Why are you hiding your I.D., all the rightwing fg supporters seem to hide like cowards?

@Stephen- I look at your profile pic and think to myself: how could I beat that picture of perfection? I’ve opted instead to hide my hideous head. You know we don’t all have a mug shot from the last time we were arrested handy.

Why does this government still keep grovelling to the Church?

I see Dillon is back Stephen Using Vinnìes ID

Great to see such I diverse collection of qualified experts from doctors to psychiatrists and recognised campaigners from both sides who believe they a valid argument to be heard and hopefully will quote facts and statistics to back up their arguments.

On the other side can I ask, why are religious groups invited. So they can spout bigotry and talk about why the faith driven notion of god says its wrong ?? Why not invite a Jedi master and batman if we are inviting religious beliefs into the debate after all we have about as much proof they exist and that their views are valid.

I said it before and will keep saying it religion should play no part in deciding the laws of this country anymore !!!

@ Niall Boylan, I endorse your view. We have an 85 per cent male, 80 per cent Roman Catholic Dail listening to the Iona Institute, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, and various Roman Catholic zealots dictate legislative policy. We have Article 40.3.3 in our Constitution, which enshrines Roman Catholic dogma and we have a Taoiseach who was the single most active TD in 1982 and in 1983 in advocating the pro-life position.

I don’t think that this is an issue for experts and I don’t believe that representatives of religious groups are expert in any real sense.

It is only a belief on my part but I think that due to the stridency and militancy of the pro-life lobbies, the Government and the Dail is out of step with the real experts, the pregnant women and their families who did not vote back in 1983 because they were not yet of voting age.

The real experts are the people of Ireland and they only way to canvass their views is to hold a Referendum proposing the repeal of the pro-life Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. If that is permitted, then Ireland is a theocracy.

Correction. If that is not permitted, a referendum, Ireland remains a theocracy.

Also The pro-life ‘movement’ have a massive financial backing . Where is this money coming from ?

Enda has to be seen to be doing something ,even tho we all know he is obliged to bring in the legislation for the X case. This is all a terrible unnecessary game they are all playing to satisfy the money men , the power brokers behind the pro-life , youth defense movement . Why ? Does any one know why this is the case ? I have my own opinions as to why this is happening but I just wonder would any one else know ?

I think they are just trying to get views from all the influential corners – and unfortunately the church does influence peoples’ thinking… They are trying to be seen to be asking for opinions from all sides. At least they are asking for multiple faiths in one session, not just the Catholic one. To be air most of the pro-choicers on here blame the Catholic Church, sl asking all churches for their opinn would be important in the interests of balance. Personally I wish they’d keep religion out of it, but that’s just my 2 cent.

That seems fair enough . I agree too that religion should be kept out of it .

I suspect that the political handlers are advising this consultation process in an attempt, likely unsuccessful, to mollify the pro-life lobby and to keep the TDs such as the FG 17 very strong pro-lifers on side. Afterwards, when the very narrow parameters of the X case are addressed, the Taoiseach and senior FG figures will say that they listened fully, have a full platform to the pro-life side and that legally their hands were tied.

I would be very interested in hearing Eileen Gabbett’s insight into the reasons.

In fairness to the other religions, it is only Roman Catholicism which seeks to abrogate the right to dictate legislative policy in Ireland.

As a recovering Roman Catholic, and in light of the Murphy, Ryan and other reports, I find it very disturbing that a sectarian Vatican controlled organisation which has done so much harm in Ireland should be permitted any intervention outside of the pulpit, newspapers and private briefing of certain TDs by the RCA Hierarchy.

Certainly, the RC Hierarchy sees this as an issue and process to rehabilitate itself with and one should not under estimate the capacity of the Roman Catholic Church to promote its own institutional advantage.

Peter Richardson
I would like to share my ideas but not on this thread …
However it will be interesting to hear the discussions this week.
Maybe it will all become clearer.

There’s no harm listening to as wide a spectrum of opinion as necessary, be it the Church or Clare Daly. It’s the power and validity of the points that they make, rather than the profile of those who propose them that should determine the weight attached to their argument. Arbitrarily excluding one voice because you don’t like what they say or what the represent is censorship, surely.

@ Vincent Dolan, I disagree. The Roman Catholic Church is not and should not be censored. It should be censured for many reasons but not censored.

The essential objection to the participation of the Roman Catholic Church’s participation is that because the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian Church which seeks to control the freedom of legislators to legislate and seeks to dictate what the Dail may enact, it is excessively intrusive, influential and negative in its approach.

