusalem. See a pattern?

What I do know for damn sure is that neither Catholicism nor ANY doctrine, religion or belief code has any patent or monopoly on love, charity, compassion, moral rectitude etc. These are natural, human attributes and emotions. Humans are social beings, we need these in order to organise our societies, from cities with skyscrapers to smatterings of mudhuts in a rainforest. To imply that these exist only due to one particular religion (or any) is arrogant even if you don’t mean it to be so.

And finally, a wafer is a wafer is a wafer. Transubstantiation is an article of faith alright, but it’s underpinned with a massive willingness to be fooled. “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” Magritte told us. Was Jesus the first Surrealist?

Gavin, I said I was familiar with Hinduism.

Comapassion, love, honesty and moral rectitude would hardly exist in the human species were it not for the influence of the Religious in the broadest sense. It’s very easy to be an atheist in a society that has been formed by religious sensibilities throughout the centuries – you can fool yourself into thinking people are naturally good and left to their own devices, freed from the shackles of any religious imposition, would just exist in harmony and love. I don’t believe that to be the case.

Naturally I was formed by the society I was brought up in – that’s nothing to be ashamed of, and the culture, Religion, societal mores are things that influenced me greatly. Those living in mud huts in remote parts of the world have their own systems of Religious beliefs, their spiritual leaders, their shamans etc. to counteract the tendency in them to seek only their own advantage. You saw what happened in this society during the Celtic tiger years when people began to ditch the Religious – greed, lust, wrath, envy etc.

And finally, a painting of a pipe and surrealist art are irrelevant. A symbolist might say that the painting is closer to “pipe” than an actual pipe, but what’s that got to do with transubstantiation? except to suggest that things aren’t what they appear to be. You just wanted to showcase your knowledge of French and art?

Poppycock. Our morals of today are the result of our evolution as a species, not because of any decree from the sky. I mentioned earlier that we are a social animal, our survival in the greater world being dependent on our ability to cooperate in a societal sense. No society will survive long if its members are raping and killing eachother willy-nilly. To say that it is solely down to the belief in (and fear of in Christianity’s case) a god that we as a species can live together in harmony and love is to misrepresent what brings us together in the first place. It may be easy to be an atheist in today’s society because our morality has evolved to the point where religion has largely become irrelevant. It certainly looks that way to me.

The penny drops with you – you were formed by the society you were brought up in, Hallelujah! Ergo, you believe in the Judaeo-Christian god. Someone born in Bangalore believes in Ganesha, Shiva etc., Japan you’d most likely be Buddhist. Who’s right? Who’s god is the TRUE god? I might have had more time for you if you’d actually spent time searching your soul and trawling the earth searching for the creed that makes most sense to you. But being a catholic merely because it’s what you’ve been indoctrinated in since you could understand words is a depressing notion. And those ‘sins’ you mention were around before the Celtic Tiger, and committed countless times under the banner of Christianity, you’ll concede. Especially the ‘wrath’ one (the Celtic Tiger was horrendously infamous for many negatives, not sure wrath was one of them though).

Finally on the communion thing, You spend two lines blethering before getting to my point. I’m assuming by your ad hominem smokescreen at the end you’ve thrown in the towel. In fairness, the “wafer*HEY-PRESTO*flesh” chicanery is difficult to defend.

Hogwash, Gavin. You’re being unfair, inaccurate, passionate and making assumptions. As for blether and throwing in the towel, I don’t feel I’m guilty of either. But you are. If you have no time for me then I’m disappointed as I was quite enjoying our debate.

Your statement on evolution shows a lack of intellectual rigor. (But I still have time for you).

1. “The penny drops with you – you were formed by the society you were brought up in, Hallelujah! Ergo, you believe in the Judaeo-Christian god. Someone born in Bangalore believes in Ganesha, Shiva etc., Japan you’d most likely be Buddhist. Who’s right? Who’s god is the TRUE god? I might have had more time for you if you’d actually spent time searching your soul and trawling the earth searching for the creed that makes most sense to you.”

I was raised a Catholic but spent many years abroad as an atheist, then a neo-pagan. I think I’ve studied Religions as much as you have at least, and I really don’t have time to spend trawling the earth in search of the one true God (Are you being facetious?). Nor do I need to. God is right here. If you had studied Zen Buddhism as you gave me to believe, you would be aware that God is found right under our noses, as it were, not in India or China or California etc.

2. “But being a catholic merely because it’s what you’ve been indoctrinated in since you could understand words is a depressing notion.”

I indoctrinated myself. I studied Catholicism (as well as Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism) and decided it was indeed the real deal. It was difficult in this society I admit, but hey! it’s hard to be right, and so easy to follow the fashion as you do. Herd mentality.

3. “And those ‘sins’ you mention were around before the Celtic Tiger, and committed countless times under the banner of Christianity, you’ll concede. Especially the ‘wrath’ one (the Celtic Tiger was horrendously infamous for many negatives, not sure wrath was one of them though).”

Those who committed those sins were not good Christians, were they? Or at least they were lapsing and needed to pull up their socks and repent. And believe you me, there was plenty of wrath around in the CT years.
If you’re saying wrath is a positive quality, then I don’t agree. It is the opposite of compassion and love and is in my mind a very negative quality.

