Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a committee formed from regular citizens, politician, social activists and other stakeholders, has released its initial recommendations.
The convention, which is touted as the first of its kind in the world, has recommended a reduction of the voting age to 16, removing references to the role of women in the home and making gender equality in politics a constitutional guarantee.
They say that the following issues should be prioritised:
They also recommend a provision that guarantees same sex marriage, which will be voted on next year.
Voting rights was a major topic, with the convention recommending that the smallest constituency in the country be a five-seater, as well as an end to alphabetical listing of candidates.
They also recommend longer polling hours, the introduction of non-parliamentary ministers and votes for the diaspora in presidential elections.
The reference to blasphemy should also be removed from the constitution, as well as a host of changes to the Dáil.
Speaking today at the launch of the convention’s report, Tom Arnold, Chairman of the Convention on the Constitution, said:
“It has been an immense privilege for my fellow Convention members and I to have participated in this innovative and historic process. Our work may lead to changes in our Constitution, the document which reflects the values and aspirations of our society and defines and guarantees our rights as citizens.
“Back in December 2012 when the Convention was launched I noted that in some of our public discourse, there is a cynicism and a sense of alienation which is unhealthy for our society and, ultimately, dangerous for our democracy.”
To read the full report, click here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Logic sense reason and compassion vs dogmatic religious nonsense. Time for society to stop pandering to religion.
Zzzzz
Jesco …. Zzzzzzz
Conor, he couldnt even cone up with a childish insult this time round……what a great contributer to the discussion as always Jesco
The separation of church and state……Hallelujah!
I’m more in favour of separating the church and the planet.
Hear hear Robin :)
Blasphemy – a victimless crime.
Or a crime-less crime. High time it was done away with.
Nah, you will he still prosecuted for insulting Islam under the hate crime laws.
No, you can say what you like about Islam or any other religion, that’s freedom of speech. Threatening someone with injury or death would be incitement to hatred and that’s different.
For instance I could say that in my opinion all Abrahamic religions are oppressive towards women and LGBT people, that would be one thing, if I said that people who practice those religions are bad and wrong and should be tortured and killed that would be incitement to hatred.
Not at all if you just critique the tenets of the religion itself and do not bash individual people.
Protection of the environment, separation of church and state, removal of the blasphemy law, reduction in voting age, removal of references to women in the home, the right to die, presidential voting rights for the diaspora, Seanad and local government reform- all great ideas.
I’m confident that most, if not all, of these proposals would be ratified by the electorate, if given the opportunity.
Seems to me that this Convention is far more in tune with the wishes of the modern Irish electorate than the civil war parties- neither of which are progressive enough to tackle any of these issues.
Well I mean if you’re confident Fang then that settles it!
*sigh*
Another dumb comment from Jesco. I’m confident that such proposals would be ratified by the electorate in referenda. Clearly, nothing is settled until a vote is held.
He’s maintaining his high standard….
Oh here we go here comes Ailbhe the Journals lesbian crusader. You’re boring love.
Ah, there wad the unintelligent insult I was waiting for!
Go on then Jesco, stick your tongue out and pull a face, that’s just what you need to round off those retorts..
People are entitled to their faith but as religion is a choice, its terrible that we dont have separation of church and state and some 95% of schools are still controlled by the church. Indoctrinating children is wrong let people make their own minds up as they grow!
Exactly. If you come to a faith of your own volition you are more likely to really appreciate it – it’s more likely to be true “faith”, if you feel that it was pushed upon you – you are more likely to resent it.
the only people indoctrinating children in Irish Schools is the EU Commission.
The Blue Star Programme is decided on by the state , religious education is decided on by the parents.
parents choose to send their children to religous schools , dont forget that ,
but in the case of the Blue Star Programme , the School board and the state is forcing an EU education on children.
With 90%+ of the schools being catholic, and spending as much time in primary on indoctrination as they do on English and maths, more in communion / confirmation years..
What “choice” do you think parents get exactly?
Oh no – that’s right.. Facts and evidence mean little to you, poorly formed assumptions is what you work from – you’re the person who thinks the “jury is still out” on the Seanad when the results of the referendum were counted and it remains..
