Comments (28 Comments)

Order: Popularity

• 

  • 6
  • 112

  Vincent Dolan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  This is going to get ugly…..

  Reply

  • 

    • 112
    • 12

    Stephen Murphy 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 13
    • 123

    Vincent Dolan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @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.

  • 

    • 22
    • 67

    Joe Sixtwo 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    Why does this government still keep grovelling to the Church?

  • 

    • 13
    • 8

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    I see Dillon is back Stephen Using Vinnìes ID

  • 

    • 15
    • 55

    Niall Boylan @ Night 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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 !!!

  • 

    • 3
    • 16

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @ 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.

  • 

    • 3
    • 11

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 7
    • 13

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 4
    • 10

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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 ?

  • 

    • 1
    • 10

    Statler Waldorf 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 4
    • 10

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 4
    • 12

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 1
    • 8

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 10
    • 4

    Vincent Dolan 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 2
    • 15

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @ 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.

  • 

    • 10
    • 3

    Vincent Dolan 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @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.

  • 

    • 0
    • 9

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @ 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.

  • 

    • 0
    • 5

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @ 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.

  • 

    • 0
    • 4

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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 !

• 

  • 9
  • 65

  Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Thursday’s line-up looks very balanced alright

  Reply

  • 

    • 39
    • 22

    Stephen Murphy 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    No Buddhists there, why are they excluded?

• 

  • 0
  • 11

  Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Richard
  I believe her professional integrity should be called into question on any account.
  She is hardly a beacon of hope to any one who is in desparation or depression. This is only my opinion however.

  Reply

• 

  • 22
  • 97

  TuneWire 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  What sort of joke is this timetable? Four reps from the ‘Prolife’ side on Thursday PLUS the bishops in their finery vs. two reps from the pro choice side of things.

  Reply

  • 

    • 47
    • 38

    LarBren1 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 12
    • 71

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 16
    • 12

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 16
    • 69

    Colm Durkan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 72
    • 32

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 19
    • 77

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 17
    • 38

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 38
    • 24

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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!

  • 

    • 24
    • 50

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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

  • 

    • 12
    • 20

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 14
    • 57

    TuneWire 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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….

  • 

    • 28
    • 31

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 6
    • 36

    Colm Durkan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 17
    • 17

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 10
    • 11

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 12
    • 36

    TuneWire 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    ‘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.

  • 

    • 7
    • 30

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 23
    • 16

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 9
    • 24

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this 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?

  • 

    • 22
    • 10

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    Yes

  • 

    • 17
    • 19

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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

  • 

    • 12
    • 14

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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!

  • 

    • 7
    • 11

    Colm Durkan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 12
    • 7

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    So the Jedis should be represented at this after all!

  • 

    • 13
    • 12

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 6
    • 18

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 10
    • 9

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 5
    • 12

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 11
    • 8

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 40
    • 5

    Dermot O'Reilly 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 5
    • 10

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 16
    • 7

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 5
    • 10

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

• 

  • 6
  • 33

  Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  How are representatives of religious bodies experts on the topic of termination of pregnancy?

  How are we to interpret their assertions of belief and dogma?

  How do our representatives, largely male, 85 percent, and predominantly RC, some devotedly so, evaluate a range of religious beliefs different to their own?

  I can think of many ” experts” with real expertise who have been omitted.

  Reply

• 

  • 5
  • 28

  Peter Lawless 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Well I’ll be, there’s a first time for everything “Experts in Leinster House”

  Reply

• 

  • 0
  • 8

  Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  @ Eillen, it is an opinion but a reasonable opinion, I think. I would not wish to be treated by her and I would be gravely concerned if any family or friends were to be under her care.

  As a former doctor who studied under her supervision told me, you had to be very careful to ensure that your views were expressed in agreement with her views. She has firm beliefs and convictions and does not easily brook disagreement even in an academic context.

  As a devout Roman Catholic, Professor Casey enjoys that certainty of correctness that most of us would like but realise that as fallible human beings we will never have,

  Reply

• 

  • 21
  • 70

  Aoife Mulqueen 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Is this a list of people about to receive threatening communications from deranged prolifers?

  Probably.
  Happy weekend!

  Reply

• 

  • 6
  • 28

  Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  I recommend that our esteemed legislators should read HLA Hart on Law, Liberty and Morailty and Dr Mary Warnock’s profound and insightful book, “Dishonest to God”. These books and indeed the political philosophical works go John Stuart Mill produce a convincing set of arguments why legislators should not legislate for religion or religious dogma. The subtitle of her book is “on Keeping Religion Out of Politics”. It,s a short book, only 166 pages, and very clear.