By all means let RC Church pontificate from the pulpit, issue dictats, flood the media with its opinions and dogma, let it intrude in schools, PTAs, lecture in private to groups of TDs and Senators but it should not be recognised as having a valid role in the legislative process.

@peter- you are aware of the influence and power of the Church of England in the UK, yes? Particularly re: the gay marriage debate. Or the Presbyterian Church in Ulster? Or Evangelists in the US? Respectfully, I think you are giving the Catholic Church too much respect. They should be given the same opportunity to contribute as any other lobby group, no more, no less. As I said, it’s the validity of the argument forwarded that matters, not the credentials of the proponent. In purely democratic terms, the Church represents a huge constituency in Ireland- like it or not.

@ Vincent Dolan, I admire that you defend the opportunity of all to contribute their opinions and your point that the validity of the arguments, not the credentials of the persons making the arguments, is an excellent one.

As a former Roman Catholic, I have to admit a severe disenchantment with the institution of the Roman Catholic Church but that is not the cause of my narrow scoped opposition to the appearance of members of the Romam Catholic hierarchy before the Dail Committee.

I argue against the formal appearance of the hierarchy before the Dail Committee next week for these reasons:-

1. We have to be very careful of the tyranny of the majority. It is a fact that the predominant religion and religious influence on public issues and public affairs in Ireland is the Roman Catholic Church. With so many RC experts lecturing to RCA TDs, there is a danger of lack of balance and excessive homogeneity of opinion.

2. Uniquely, the Roman Catholic Church imposes an obligation on Roman Catholic legislators to vote in support of Roman Catholic doctrine when such issues arise. It is a value judgement I hold but I believe that legislators should makes laws with our regard to and independently of Roman Catholic doctrine.

3. The level of authority and status that the Roman Catholic hierarchy possesses, now that the Murphy and Ryan Reports have receded from immediate emotional impact means that the RC position will be disproportionately influential.

4. I oppose the formal participation of representatives of all religions in what is a consultative process prior to legislation. I believe that religion and law should be maintained separate and independent of each other. That said none of the other religions purport to dictate the content of legislation.

5. The utterances so far of the Roman Catholic Church have been excessively emotive and sectarian. The references to a culture of death are grossly distorted and misleading. I don’t mind such drivel being aired in any forum except the Dail.

6. The track record of the Roman Catholic Church on legislation on public policy has been harmful on issues such as contraception, divorce, gay marriage and the pro-life Eight Amendment. We have a terrible legacy with Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the current crisis. It has nothing useful to contribute.

7. A celibate, all male clergy, driven by dogma and directed by the Vatican cannot possibly understand the full human import of this issue for women. The RC Hierarchy is too remote experience wise and too driven by a priori assumptions to do anything other than pontificate, this is a matter of law and social policy, not a master of religious dogma.

8. There has been too much theocracy in Ireland. The views of humanists, secularists, civil libertarians and those who do not purport to have a god conferred infallibility have more of value to contribute to this real problem. My basic position is that religion should be kept out of the law and politics.

9. If any interest group has had more opportunity than any other to air its views, it is the Roman Catholic Church. There has to be some limit to its influence.

10. At least 80 per cent of the Dail consists of Roman Catholics who are already more than familiar with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

All of the above said, I appreciate that much of the above is personal opinion, belief and expression of values. I think that there should be good reason for limiting the participation of interest groups in the pre legislative process and I cannot deny that your position is reasonable and well expressed. I happen to disagree with your position on this but I accept that your view is the mainstream view and I am expressing what, in Irish terms is a controversial and likely immensely unpopular position.

@ Eileen, I suspect that there is much more to the invited representation before the Committee than appears on the surface and perhaps the rescale agenda will emerge over time. I admire your discretion and restraint. Sometimes, it’s is sensible and pragmatic to self censure one’s full candid views on a matter, especially a highly controversial and emotionally laden issue.

I have seen pro-choice supporters physically threatened by the extremist Youth Defence League, although I don’t believe that such physically bullying behaviour is representative of all those who ardently support the so called pro-life agenda.

It may well be the case that I have much to learn from your balance and restraint. I’m a complete neophyte in the area of posting. To adapt an expression , in my case the wonder is not that the dog could not dance well but that the dog could dance at all.

I have managed to acquire acquire a lot of opponents who consider me incredibly stupid, nasty and ill informed. My views are unpopular but in time the views which are unpopular today may be better received in years to come. I am convinced that even since 1983 views have evolved and at least in 2013 one can criticise the conduct of the Roman Catholic Church without being entirely ostracised.

I should be more diplomatic and less confrontational in how I express my views. That’s always been my Achilles heel!