You think the abortion legislation was “forced” on the people when we have had two referendums to exclude the suicide clause you object to and they were both rejected.
You don’t seem to understand how the constitution, the constitutional convention, or law work. Even in the most basic sense..
So why would I doubt your assertions about this blue flag programme?
It has never been adequately explained who the “social activists” and “other stakeholders” are. From the little I have seen of these people on TV one can unmistakeably discern social workers and quango heads prominent amongst the assembly. I understand the concept of politicians and “regular citizens” (although I’m a bit dubious about who these are). Further, I would submit that there are many pressing questions which were NOT submitted to this sad, farty convention. Such as a reduction of the term in office of any Government to four years in line with most countries (three for choice) and a right of recall by the populace if gross mismanagement become apparent.
I find it hard to take the desires of a man with seven wives seriously.
@Sheik Yahbouti, couldn’t agree more! Vast bulk of their recommendations are just pandering to the liberalist / populist agenda. Who are these people anyway and who set the ‘questions’ for them ?
Shiek, the council consists of 100 members. A chairman, 29 members of the Oireachtas (divided amongst the parties, roughly proportional to their representation in both houses), four representatives of NI parties (the DUP and UUP declined to participate), and 66 citizens. The citizens are randomly selected, reflecting the age, regional and gender balance of the electorate. The citizens operate under general anonymity, with only their names and location listed, to prevent targeted lobbying.
Here’s a complete list of members:
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=d0c3ed87-5f3e-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
Hope this helps.
Why do these unelected people have te right to determine the direction of our constitution? Who gave them the right? Outrageous in a democracy for unelected individuals to be given such power. Almost fascist even.
Jesco, do you realise that they only have the power to PROPOSE changes? Nothing will change until the people of Ireland cast their vote in a referendum.
They’re all citizens, so they are all entitled to their opinion on what should or should not change with our, and their, constitution.
Yes so why does this unelected elitist minority get to determine what changes to propose?
Why are they elitist? Do you know the members of the convention?
Jesco clearly hasn’t a clue how the Convention operates. It makes sense, he hasn’t got a clue about most things.
All the Convention can do is make proposals. Is the government chooses to heed their advice, a referendum is held, allowing the electorate to ratify or reject the proposals made. No amendment to the constitution can be made without without approval by both houses of the Oireachtas, ratification through referendum, and the presidential signature.
Thus, the Convention has no power, and can only make suggestions. It’s simple, really.
Convention was lead by idealogues like bacik.
Skilled at rhetoric.
They ensured crazy things like euthanasia were inserted.
Plantation, why do you think euthanasia is crazy?
Murdering humans is crazy.
Some people have a utilitarian view on human life so have no problem with killing people.
It’s rather amazing how the people huffing and puffing the most don’t seem to have any idea how this works..
I remember being able to submit my comments on the matter of marriage equality. I know that our nations defenders of the catholic ethos were permitted to address the convention and misrepresent research to make their fallacious argument against it..
If you missed your opportunity to take part then perhaps you should have been paying more attention.
And as always, no changes happen until the people have their vote. Because the Irish constitution has it’s inbuilt clause that will not permit changes to it without a referendum, that’s why we get to vote on EU treaties when none of the other member states do.
If you took the time to learn about these things it would probably benefit your blood pressure, all that misplaced outrage can’t be very good for the heart.
Oh dear, Plantation. You do understand that no-one is suggesting killing people against their will; this is merely about allowing those who are dying anyway, to die with dignity at a time and place of their choosing.
Plantation.
Murder is the unlawful taking of another persons life, the victim was someone who had made no indication that they wanted to die, they were – presumably, hoping to continue living.
The right to die is a completely different scenario, it’s about people who have been diagnosed with terminal diseases, degenerative diseases where they may spend years losing control of their body or maybe their mind – for some people this scares the hell out of them and they decide that they would rather die than go through that. But it can very easily become too late for you to be able to do it yourself, you may have lost coordination, forgotten who or where you are, lost muscle control – in these cases you would need someone else to facilitate your death for you.
If you have ever said to yourself while looking at an Alzheimer’s, dementia, Parkinson’s, terminal cancer, motor neurones etc patient in the later stages and said “if I ever end up like that kill me” then you should be supportive of this.