  Religion, theology and canon law have nothing of value or of relevance to contribute to civil legislation.

  Of course, I recognise the political expediency which has caused a cynical government to humour religious adherents by inviting the main Church representatives to these presentations but it is undesirable, inappropriate and unnecessary.

  The former Governor of New York professed to be a devout Roman Catholic but also asserted, as a civil political figure, that it was not his proper role to reflect his religious beliefs in a normative legal manner.

  Dr Warnock was raised in the Church of England, is deeply imbued with that particular faith but she distinguished faith and belief, part of the spiritual experience, on the one hand, from reason, rationality, social policy and political policy on the other hand.

  The Government has made a desperately bad start on this issue.

  We must remember that as the law stands in 2013 we have an odious and pernicious Constitutional Amendment, Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution introduced in 1983 by the wretched Eight Amendment. This Constitutional provision enshrines a piece of Roman Catholic dogma in our Constitution, courtesy of PLAC, the RC Hierarchy, and hard line supporters such as the Youth Defence League, they of the Hurley sticks, and those people who actually as a matter of belief and value believe that a pregnant woman is legally on a par with a foetus.

  The important point to remember, and I speak as a Roman Catholic who left the religion after the child sexual abuse scandals emerged, is that religion operates in the zone of irrational belief, the opposite of rational, informed and cognitive analysis.

  The Constitutional and legislative approach in a civil Republic should not be influenced by religious belief or by theocracy.

  I quote Dr Warnock.

  “Religion is significant to large numbers of people, and for some their belief in God is of supreme importance, bu there is not and can not be any obligation to believe. Morally speaking, believers and unbelievers are equal. Our parliamentary democracy is doubtless flawed, and may seem in especially poor shape in the twenty-first century. But we must do all we can to mend it; and this entails doing all we can to fend off the forces of theocracy.”

  Even if the Roman Catholic Church truly cherished women and children, even if as an institution if was a paragon of moral virtue, even if the Roman Catholic Church was Christian in a truly ethical sense, it should not as an institution, as an authority, as a preacher of a priori dogma prescribe, dictate or even be allowed to influence our civic and civil laws. Let religion look to its gods and let law, politics, justice and enlightenment be for the citizens and our less than perfect public representatives.

  Personally, I favour a Referendum to repeal Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. Very few, if any, pregnant women of today or tomorrow were of voting age back in 1983 and it is unfair and truly reprehensible that they may be prejudiced by a bad law they never had the democratic opportunity to vote on.

  Sorry for the typos. My iPhone insists on changing some of my words.

  Reply

• 

  • 4
  • 20

  Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  @ Eileen, I agree. Professor Casey is surprisingly dogmatic and doctrinaire in her bald assertions. I doubt that professional objectivity and clinical neutrality would be prominent in her approach. One would feel judged by her.

  The Youth Defence League and the Iona Institute receive a rather generous proportion of representation. The Government in leaning over backwards in an attempt to humour the more strident and absolutist strand of Roman Catholicism. The problem is that it it is likely that the Government will funk the issue, we will see a very restrictive regime introduced, which will have no practical effect and, in any event, the Governments’s hands are legally tied by the pernicious and life threatening Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, the enshrinement of Roman Catholic dogma into our Constitution.

  Only a Referendum will resolve this vexed and contentious issue.

  Reply

• 

  • 13
  • 40

  Helen Hayes 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Please leave this decision to the women who has to make it …and as a Government support that decision.

  Reply

  • 

    • 30
    • 21

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

• 

  • 8
  • 23

  Helen Hayes 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  However it’s still is a women’s right to choose..and her right to consent..

  Reply

  • 

    • 30
    • 12

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 35
    • 10

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 4
    • 19

    Irish Red 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

• 

  • 6
  • 19

  Ciaran Morgan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  The headlne makes no sense “experts in Leinster house”?

  Reply

• 

  • 30
  • 56

  Stephen Murphy 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  What are Religious people experts on, Morals is it? As Human beings we are Moral, Religious organisations are only experts on man made beliefs and fantasies!

  Reply

  • 

    • 16
    • 32

    Colm Durkan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 23
    • 10

    Stephen Murphy 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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!

  • 

    • 15
    • 21

    Tim O'Sullivan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

• 

  • 9
  • 18

  Pierce2020 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  “Experts in Leinster House”, next we’ll have a season of movies made by a child rapist in the IFI and some Unionist group demanding the removal of the flag over the building.

