And they’re not now??

Not much has changed it seems

times change dude.
those witch burners were awful wan*ers too eh?

If Brussels gets wind of what we priorities in the Daíl, the Troika will be around once a week to check for signs of sanity.

Sheila – the people who ran your pre-marriage course were only trying to tell you about natural family planning. It’s free, natural and healthy. It also has the benefit of teaching you about your body which can only be a good thing. Further, knowledge of your cycle could also help if you were trying to conceive.

Is knowing about this such a bad and embarrassing thing?

@Almar,

Don’t start me, not at this time of the evening. No, it’s not natural. Is it natural to tell your partner, sorry, I know you’re horny, and ya love me an’ we’re married, but the church told us not to have sex. We can have it on the 15th OK?

Almar, I know all about my body and have done for many, many years! Also, my ex and myself only had to pass each other on the stairs and I would be pregnant! That is why I used the pill. I had load of ‘love’, sex, when we wanted it, and we had two beautiful children and were timed to the day! Had two great summers off with them during my maternity leave.

So thanks anyway, I’ll let you know, if I need your advice. NOT!

The embarrassing thing about it was, that two of the people that were doing the course was a nun and a priest! I don’t know, maybe I was wrong, maybe they did know what they were talking about!!!!!!!

@Almar

Now that it’s a modern church, do they cover HIV and other STI’s in the presentation, or does the free, natural and healthy approach insulate the good catholic against such afflictions?

Sheila – so many people do not know about their cycle and about the symptoms of fertility. Surely that’s not a good thing? How can teaching people to be aware of the signs of fertility and to read their bodies be bad???

@The Burning Bush:

I find your question surprising. I would think the answer is obvious. Yes, the Church’s teaching provides 100% protection against all STIs. Surely this is self-evident?

Almar, it was a rhetorical question friend

Oh dear god where to begin. I thought it was bad reading the 1974 transcripts, I didn’t realise there were still people with such outrageous views. The church’s teachings are one of the big factors in the spread of AIDS in Africa. They certainly don’t protect against stis unless you believe and expect every single person in the country, religious and non-religious to remain a virgin till marriage and monogamous thereafter. Come into the real world.

I totally agree with you Sheila. Its completely wrong to be made go to any church doctrine related family planning lesson. I’d go as far as saying it should be made illegal (I’m even presuming that it was with a qualified nurse, though I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t)

Impartiality should be the backbone of sound medical advice. For anybody to disagree with you, they are simply displaying a vulgar support of patriarchalism.

Whilst I agree with everything negative said about the catholic church, the option to get married in a registry office, etc, is open to people. I’m of the opinion that if you wanna get married in a catholic church it’s not unreasonable to expect to have to play ball with them and go to a pre marriage course regardless of how clueless or invasive the councillors might be. If you don’t like it don’t get married in a church.

Richard – where to begin!!! Look, the Church is in no way responsible for AIDS in Africa. Africa is awash with condoms. There are millions spent on them by the UN etc every year. Those who follow the Church’s teaching on condoms also follow it on sex in general. It is ridiculous to suggest that there are thousands/millions sleeping around contrary to Catholic advice but yet who then, bizarrely and illogically, decide to follow that advice when it comes to condoms. It just doesn’t happen that way.
Besides, those countries with the highest numbers of Catholics in Africa have the lowest HIV rates, and vice versa.

I have read other speeches from this particular Deputy in the past. No offence to her, but they are generally incoherent and display little understanding of Catholicism.

Anyway, she is entitled to her opinion, even if it is a bit convoluted.

However I find it odd that people think that she is not entitled to this opinion because she happened to mention religion in passing. Why is religion singled out in this way? If religious views have to be left outside the Dail, surely a socialist should also leave their ideology outside the Dail? Surely a homosexual should leave their sexuality outside the Dail? Surely a woman should leave her gender outside the Dail?

There is something sinister about the narrative that suggests that only religion, and specifically Christianity, had to be abandoned by politicians. Thankfully William Wilberforce didn’t listen to that argument.

she is a politician and should be defined as a politician not as a ‘female priest’ which her leader absolutely will never agree to, so does a man or woman go and take up a job and say, i am gay, my beliefs are to be the preferred beliefs, no it doesnt work like that, human nature bizarrely is exactly that human, some wrong in some peoples views and some are right in some peoples views, i will never believe there is room for religion in politics.

So nothing inspired by religion can ever enter politics?

Was William Wilberforce wrong when he fought slavery on the basis of his religious convictions?
Would a Christian politician be wrong to campaign for a fair wage on the basis of their religious faith?

If you answer yes to the above, surely then you must also think that it would be wrong for a homosexual politicians to fight for homosexual marriage as this is also a way of bringing private ideology into the public square.