@ Santi …. Where is the line drawn…U know that’s the same argument that the Nazis used to plug the vulnerable , the handicapped and people deemed incompatible with life …they even had video with the smiling half witts and handicapped , that were about to be euthanised … Of course
@ of course with the liberal laws on abortion , Were getting closer to having less vulnerable people in society …..
Hi gary banner, your logical fallacy is ‘Slippery Slope’, Do Not Pass Go, have a nice evening;
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.
Gary, what liberal abortion laws? Do you mean the law to save a woman’s life if the pregnancy is putting her in danger? Because that’s all we have.
As to euthanasia, no one will get to decide when someone else should die, it would only be in the case of someone who has a terminal illness, is in pain and would prefer to die with dignity, it would be their own choice.
No one is suggesting that people with special needs would be euthanised, that is absolute scare mongering nonsense.
These are just recommendations, any change to the constitution would require a referendum so that the citizens get their say.
A right of recall is generally only catered for under Direct Democracy,
“The Recall
The recall is the people’s power to force a public official out of office. It can be found at the state (and local) level in the U.S. and at the cantonal (and local) level in Switzerland.
As for the other instruments of direct democracy it comes in several forms:
application
all public officials whether elected or not,
all public officials except judges
all elected public officials including judges, and
all elected public officials except judges
direct or indirect
The term “direct recall petition” means a petition that leads directly to a new election. Indirect petitions only lead to a new election if they are successful, i.e., if the official in question is actually recalled at the polls.
Ah Gary, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you trot out that sort of nonsense as an argument.
Where will the line be drawn? Under the persons signature on the document they sign of their own free will stating that they wish to die.
Well done on Godwinning the thread, is that just the go to argument for all you poorly informed huff puffers?
@ Kelly Davis -,
I mean the liberal abortion laws ( specifically head 4, on the grounds of suicidality ) that were pushed upon the Irish people and the unborn & no I’m not talking about the ones that were already in place to protect women that were at risk from being pregnant…. u know , the 50 or so abortions that are carried out lawfully each year here , did u know that ? & by the way Im very much pro-abortion under circumstances …..
However back to Euthanasia, I’m not referring to people that are in agony with no chance or recovery ..these unfortunate people thankfully are in the minority… when I refer to the slippery slope , I’m referring to what may happen.. like abortion its introduced on very restrictive grounds and Bang something like a suicidality clause is introduced …
Take Belgium for example children now have the right to die, Sonja Develter who dealt with hundreds of children in their final stages & was against that bill because all her experience showed that these children wanted to live and the calls for their life to be ended usually came from their families that were emotionally drained.
Now if u know anybody who suffers from depression more importantly people who have got over it & u ask them if they had the option to end their life during a bout of it , a sizable amount will tell you they would have. Thats whats concerning.
@ Shanti…..
Its not an argument , it was fact .. its exactly what the part of the Nazis euthanasia program & they tried to sell it on compassionate grounds & used your argument that these people were happy that they were about to die because they Knew they were incompatible with life ….
As for drawing the dotted line under their signature…. I take it you don’t suffer from Alzheimers, dementia, depression or anything mentally debilitating … just yet…. & I take it you don’t have any spouses or cousins or children that may view you as a serious inconvenience ……just yet & may in fact believe your better off dead … just yet……………..
Gary.
Are you familiar with the X Case at all? Or the rejected 12th amendment?
The people were given their chance to remove the suicide clause, twice in fact. The people said NO. It was not “forced” upon them – this legislation is what we voted for. Why can’t you get that through your head?
And again you jump to crazy hypotheticals, did you not read Gaius’ comment? Arguing the slippery slope is nothing more than blatant scaremongering.
We are talking REQUESTED, someone with depression is well capable of killing themselves, assisted suicide or euthanasia is there for the people who do not have the capability to end their own lives be that due to loss of mental function or physical impairment. Your ignorance to the facts surrounding this whole thing is really quite astounding..
You know what Gary, I’m not inclined to trust the “facts” of someone who has demonstrated at every opportunity how little they are acquainted with them.