4. ” Finally on the communion thing, You spend two lines blethering before getting to my point. I’m assuming by your ad hominem smokescreen at the end you’ve thrown in the towel. In fairness, the “wafer*HEY-PRESTO*flesh” chicanery is difficult to defend.”

What WAS your point? The painting of a pipe obviously isn’t a pipe. I agree with Rene. But I’m lost on this one. Could you spell it out for my poor self, Sor?

Yes, transubstantiation is difficult to defend to one who has no knowledge of Aristotelian philosophy or Daoism. If you do, you’ll concede that there is a philosophical (and Daoist theological) underpinning to the belief. Come back to me when you’ve studied mystical Daoism and Aristotle on the substances. Throwing statements around about chicanery is simply wrong-headed and passionate.

5. “Poppycock. Our morals of today are the result of our evolution as a species, not because of any decree from the sky. I mentioned earlier that we are a social animal, our survival in the greater world being dependent on our ability to cooperate in a societal sense. No society will survive long if its members are raping and killing eachother willy-nilly. To say that it is solely down to the belief in (and fear of in Christianity’s case) a god that we as a species can live together in harmony and love is to misrepresent what brings us together in the first place. It may be easy to be an atheist in today’s society because our morality has evolved to the point where religion has largely become irrelevant. It certainly looks that way to me.”

You’re aware that evolution (the random selection variant) is a theory, and according to many respected and even atheist scientists, a very bad theory in the scientific sense for it’s lack of rigorous methodology.

However, I believe that we evolved, not by random selection, but by intelligent design.

That leaves me with two questions:
a. Why? Why did we evolve? when all substances are naturally disposed to entropy. Involution is the way of nature.
b. Where did the primordial ooze come from? The galaxies?

Have you given this much thought, Gavin? You’re content to believe there was a loud bang, and after a few zillion years, here you are, writing gibberish in The Journal.

There are many qualities we have as humans that are unnecessary for society. We sing, we dance, we recite poetry, we paint pictures (even bad ones like wonky transvestite thingies), we smoke weed and chew peyote to experience altered states of consciousness, we engage in introspection and soul searching, we love, we pine for love when all we really need is to get the leg over anywhere to reproduce, we long for freedom and fight for liberty. Then when we have it we make laws to ensure the weak in society (ah let them die out! says the evolutionist) are protected. We have culture. We don’t need any of the above to live together in society. (Indeed the capacity to be alone is considered a sign of maturity).

Why do we make art today? We don’t live in caves and paint pictures to show our fellow cave dwellers what a mammoth looks like anymore, if that was the chief reason. Why do so many today search for meaning in their lives? (who needs meaning!)
Why is there so much violence and evil in the world when we should be living together in perfect harmony in YOUR society of the species? The jails are overcrowded, the crimes are becoming more horrendous every day. Is this evolution? More like a return of the dark ages.

And finally, this isn’t paradise and never will be. We’re creatures in a threatening biosphere where we suffer pain and death, and, if a little enlightened, we fight our own natures so that we do the right thing.

There is no need to fear Christ – those benighted times are gone. Fear is not a motivation for love and compassion and service. It’s like having a good boss at work – I just want to please her because it feels right.

Gavin, I’ll leave you with a quotation from Corinthians 1 that I like. God bless, or for you, maybe I’ll hug a tree and wish upon a star.

I am free to do what I will: yes, but not everything can be done without harm.
I am free to do what I will, but I must not abdicate my own liberty.

I congratulate you on your self-indoctrination. However since when did it become herd mentality to think for oneself? That simply does not follow. Especially when someone has grown up in hardline catholic ireland.

The ‘sinners’ may not have been good christians but they were ‘sinning’ in the name of god and with the church’s blessing. Been happening for millenia. Religion being used as a shroud – a very dangerous and antagonistic thing.

Transubstantiation requires a total periodical suspension of the laws of physics in order to occur. It doesn’t stand to reason. The priest, the minister and the receiver are complicit in the dupe. A willingness to be fooled in order to ‘strengthen’ faith. I have no doubt that belief and faith can bring great personal rewards. But I can’t have faith in something that purports to turn physics on its head and yet cannot be recreated in a lab. And when cherry-picking philosophy is required to explain the mystery I’m even less convinced. I’m not as well versed in Aristotle or Tao as yourself but what I do know is that 800 years or so ago this philosophy was the only game in town and was being used as a scientific basis to explain many as yet unexplained natural and physical facts, not just the sacred. Now, I think you and I can agree that science has moved on in 800 years. Stop fooling yourself. If it looks like a wafer, feels like a wafer and tastes like a wafer then the likelihood is that it’s a wafer.

And here we are: intelligent design and evolution. The basic theory of evolution is accepted as fact by nearly all scientists. This ‘just a theory’ schtick holds no water – You understand what constitutes and defines a scientific theory don’t you? I’m pretty sure you do, Maurice, you appear clever enough. Re: Intelligent design – who designed the designer? He/she had to have been created by some other being, if your principle is to be subject to its own rules. It’s simply not good enough to fill in the gaps with GOD when it suits and go no further. The who ID thing is just another example of religion attempting to upgrade itself according to current scientific and intelligence levels.