@AlMAR what i have previously posted is my point of view, i have no interest in changing peoples views, which seems to be what you are about, if you choose to continue on the arguement that would eventually end up in us disagreeing as much as we do at this point well you are on your own, i have stated my opinion, it is an opinion after story forum. maybe you should find someone else who might consider changing their views by your reply.

I am interested in trying to understand what, exactly, your opinion is because it’s not at all clear to me.

Was William Wilberforce, a Christian politician, wrong to fight for a ban on slavery?

I am truly fascinated about 9 people giving red thumbs to my comment above.
Am I to take it that these 9 people do in fact believe that William Wilberforce was wrong to campaign for the abolition of slavery???

@Almar Wilberforce opposed slavery in all its forms. The Catholic Church (or Christianity in general) on the other hand didn’t. Indeed in 20th. century Ireland women and children were held without charge in gulags (Magdalene Asylums & Industrial Schools) and forced in sexual and physical slavery. These institutions were owned and managed by the Catholic Church. In fact the Magdalene Asylums housed women – many who were victims of sexual violence – who had deviated from accepted social and religious ‘norms’. Their crime was they were having sex outside of marriage – fornicating is the word that comes to mind. These women were called offenders – some of these ‘offenders’ were incarcerated for being ‘too damn pretty for their own good’.

Ireland is re-discovering sensuality and sexuality mainly down to Irish women. This Fine Gael TD is just an aberration.

Andrew – thank you for the history lesson.
Now back to the topic at hand – was Wilberforce’s campaign to oppose slavery wrong because it was motivated by his religious belief?

@AlMar Actually the topic is our legislators attitude to discussing matters of a sexual nature. The hint is in the title of this well-written article. A lecturing and hectoring member of the clergy might call it a ‘dirty little article’ considering that ‘fornication’, ‘condoms’, ‘family planning’ is mentioned and the ‘rhythm method’ is completely ignored.

Almar – history is littered with attempts to justify slavery on the basis of religion. Your argument is nonsense.

Crawl back under your rock – there is no god, never was. Grow up and spare us your fairy stories.

Andrew – The topic I was discussing with Disildeforous was the right of politicians to hold religious beliefs.

I’m always fascinated at these fantasy clerical straw men who disagree with any discussion of sex or the use of the words fornication and condoms! Apart from the inherent clericalism in it all, one wonders what these fantasy priests would make of recent popes. John Paul advocated husbands and wives trying to achieve simultaneous orgasms. The horror!

Floodzie – history is also littered with examples of religiously motivated attempts to end slavery and to improve conditions for slaves where its abolition was impossible.

The question still stands – was it wrong for a Christian politician like William Wilberforce to oppose slavery?

Or, if you prefer a different example – is it wrong for a Christian politician to rely on their Christian belief in peace in opposing war?

Or another – is it wrong for a Christian politician who views the natural world as a part of God’s creation to support Green policies?

Religion has nothing to do with it, AlMar. Stop hiding behind a question when it so obviously irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Your transparent attempts to insert your sanctimonious holier-than-thou waffle into this discussion is nauseating. Pass the bucket.

Almar – It wasn’t wrong for William Wilberforce to oppose slavery because slavery is wrong. It doesn’t take religion for most decent people to come to that conclusion. In fact you could argue that WW was motivated by saving his own soul. This argument is full of holes.

Deirdre and Floodzie – the point that Disildeforous was making was that religious faith must be left out of the equation by politicians. My point is that this is an impractical position. Religious faith inspires many positive social policies. The abolition of slavery is one example of this. So is the drive for peace, for environmental protection, for fair employment and housing policies etc. All of these can be inspired and motivated by religious faith. It is true that they can be motivated by other things as well, including political ideology (I wonder if that also has to be left outside the Dail???). But for some political figures it is their faith that inspires their social policies.

Of course, there would be a problem if a politician sought to impose religious belief and practice through political means. It would be wrong to seek a law that would require everyone to go to Church once a week, for example. But since no Christian politician with a balanced and healthy secularity espouses such theocratic policies I consider them to be an irrelevance to this debate.

What is alarming is the knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment that thinks it is practical and desirable for politicians not to be informed by their conscience when they legislate. And unless those who hold this view also believe that (for example) women should ignore their gender when they legislate (there are numerous other applicable examples that could be used here) then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a lot of anti-religious bigotry on display here.

Deirdre – in relation to Wilberforce’s soul, he was a Protestant who believed in sola fide and thus didn’t believe in saving his soul through works. But so what if he did? Doesn’t that still prove that his religious faith motivated him to achieve a significant advance for human rights?