The slippery slope argument is fallacious – because you cannot prove the logical step between where we are now and the hellish picture you paint – there are several stages in between where people could and would put a stop to it. No one is advocating eugenics, the right to die is for the sake of those who want it. And as someone who works with the elderly, I have met many people who would have preferred to be let die than be left in the pain they are in. I have seen people ripping out their peg feeders and giving themselves infections because starving themselves is the only way they can take control of their end – so maybe I just have a little more compassion in relation to the subject than you do?
I know from watching the progression of all these diseases that I categorically do not want to live like that. But you would deny me or anyone else facing that diagnosis the right to die with dignity.
Why do you feel the need to control other people’s lives? Surely they know what is best for themselves?
Exactly Shanti, people who don’t even have the facts straight negate their own argument.
Well said Gary
Seperstion of church and state. What about separation of church from schools.
and hospitals!
Indeed, our major entirely publicly-funded university hospitals still run and controlled by small bunches of nuns specifically in line with their religious ethos, as stated in their aims and objectives online – while paid for by we citizens – all of us!
Is there any chance the constitution can have something about the responsibilities of citizens
Do you not think in this country it is citizens’ rights that we have been sorely lacking, while the political classes have done their own thing without recourse to the views and concerns of citizens? This convention shows what can happen when you get a random group of citizens together and actually give them education and information about issues.
The comments on this article just go to show how desperately needed a Leaving Cert politics subject is. So many have little to no understanding of how the state operates. Looking at you, Jesco and Dave.
No surprise there then ,
A bunch of failed Liberal Politicians , with no mandate from the people , trying to destroy Ireland
Please explain your alarmist, non-nonsensical comment.
How exactly will these recommendations destroy Ireland?
Separating church and state is trying to destroy Ireland?
History shows us that the inclusion of the church in the Irish state has caused far too much harm,
All these Liberals just want to rid Ireland of its heritage and culture ,
Next , they’ll be wanting Panti Bliss to head up the St Patricks Day Committee and Parade.
“All these Liberals just want to rid Ireland of its heritage and culture”
Citation Needed.
If you believe that interference in Irish society by the the Roman church is part of Irish heritage and culture, you really should broaden your mind.
If you look at other EU Countries , the most popular political parties are those seeking to recognise Christianity as the national religion , in Ireland , they are trying to do the opposite.
Why do you use the term ‘Liberals’ as an insult? It’s not. Neither is ‘Conservative’, ‘Right Wing’, or ‘Left Wing’. Just to be clear.
Secondly, nobody wants to rid Ireland of its heritage and culture. Most, just want Ireland to become more progressive and modern in its laws and constitution. Why shouldn’t the blasphemy article be removed?
Looks like Health, Education and Justice will already be destroyed regardless.
Maybe if we all pray real hard we can stop it?
“If you look at other EU Countries , the most popular political parties are those seeking to recognise Christianity as the national religion”
According to opinion polls, the most popular party in the UK at present is Labour. Nowhere in that party’s manifesto is a pledge to “to recognise Christianity as the national religion”.
@ Dave – So you don’t think that the environment should be protected? If we don’t protect the environment then isn’t that destroying Ireland?
What about people’s right to die? Should each person not have the right to decide what happens to them? Especially if it is the case that they are in severe agony and completely incapable of moving, such as what happened to Marie Fleming.
Or what about the separation of church and state? How can you argue that this is not a good thing? The church has meddled in the affairs of the state for too long with terrible consequences as a result.
Blasphemy has to be removed from the constitution. There are theocratic states throughout the world that reference the Irish blasphemy law and use it for justification in their pursuit of persecuting and discriminating against anyone they so choose. That has to go. It is 2014 and the church has no right to hold sway over what happens in this country anymore.
“trying to destroy Ireland” – If you mean modern Ireland, then no, no one is trying to destroy Ireland. However if you mean the Ireland of the 1950′s then yes, what this constitutional convention is trying to achieve is to get rid of the Ireland of the 1950′s. That is not a bad thing.
And no, before you say it, I am not a liberal. This is plain common sense.
Honestly ,
sometimes I think the Journal is some sort of think tank for Independent Media Students.
According to Dave nobody has the right to anything unless his beloved sky daddy says so, therefor he thinks the necessary changes to the constitution are ‘destroying Ireland’ when really it’s the closed mindset that he finds himself reaped inside that has the country destroyed.