  Reply

  • 

    • 4
    • 5

    Irish Red 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    Great comment!

• 

  • 0
  • 3

  Michelle Reynolds 06/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Who runs the country the government or the church?? What have the church got to do with it?

  Reply

• 

  • 6
  • 11

  Sarah Boland 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  How come humpty dumpty does not have representation nor does the cow that jumped over the moon but the airy fairy god followers do.

  Reply

  • 

    • 2
    • 13

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this 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!

  • 

    • 0
    • 7

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 0
    • 5

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @ 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.

• 

  • 16
  • 19

  rodrigo detriano 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Bloody hell. If only this shower of gangsters had put as much time and effort into consulting so-called experts, before they decided to cut child benefit across the board! They haven’t a clue.

  Reply

• 

  • 9
  • 11

  Andrew Telford 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  All these billable consultant hours just so they can pretend to the religious right that it was an agonizingly hard period of contemplation and that they had their hands forced to legalize abortion by the rest of the modern world come reelection time….

  Reply

• 

  • 8
  • 6

  Helen Hayes 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Actually sometimes they don’t have a choice

  Reply

  • 

    • 19
    • 8

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    True. But that was already voted on.

  • 

    • 19
    • 10

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

• 

  • 42
  • 14

  LarBren1 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  When Leinster House is open for business in early January you know something is wrong. Enda Kenny said that this issue wasn’t going to be rushed. He lied(again).

  Reply

  • 

    • 7
    • 52

    Mark Hickey 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    20 years is hardly rushing.

• 

  • 58
  • 16

  Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  If this goes to a referendum and doesn’t get voted in, will the pro choicers demand more referendums in the future… Ye know… In case people vote wrong.

  Reply

  • 

    • 11
    • 64

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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?

  • 

    • 6
    • 45

    Irish Red 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 35
    • 14

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 11
    • 26

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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

  • 

    • 4
    • 11

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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

• 

  • 40
  • 11

  Evert Bopp 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Oh look, it’s the pro-choice (as long as I approve of the choice) brigade wanting to silence those who oppose abortion. Really people, every single person or organisation on that list represents either a profession with a valid input or a percentage of the Irish population. It is no more than democratic that they are presented.
  It might pass some people by but the majority of irish citizens do *not* frequent twitter, facebook or oter social media channels. This majority also do not want more liberal legislation for abortion.
  Shouting and make threats of violence against those campaigning against abortion doesn’t really show the robustness of the pro-abortion lobby (if it indeed has any real substance).

  Reply

  • 

    • 9
    • 24

    Michael McInerney 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 6
    • 21

    D a i t h i 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 0
    • 7

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

• 

  • 28
  • 7

  Anthony Hesketh 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  I see the bigots are out in force again! What are you secularists afraid of ? You can’t stand any voice but your own on this issue .The church has as much right as any other institution to make representations on this matter . Why are Choice Ireland and the other pro abort organisations there ?

  Reply

  • 

    • 0
    • 12

    Eileen Gabbett 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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 ?

  • 

    • 0
    • 10

    Shanti Om 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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..

• 

  • 61
  • 12

  bpdeasy 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  Catholics and the Catholic Church are absolutely entitled to be involved in this debate. In a world obsessed with rights we are entitled to ours. And this will lead to abortion on demand. There is already a form of abortion on demand in this country. It’s called the morning after pill!!

  Reply

  • 

    • 8
    • 24

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 8
    • 57

    Pamela Rochford 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 10
    • 27

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 4
    • 18

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 12
    • 14

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 6
    • 12

    Ciaran Morgan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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!

  • 

    • 6
    • 12

    Niall Noonan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 33
    • 12

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 3
    • 25

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    @ 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.

• 

  • 12
  • 3

  Brian Horgan 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  I’m just glad Niall seems to have gone to bed. Couldn’t take any more of his idiotic rants.

  Reply

  • 

    • 5
    • 12

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    Freedom of Expression aggravates you?

• 

  • 13
  • 3

  Helen Hayes 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  I think women do have the right to consent still in Ireland…with respect

  Reply

  • 

    • 15
    • 12

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 04/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

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

  • 

    • 8
    • 25

    Peter Richardson 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    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.

  • 

    • 12
    • 8

    Rísteard Ó Muineacháin 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

    Ok……

• 

  • 8
  • 2

  DeadBelly 05/01/13 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment

  after watching this video you’ll all agree abortion should of been brought in about 18-20 years ago

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN3qHoF692Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  Reply