The point I was making that his motivation to end slavery was not wrong regardless of whether it was motivated by religion or not. A simple answer to your question.

I agree that there is a knee jerk reaction to religion being raised but you seem to be ignoring the context. Faith is just one thing in a spectrum that inspires social policies. It is not wrong to hold religious beliefs but it is wrong to preach in a political forum such as the Dáil and suggest that people live a certain way based on your own faith. By doing this, you alienate people. This is exactly what is happening here and the post by Disildoforus is a testement to that.

Just to kill-off this “Wilberforce is a good man’ bull

Wilberforce attacked no one in Britain for the evils of the slave trade – not the wealthy, conservative absentee planters with whom he shared a similar social background and social life, and not even the avaricious merchants and ship-owners who Wilberforce described as “men of humanity” in his speech. Rather, his harsh words of condemnation were reserved for “African chiefs and kings” whose “personal avarice and sensuality” he blamed for the maintenance of the slave trade.

In the debate on his second motion on the slave trade – introduced in the Commons in 1791 – Wilberforce turned with a vengeance on the people of Africa, declaring that “negroes are creatures like ourselves, but their minds are uninformed and their moral characters are debased…their state of civilization is very imperfect, their notions of morality extremely rude” He also used this speech to make it absolutely clear that in his opinion the enslaved Africans were not “fit” for freedom and that he was not asking for the abolition of slavery. And in a later speech he characterized Africans as “an ignorant, low, peevish, a bloody and a thievish race”. Indeed, the only form of abolition that Wilberforce was prepared to contemplate was a “gradual” abolition in which freedom would come at some time in the distant future.

Also noteworthy about this phase in the abolitionist campaign was Wilberforce`s refusal to support the so-called “anti-saccharism movement” of the early 1790’s – a popular boycott of slavery-made West Indian sugar. Wilberforce was so intent on distancing himself from anything that smacked of stirring up popular feeling that he declared the time was not right for a boycott. And then the mighty “Haitian Revolution” exploded in 1792, with armies of self-liberated Africans led by Toussaint L’ouverture, Henry Christophe and Jean Jacques Dessalines dramatically wrenching the wealthy French colony from the hands of white enslavers and abolishing slavery in Haiti!

This epoch- making event proved to be a “litmus test” which literally separated the abolitionist “boys” from the abolitionist “men” in Britain.

Reeling from public criticism that their anti-slave trade campaign would provoke a similar black uprising in the British West Indian colonies, Wilberforce and many of the other abolitionists went to great lengths to distance themselves from the Haitian Revolution and to emphasize that they had no intention of advocating the abolition of slavery. Indeed, when English troops invaded black ruled Haiti, Wilberforce rose up in Parliament to denounce a motion calling for the removal of the troops!

So extreme was the retreat from activism that in May 1794 the Abolition Committee (now known as the Abolition Society) gave up their rented offices.Subsequently, the Society met only occasionally in 1795 and 1796, and ceased meeting altogether in 1797 for an extended 7 year period!

Wilberforce, for his part, presented a watered down anti-slave trade bill in 1794, which was easily defeated. Several other bills he introduced in the mid 1790’s suffered a similar fate, and Wilberforce eventually stopped introducing abolition bills altogether towards the end of the 1790’s.

career was actually devoted to self-righteous agitation against those he considered to be“lukewarm Christians” and against such “transgressions” as sensuality, swearing, drinking, fornication and “Sabbath-breaking”. In addition, as a socially conservative Parliamentarian he supported virtually all of the repressive measures of his Age, including a law that provided 3 month jail terms for anything remotely resembling labour organizing, an activity which he considered to be “a general disease in our society”. He also trenchantly denounced the idea of women being permitted to play any role in the abolition movement.

http://bit.ly/JcR6aw

AlMar, you talk like there is something wrong with knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment.

There should never, ever, be a mention of religion when deciding legislation. Ever.

If something is wrong in both the secular and religious worlds, then it should ONLY be considered in the secular world.

The paranormal has absolutely ZERO place in the framing of legislation.

We need MORE knee-jerk reactions whenever anyone tries to bring religion into politics. The world wouldn’t be half the mess it is, if political parties made more of an effort in that regard.

If something is wrong, it’s wrong. We don’t need to cherry pick from some old book to prove it. Secular humanism will do fine, than you very much.

*thank

Andrew: Thanks, again, for the history lesson.
You will notice that I never said that Wilberforce was a good man or even a nice man. What I said was that his religious belief motivated him, and that this motivation was not a bad thing. But as I say, thanks for the research you put into the matter.
But even if we want to totally forget the Wilberforce example, we have many others. Is it wrong for a religious politician to be motivated by their religious beliefs to protect the environment? Or to be motivated by their religious belief to oppose war? And if it is, does that mean that they automatically have to avoid ever being influenced by their faith by automatically voting against their conscience?