No answers to any questions, so instead you try to insult us all (It’s not really an insult – what’s so wrong with Media Students?)
Great tactic, Dave.
Hi Chris ,
I’m glad you asked that question ,
Apart from the inabiltiy to think outside of ‘the collective’ , I’m sure their all nice people
Well thanks for the answer to that rhetorical question. Now, could you answer any of the real questions proposed to you?
Pray to who? The invisible man in the sky?
Will that be the end of the Red Mas then for the judges, barristers etc who are agents of the courts? The RC church still rules in the background with the daft notion of asking the man in the sky to assist in their judgments.That will be the same god who gave the men of god a divine rite to rape and molest children. The same god who loves war and never has enough money. Strange how learned men of law could believe all this fairy tale stuff.
Dave (and Jesco) are so against the Convention because of it’s potential to allow the electorate to vote on matters of interest. They recognise that their views are opposed by the majority. Thus, the idea of referenda on such issues fills them with existential dread.
They are anti-democracy.
Dave.
The constitutional have no actual power, they made recommendations.
The only way that the Irish constitution can be amended is by referendum, they could have suggested we change the national anthem to the Macarena – without the people’s vote a suggestion is all it remains.
Methinks you may be overreacting just a little..
I forgot a word, the constitutional CONVENTION, my apologies..
Did ya actually read the article?! The convention is made up of ordinary citizens randomly selected from the electoral roll. Why did you prescribe a random group of citizens a bunch of failed liberal politicians? Maybe because you couldnt think of anything intelligent and just wanted an unintelligible irrelevant rant?
Here here … Surprised that they did not vote on recommending a suspended sentence also for Murder.. It was meant to include a broad section from society ..it was full with anti church politicans and Marxist has beens
White Fang ,
I’d say the change to our Abortion Law was “a matter of interest” to the people ,
Yet , Irish People were not given a vote on it , nor did the Convention recommend one
White Fang ,
we shall see whos views are in the majority and whos are in the minority in good time ,
Conor ,
the convention is made up of 33 parliamentarians , many of whom fail to get elected at referendum times ,
the rest , 66 citizens is hardly representative of 4.5 million people
Dave, you must have slept through the two (yes, two) referenda held on the issue, both of which ratified the x-case clause.
Why do you hate democracy so much?
Er Dave..
The legislation was based upon the X Case.
The people did get to vote on it. We were given the opportunity to overturn the X Case ruling and exclude suicide – the MAJORITY said NO.
The majority also voted to enshrine a woman’s right to travel and information while we were at it.
10 years later and no legislation, we got another vote – this one would have defined life as beginning at implantation, excluded suicide and given 25 years for abortion. It was rejected.
The ECHR ruled that Ireland had failed to uphold C from ABC vs Ireland’s constitutional right to an abortion as her life was in danger, and told us to get our a55es in gear and legislate for that 21 year old case.
Seriously – if you are going to go around making statements like that above you should at least try to know some facts.
“sometimes I think the Journal is some sort of think tank for Independent Media Students.”
Lol.
+1
You dont think a random selection is representative? A career in research and statistics awaits you clearly! Oh I am sorry its just that it doesnt represent your opinions individually. Well duh!
How would you have selected the 66?
@Dave, if you truly believe that your side is the majority, then I don’t understand why you wouldn’t welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that during the referendum.
It really amuses me how conservative people think calling liberal people liberal is an insult.
It also amuses me that the conservatives think they are the majority. They must be a very quiet majority, living in caves. The local parish sends a bus to pick them up at referendum times…..
Give over Dave/Jesco, democracy doesn’t suit you because you think you/sky daddy know better than the rest of us the REAL statistical, numerical, able to use logic and reason to weigh up each situation MAJORITY!
Catherine, Fair enough you dont believe in God (and are arrogant about it!) but please… …
Evil human beings of all persuasions be they atheist, agnostic or supposed men of faith, will use any avenue to justify their evil actions.
However, anybody who knows anything will know rape, molestation, war and greed are contrary to Christian teaching.
I realise the Roman Catholic church and many other religions has made huge mistakes but these are mistakes made by humans. Dont blame God for it!