I look forward to seeing how the RC hierarchy conducts itself next week and we may in time find out the real reason for the selection of and composition of the experts.

Richard
I do not see your posts as being nasty or ill informed in fact quite the opposite and I envy your turn of phrase. Those on here who try to detract from you do so either out of fear or they are under instruction to do so. Neither of which is an honest way of debating anything . I too suffer my opponents ,but then again I never flinched from intimidation . It will be interesting having an ear to these discussions in the Dail this week and in a week that the Flag Protestors will be arriving to demonstrate there ill humor at the Tricolor over Leinster House …. Interesting times !

No Buddhists there, why are they excluded?

It’s all very meaningless as Fine Gael have already decided to save the life of the government by giving Labour abortion legislation. As Labour have abandoned their social justice agenda, they need to keep somebody happy. The upper middle class liberals will always mean more to Labour than the working class.

What has legislating for X got to do with working class vs middle class exactly?

More organisations who see themselves as stakeholders on the pro-life side apparently.

To be fair, it will likely take twice as many crazies to make a coherent point against the welfare of mothers.
They’ll need some floor time for scare mongering and hate speeches too.
Bit disappointed at the presence of religious organisations at this. I’d imagine they’re there so TDs can glad hand conservative constituents the next time they’re on the doorstep, but as far as I’m concerned this should be a secular issue with balanced discussion.

You can’t have a secular issue on this as people with religious beliefs have to be represented. Otherwise you’re discriminating in the other direction.

Why can’t you have a secular issue on this? Ireland is no longer ruled by Rome so why should one religion’s beliefs impact on the entire population?

Should we bring Islamic leaders to the table too? Jehovas? Jedis? They’re all registered religions so why do Christians get a say in this?

My bad, I see that Islam is represented but I still worry about those that follow the ways of Yoda. Why are they being discriminated against?

Cause a) they make up the majority of religious numbers in the country by the last census and b) they’ve organisations set up to officially express views on this issue. Don’t see the jedis amassing at their temple to debate the issue, do ye!

Yes, but the Jedis don’t worship a god who slaughters children for fun (asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac), massacres babies like the first born of Egypt to prove a point and allows his preachers to rape children for centuries, do they?

sS in many ways I’d rather hear from Obi Wan on this matter than Jesus

Right. Get on that so niall. Would love to hear what he says.

Well, here’s my two cents as to why, in a secular democracy, religious institutions (particularly the catholic church in this instance) should never, EVER be given a say in determining social or any other policy:

1) Despite how many adherents they have, their authority and morality comes from the top down. Edicts are issued from the Vatican and sent down the hierarchical line, it’s not like their base is ever democratically polled on what their own personal views are.

2) In the case of the church in Ireland, 50% of the population are excluded from any position of power based purely along gender lines. No institution pursing a policy along these lines should be let near the reigns of power.

Thus, the bishops are there to only really represent the views of a handful of clerics, regardless of how many people they have on their books in the census.

… and that’s without even touching the hypocrisy surrounding the systematic rape and abuse of children in this country….

Didn’t know who you were referring to Risteard so I asked both Jesus & Obi Wan for their views.

Neither answered though because neither of them are real.

No issue with people being guided by their moral & religious beliefs in secular society, I fully believe that that contributes to both sides of the debate, But the church as a moral high ground has had it’s day. Any argument they make these days, just makes me think…….. Yeah. Ok yeah, but what about all that forced labour and rape?

Tunewire, i doubt your morals came from you sitting in a room considering all possibilities of human interaction. Your morals come from what you were thought from various sources. Just cause there is a different mechanism for this for peoples religious views, that doesnt make them less valid.

Also, if ye wanna get rid of all corrupt organisations in this debate, get rid of all of them. There are no organisations where the people or organisation is not corrupt to some views.

Also, im an atheist. I don’t agree with religious views but people have a right to them and to have them listened to. Otherwise you’re just as much a fundamentalist as the zealots your speak against.

Tunewire, wherever your morals came from, im sure the didn’t come from you sitting in a room and philosophically considering he implications of varying human issues. They were handed down to you like everyone else for some sources. The mechanism for this is irreverent.

And as corrupt as the organisation my be, if we rule out all organisations that have corrupt levels, you’ll rule out all of them.

By the way, i don’t defend religious beliefs as im atheist, i don’t deny their right to be heard.

‘Fundamentalist’ because I fully support the separation of church and state? All I am asking for is the same which is enshrined in the United States constitution and practiced across the civilised countries of Europe. People can worship who or what they want, I don’t care and have no intention of stopping them. However, when they start sticking their noses into government… then we have a big problem.