Floodzie – there is less disagreement between us than you might think. I do not believe in theocracy or on reliance on the supernatural in the framing of legislation.
My point is that religious faith provides an insight into human rights and human dignity, and that it is not wrong to be informed by these insights in framing legislation.
This does not imply preaching at people or relying on the paranormal!
By the way, the very notion of human rights and equality and respect for others owes a lot to religious faith. Sure, we can produce a long list of examples of those who professed religious faith who failed grievously in this regard. But that doesn’t change the fact that many of the positive values we take for granted in the western world have their foundation in Christianity.

@ Almar “” many of the positive values we take for granted in the western world have their foundation in Christianity. “”

Which country in the “western country” have you been residing in? Certainly not Ireland. Christianity in Ireland has been the cause of vicious sectarian gang wars for decade after decade after decade.

In economics what kind of Christian ‘positive value’ is there in the poorest people in Ireland losing 26% of their income while the richest see their income increase by 10%, and all this in the midst of a severe recession? What religious belief can justify that obscenity?

In Justice what religious believe justifies prosecuting 15,700 people for defaulting on a fine or TV licence but allow NO prosecution at all for the 800 people (most of them card-carrying, cassock-wearing Catholics) who physically and sexually tortured thousands of children?

Exactly which “positive values” – rooted in Christianity – are being taken for granted in those examples above?

If there is a tax on sex and a Standing Charge is introduced I’m going to do it lying down!

“Things like this”. I’m not sure what you mean by this?
I for one do not know what the Deputy was trying to say – her thinking seems somewhat muddled and I’m not convinced she knows where she is going with her ideas herself.
But it’s hardly revolutionary and dangerous of her to make the very obvious point that there is something amiss in a culture with widely available contraception and prophylactics but with a continuing problem of unwanted pregnancy and rapidly escalating STI infection rates. One would expect these problems to decrease given the amount of sex education and the widespread availability of contraception.
Is it so bad to want a debate in these issues? Do we just put our heads in the sand, allow people to suffer and never question what’s going on? That approach didn’t work so well in the past you know.

The problem is your and your type do not want a debate, you and your precious church want to tell us how to live our lives so as not to offend some magic sky pixie.

There should be no debate in government about how a person has sex, it’s their own damn business as long as both (or more) partners in the act are willing.

Just remember kids, right wing family values start in your bedroom.

Almar

Burying a head in the sand worked well enough for your esteemed leader Cardinal Sean Brady, he stuck his head in the sand and by doing so effectively released Brendan Smyth into the community following the sexual abuse by Smyth of two children. Smyth, following a payout from the church, went on to abuse others.

Your church subsequently wrote a substantial cheque to those victims just so as he could leave his head where it was.

He is the Primate of Ireland, let me say that again, Sean Brady is now the Primate of Ireland, and you my friend advocate for an organization which at it’s head currently has a man who actively, knowingly and willingly facilitated the sexual abuse of children.

You live in the largest glass house on the face of Gods creation dude.

Me and my type? LOL! It seems that vilification is not the preserve of old fashioned 1950’s clerics after all.

I broadly agree with you that people’s private sexual lives are generally no business of the State. But there are limits to that idea. If we took your theory to its logical conclusion there would be no sex education and no policy initiatives to reduce STIs. Given the significant financial and human cost of STIs, that’s not a realistic option.

Sheila – with all due respect, there’s a lot of talk (and not just from you) about priests and nuns lecturing people. Honestly, I have never encountered it and I couldn’t possibly imagine it happening. Perhaps that’s a generational thing.

Almar . Do u live in a cave ? U never come across a priest or nun lecturing people ? U need to take your head out of sand

@Almar: you certainly can’t imagine it. I think a lack of imagination is the problem here.

I’m in favour of the west having their own government and fund their region on their own
The amount of absolute numpties these people elect is just jaw dropping

Could we stick tipperary and south Kerry in with them

Sheila – when you say that “the church” has no idea about sexual activity, who do you mean by “the church”? If you’re only thinking about bishops and priests you have a very limited and clerical vision of the whole thing. The Church is ultimately the people of God and bishops an priests make up a tiny percentage of that.

Sure, AlMar, of course it is. That’s why they all have a say and aren’t told by the vatican to “put up or shut up”! Your self-delusion is staggering…

Jonathan – we all have a say: we can accept or reject what the Church proposes. I don’t see what other “say” is possible or practical.

Should have been nothing, you feckless idiot!