Don’t thing raping children, abusing women, selling off babies etc then covering it up for decades if not centuries can be regarded as ‘mistakes’. If God is so all powerful why didn’t he stop the suffering inflicted by the hands of his representatives?
Davie has a point there, the blame should rest firmly on the shoulders of the men and women responsible for these crimes.
Blaming a non existent entity is not going to do any good whatsoever.
Agreed Shanti, blaming an non existant entity is idiotic. Blaming people that do things in the name of said non existant entity, blaming those that use that non existant entity to instill fear in others or control others, blaming those that choose to interpret things that non existant entity supposedly said to justify or further their own agendas makes much more sense……so those that practice many of the major religions of the world
Most of these points would be ratified by the irish population (of course some of them, with regards the environment would need to be narrowed down and fine tuned) if we were asked to vote on it. But it’s good to see that this might be a small step toward a country that is progressive and a constitution that reflects the will of the people.
Hi Jay ,
I was happy with the constitution the way it was , The Constitution was built on the blood of Christians , Atheists and Liberals were probably hiding in the Trinity Library , but anyhow
Most Irish People today are happy with our Constitution , they dont want it changed , it reflects their views just fine.
The only people who want it changed are Europhiles and Liberals , Liberals dont like any reference to God and want everything to be legal including Paedophilia I’d imagine (like they did in the UK) , while Europhiles want all of our laws to be the same as other EU countries .
The only way you could improve the Irish Constitution is to remove the EU treaty ratifications , then your whistling Dixie
Nice April fools joke there, the UK legalising pedophilia, if that’s not intended as a joke then that’s the best paranoid disinformation I have ever heard..
@ Dave , I presume ur referring to the national Council for Civil liberties that operated in the UK with the full backing of the labour partie ??That tried to reduce the age of consent to 10 and were apologists for the paedophile exchange programme ???? Aka PIE …. ???
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/28/patricia-hewitt-age-of-consent
“Hewitt, who now sits on boards at BT and Bupa, is one of three Labour figures who were leading lights in the NCCL in the 1970s at a time when the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the organisation and some of its members attempted to influence NCCL policy. Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman was the organisation’s legal officer during a later period between 1978 and 1982, while her husband Jack Dromey was on the executive from 1970 to 1979.According to archives held at Hull University, in December 1975 Keith Hose, chairman of PIE, wrote to Patricia Hewitt, then general secretary of NCCL and later a Labour health secretary, asking her to consider PIE’s views in its policy on ages of consent. The letter was on PIE notepaper which features a logo of two bare-legged children sitting on a rock. Hewitt wrote back saying: “We have found your evidence … most helpful”.
Earlier on Friday, Dromey, insisted he did not give his approval to the NCCL’s call for the age of consent to be reduced to as low as 10, after the Sun reported that he had attended an executive committee in January 1976 where the change was discussed.
Dromey said he did not give his agreement to the proposal at the committee meeting a month earlier, and was “a resolute opponent” of the PIE when he became chairman a few weeks later.”
Talk about clutching at straws guys..
I mean , how many times was Ivana Bacik rejected by the Irish Electorate
Ivana Bacik , Head of Labour Party delegation to the Constitutional Convention
2004 election to european parliament (failed to get elected)
2009 Dublin Central by-election (failed to get elected)
2011 general election. (failed to get elected)
It is clear that these people do not have a mandate from the Irish People for the changes they are proposing to our historic and beloved constitution
Dave, agenda-driven manipulator of truth that he is, has failed to mention Bacik’s successful Seanad campaigns. You don’t get to be Deputy Leader of the Seanad without election, and you cannot be appointed a legislator position on the Convention without first being elected to the Oireachtas.
I doubt reality will get in the way of his rant though.
Fang you don’t have a mandate from the Irish electorate when you get elected to the Seanad you have a mandate from a small elitist minority.
Ivana Bacik is a citizen and is quite entitled to propose changes to the constitution as was any other citizen during the convention. You don’t need to hold an elected office to do that. No changes to the constitution will happen unless the people vote for it.
Doesn’t matter, any changes they propose will need to be put to the electorate before they can be implemented. So they will either get the mandate from the Irish people, or be unable to make any changes.
I agree on Bacik. She’s the liberals equivalent to John Waters. Only she can’t write.