Calling that ‘fundamentalist’ is a facile argument.

Risteard no-ones denying them the right to their beliefs, but why should they have any say in how a government runs a country in the 21st century?

Up until recently the head of the Catholic Church thought condoms were inherently wrong (he’s still not 100% on them) and just recently he blessed the Ugandan minister who brought the ‘Kill The Gays’ law into being.

Why on earth should people who follow this man have any say in the way we run the country?

You’re refusing peoples right to have their beliefs heard on a subject they believe they are stakeholders. I stand by my comment.

Other bigots believe they have a right to their say on other topics too, should we let them all be involved in government proceedings?

Yes

Well you’re wrong and society doesn’t work like that. People are excluded for having obnoxious beliefs all the time, the Catholics should be no different until they reverse their opinions on matters such as human rights issues

If your government represents people who have religious beliefs in the populous, you have to take into account how social choices your government makes affects them. Thus, you have to let them have an audience. If ye want to balance it out, let Richard dawkins have a day too!

You’re assuming the church is the proper vehicle for expressing their views in societal law in a democratic way. Given the nature of church organisation and moral doctrine (enforced agreement), that seems conflicting.

So the Jedis should be represented at this after all!

Its the only mechanism that is available for religious people to air their views. Whether you think its fair or just is irreverent.

Niall, you’re right. The jedis do deserve proper representation… After taxation.

Glad you said that Risteard for you see the Catholic Church doesn’t pay tax in Ireland and only last year were giving yet another exemption from the property tax, costing us something like 1.5m.

So I assume you now agree that the Catholic Church should have no say in this matter?

No. I just think they should be made pay tax.

But, much like the Jedis, until they do so they should have no representation?

You’re not flip flopping on this now are you? I mean you are an atheist who just wants fairness right?

Dunno if that last one sent.

No flip flopping. The Irish government doesn’t recognise jedis as a religion so if theyre an organisation, they don’t get the tax exempt status and thus are a company who should pay tax.

If your assumptions are right it’s a very poor reflection on FG in view of its pre-election commitment to the Irish electorate. I personally believe that the FG party will consider all the views and will ensure that any legislation protects the life of the child equally with the life of the mother. Despite the judgment in the X Case – which is flawed – the killings of an innocent child pre-birth is NO CURE for a threat of suicide. ask all the medical consultants? The advice the Attorney General gave Charles Haughty and FF in 1982 was correct but Haughty rejected the advice of the AG. Perhaps Michael Martin should issue another apology?

So now you agree with religions getting exemptions from tax and wish to withdraw your statement that you can have representation so long as you pay tax Risteard?

I dont agree with a lot of things in our democratic society but I play by its rules. So I stand by comment and do not feel I invalidated myself. If you disagree, thats your choice.

TuneWire, great post. It is insightful and valid. Thanks

Women aren’t the only stakeholders when it comes to reproduction.

So you think its ok to ignore the other stakeholders. And the foetus has no rights?

And is it a right? Or a privilage? If you make the choice to have sex, is it not your consequences to bare? Sex is primarily for reproduction. The pleasure is secondary, only evolved into our biology since we wouldnt have sex if it hurt.

Ugh Richard…
Those ABC cases are pretty horrific, have you read the details? Don’t you think women should have the choice in dealing with the consequences of pregnancy too? Especially in cases like ABC where the situation is not straightforward.

And collecting money, don’t forget the money, gold hats don’t but themselves.

In the Seanad aswell, why not the Dail? FG trying to keep it by pretending it’s important, holding meetings there and look at the Hot Air Balloon flying high with important meetings. I am all for reform of the Seanad, but those dirty little tricksters(FG) turn my stomach!

I forget who said “theology is the study of nothing”

Great comment!

@ Sarah Boland, God was personally unable to attend, prior commitments,,and the various Church representatives are attending on his behalf. They will speak for God. There will be no one to speak for pregnant women.

Some of our politicians are also divinely inspired, Peter Matthews, Junior Minister Creighton, Senator Mullen etc. they have a direct line to God. So they will listen to God as God speaks through his appointed representatives.

An 85 per percent Dail, predominantly Roman Catholic, who are required to obey the direction of the Roman Catholic Church, acting on instructions from the Vatican will dictate the legal regime for the lives and health of pregnant women.

Thank goodness we don’t live in a Middle East country where religious fundamentalists dictate legislative policy! Oops, why do I suddenly feel that Ireland is not that far removed from Iran?

Theocracy rules!

Oooh be careful Richard , we like what you are saying and thank you for it but I fear you may garner a following of people who do not like what you say. They are unable to disagree with you as you speak the truth , They wont like it tho., as what you say will interfere with their ultimate plans. To keep 50% of the population under ‘control’…. of the church.