To answer your questions:
a) I don’t know why we evolved, I cannot answer that. You appear to be able to though. Answer me this: What is more likely: that a recently evolved species knows little about his universe and is searching for answers or that a recently engineered species has been informed by its creator of what it’s not allowed to do if it wants to live with him forever in another plane of reality?
b) Again, I can’t answer in any certainty but yes, aggregated during the formation of the milky way and the solar system. Where else would it come from, Maurice?

Don’t insult me, Maurice. Of course I’ve thought about it. You’re spouting your stuff on The Journal too, and you think god threw the whole shebang (The Big Shebang Theory??) together in 7 days. Ossified dogma.

You’re last bit has some nice fluffy stuff in it, I hope you’re being facetious yourself when you imply that people who believe in evolution condone extermination of the weak. Pretty mendacious assertion, Maurice. Now that I think about it, I’m not so sure you’re being truthful re: you’re neo-pagan flirtations and catholic self indoctrination – someone who’d done all that soul-searching wouldn’t tend to be as cynical towards “new agey” stuff and tree-hugging shenanigans. Hmmmm. Not sure about you. You do exhibit certain symptoms of bornagainitis, though, tunnel vision etc. You can get cream for that over the counter, I think.

A final question: why do you think we have a inalienable right to find meaning in life? We’re bald apes. We’ve come a long way, but we still shit, piss and pop our clogs. Created in his own image? Please.

Life’s short. Take your shoes off and go for a walk in the grass, feel the sun on your back. Smile. Then get on with it.

If none of us filled voids, none of us would be here, fool.

If this were an older man and younger girl, there probably would have never even been a case in which to ask for leniency- and horrible reverse allegations about how she probably asked for it would probably flourish. See Roman Polanski and the worldwide support for him.

He didn’t ask for anything “on behalf of the people of Ireland.

Read the letters – the one to the Israeli Court was on plain paper.

One of the more rankly moronic things I’ve read today.

she should be ashamed of herself

http://www.thejournal.ie/david-norris-calls-a-halt-to-presidential-campaign-2-191558-Aug2011/#comment-67021 Please read this and review your statement that he tried to get a rapist off the hook. It is a completely misleading statement

Sorry about that Dara! I forgot to put the word statutory in front of the word rapist just then.

Another mainstream party shill trying to do down an independent.

Knowing that the mainstream parties were behind all the smears, any candidate from their ranks must be now be attainted in the eyes of the electorate.

ur right he is waffleing costly waster…thank god he did not get his hands on any more tax payers money……than he allready has…..good riddance

Umm, you do know that even if Norris won’t be president, there will be another, correct?
I’d rather pick Norris over any other candidate, if he would’ve made it.

Some people still have high standards James.

High standards of homophobia and bigotry, Maurice?

No Gavin. High standards in their thoughts and actions. There are bigots on both sides of this debate. Throwing accusations of homophobia around the place doesn’t phase me. Can you argue without that? Anyway I’m not afraid of homosexuals, if that’s what you mean. I think that buggery is morally wrong, but I like homosexuals mostly. They tend to be artistic, sensitive, witty etc. But I don’t like their actions when they’re active.

Larf!

Your comment beautifully complements your avatar photo.

Homophobes, particularly the “enlightened” ones, tend to be the most condescending of men.

But the pseuds of he world, who are really just party hacks trying to undermine democracy by preventing the electorate having a free and fair election, they are the most detestable, pitiable creatures on the face of the earth.

You sound almost religious Michael! I’m moved.

Could Dustin the Turkey be persuaded to run again?

PS @Maurice I note you’ve changed your own avatar from the wonky hand-drawn transvestite thingy you had earlier. Pray, why?!?

Well, I simply felt like a change. I’m all for change, but we must exercise discernment when seeking to rid ourselves of the devils of the past i.e. those priests who abused children, those nuns who abused young girls etc.
Your own avatar could do with a shave. Why use an orang utan Gavin?

a) I doubt even you know what you’re on about.
b) Anyone with even a passing interest in the natural world would know that it’s quite obviously not an Orang-Utan. It’s a Sulawesi Crested Macaque.

dont shoot the messanger

nothing honorable……he had no choice .lost his backers…sin .e

@Ando If you are reading the story on a smartphone you may not be able to see all of the comments from the top.

smart phones not that smart :)

Go Séamus. You used of my most favourite words, Pr*ck! I have another, B*ll*x. Especially for Bertie. He’s giving talks now on the Celtic Tiger. Die, Roaring, Doran’s ASS. Son of a B*tch.

Think of all the priests, and let us not forget the Laundries, who have ‘done’ things to children.

Not a haperd of a mention about them. But sure they were cleansed, so let them be. How many will watch the Brendan Smyth film, Betrayal of Trust, tomorrow night on RTE and give it socks too! Short memories, Folks.

(boggle)

Were you under a rock all weekend?

No Michael I was not under a rock… It is a rhetorical question ! …