@ Eileen , on re reading my post below, I stand over the content but it was gratuitously offensive to sincere religious sensibility and unnecessary to the point which I was trying to make. I would like to withdraw the post but I don’t know how to do that, even if it is possible. I should have held over the post for 30 minutes.

People’s religious views deserve respect and sensitivity even if I disagree with their religious views.

Thank you for the very polite and appropriate note of caution. It is instructive and helpful.

True. But that was already voted on.

Also. No one was raped in the abc vs ireland cases as mentioned above.

20 years is hardly rushing.

Like the way anti-choicers want us to have a third referendum because they don’t like the results of the last two you mean?

Why would it go to yet another referendum??? We’ve had 2, same result both times!

Those referendum were for mental health to be included. That’s not gonna change the availability of it. Any referendum from here on out might as well be honest. Theyre voting abortion to be legal or illegal. The suicide thing, while very real, is to easy to be abused.

Oh I agree that we should have a referendum on what you would call abortion on demand, yes or no, but it won’t reverse the previous two referendums. They’ll be in law, hopefully, by the summer.

After that we can talk about extending the right to choice out to giving a woman full control over her body in a future referendum

I’ll admit it was a failing of the government not to legislate for something that through referendum they were mandated to do. We’ll hold off the debate for the next part next time

Sorry when have the pro choice side threatened violence, could please reference any claim you make.

Also it maddens me when people label pro choice as “pro abortion”. Pro choice means that we simply believe that it is a human beings CHOICE whether they want a child born no matter what circumstances the conception.

The pro choice side are not forcing abortion on anyone. I believe that if someone is faced with having to choose abortion or not, it is up to them, taking their personal beliefs and morals into account, to choose.

It is not the right of any organisation, church,faith community, government or society to decide that a person is not entitled to have an abortion purely because that organisation doesn’t believe in it. Nobody is forcing abortion on them if they don’t want it.

‘This majority also do not want more liberal legislation for abortion’. A wild statement with nothing to back it up.

I remember that Fracas in 1983 , it was this alterrcation by the pro lifers at the time that convinced me that pro-choice is and always will be the most reasonable approach to every thing in life.

Anthony
That is the point . None of them need to be there . The court ruled on it , end of story .
Who are pro abortionists ? Can you name even one ?

Actually when you look outside the legal, medical and psychiatric experts the weighting is clearly on the pro life side. I reckon the only reason anyone from a pro choice group gets a chance to speak at all is to balance the bishops out..

Why did God kill the first born of Egypt if he loves babies so much can I ask?

Tell us why are the Catholic Church absolutely entitled to their say? An organisation made up of celibate men that bars half the population from its higher ranks? An organisation that imprisoned women who had crisis pregnancies and used them as slave labour and have still not offered redress to those women, despite their vast wealth? Sent the children who were the product of their anti sex ed, anti contraception teachings away from their overburdened impoverished families to be systematically physically and sexually abused. Of all of the organisations that I don’t want withholding my bodily autonomy your Church is top the list.

Why do Christians always leave the thread when you ask them questions about the Bible?

Actually the morning after pill doesn’t work of the sperm fuses with the egg so its a form of contraception. If a zygote is formed, its useless.

Niall, if you don’t believe in god, you obviously don’t believe god killed those babies and you’re just be facetious.

If Cain and Abel had aborted their baby we wouldn’t be here. The first homosexual couple on earth.

It’s in the bible people!

Risteard she believes in God though so she believes God killed those babies and that is who I’m questioning.

How can a Christian believe God loves all babies and wants them saved when he himself slaughters them in their scriptures? If religious people want a part of this debate they’ll have to be open about their beliefs.

Also… If ye have abortion… Who will all those gay couples adopt from? Think about it.

@ Pamela Rochford, based on those issues you have identified, it seems perversely wrong that the Roman Catholic Church should be permitted to contribute, even if religion were not to be properly separate from politics and laws. The Roman Catholic Church has forfeited it’s right to intervene or intrude into our laws.

The Murphy and Ryan Reports seem to have receded from memory. That’s a pity.

Freedom of Expression aggravates you?

Yes. Women can choose to have sex. Glad we cleared thatvup.

Evert, back in 1983, I was present in Molesworth Street and I personally witnessed young males , members of the Youth Defence League physically threatened a group of pro-choice supporters. They jumped out of a large van wielding the sticks. I was astonished.

I am genuinely worried that fundamentalists and zealots are prone to extreme behaviour. It is to do with an absolutist frame of mind.

Ok……