An unelected mouthpiece for Trinity apparatchiks.
“Historic and beloved” are you kidding me? Its an awful document that beara np relation to modern life.
@John Horan, that’s what reactionaries like Jesco are terrified of!
Someone might want to point out the 5th amendment to the Irish constitution to the convention!
The one removing the special place of the church? I think they are addressing that by trying to remove the blasphemy laws..
On top of which the 5th amendment strikes me as being worth eff all when we’ve got the phrase “almighty god” used four times, that you must swear an oath acknowledging god as a constitutional requirement if you want to become a judge, the president or a member of the council of state.
Add to that Article 44.1 “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God” and I seriously wonder if I’m currently in violation of my country’s constitution. You can take away the explicit mention of a “special place” but why bother with such a mention anyway when you’ve got all of the above?
Definitely should get rid of the blasphemy law as its a victimless crime not to mention there as absolutely no empirical evidence for the existence of a Deity. Countries like Pakistan and Saudi are pushing for international blasphemy laws for the UN and use our law to give it recognition so there is a greater good to get rid of it.
Common sense could have came up with these points, we didn’t need a constitutional convention.
If that’s so, why are our elected parties unable to propose such ‘common sense’ ideas?
The Convention is a healthy alternative to the instransigence and conservative nature of the civil war parties. In a better system, it wouldn’t be necessary. In the system we have, it’s a progressive force. Is that such a bad thing, given the nature of every single government we’ve ever had?
I agree with both of you.
To me, if anything, the conventions remit is in fact too limited as many of out biggest issues don’t appear in the constitution in the first place. Unmarried families in its many shapes and sizes springs to mind.
While many important issues appear to have been examined at the convention, the most pressing appears to have slipped completely under the radar.
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
Thomas Jefferson
Wow these are really ground breaking , policies … Wonder what Lobby group is behind this boring , conventional yet dangerous crap …right to die …. Do some of these clowns not realise they’ll be old someday ?, and maybe subject to coercion in ending their own life as soon as they become a burden …….
“Do some of these clowns not realise they’ll be old someday ?, and maybe subject to coercion in ending their own life as soon as they become a burden ”
Because of course everyone who is dying in agony from terminal cancer would never consider euthanasia unless they were coerced….
Are people actually this out of touch with the world?
Oh for goodness sake, no one is talking about coercion or murder – they’re talking about people who are suffering choosing not to linger for their OWN sake.
Your scaremongering is really quite pathetic.
Not to mention the fact that you’re essentially supporting the ongoing torture of other people out of fear for yourself. If someone said they’d kill you unless you tortured someone would you do it? I know this an extreme line to take but I really do think people who oppose the right to die on non-religious grounds have never actually really thought about what it’s like for people like Marie Fleming. It’s just awful. Psychological torture for their family too, to know that they could help, could give them what they want and need but that they’d go to jail for it. And doctors who want to help their patients but can’t. They feel like they’ve abandoned their patients.
@ Shanti…..
Well your definitely unique…. and if you work with the elderly as you state your definitely in the minority.
Consider an opinion poll in Holland which found 70% support for euthanasia in the general public, but found 90% opposition in the nursing home population….
Correct me if I’m wrong but Euthanasia is not about making sick and dying people as pain free and comfortable as possible is that known as palliative care ??and is that something which is improving all the time ???????? Euthanasia is an option for people who don’t have to face it.
Take the Dutch experience for example; In 1990, 52 per cent of the 10,558 cases of a doctor’s intent to hasten death were done with no explicit request from the patient.
Makes you think No ??????????????
Care to provide sources for that assertion that Dutch doctors are murdering people? Might wanna be careful, if you can’t back it up you just commuted defamation..
Committed – damn autocorrect..
And yes, palliative care is about making you “comfortable” obviously you have no up close and personal experience of what “comfortable” means..
“Managing” pain with pain killers, being in bed constantly, perhaps no longer able to move, or having no idea where you are and being scared ALL the time..
Euthanasia is about sparing them the suffering full stop – not “managing” it..
@ Santi …. Defamation .. Huh ur obviously not on team panti & if so your membership may b in question !!
Gary.
What has Panti got to do with this?
Rory O Neill was ACCUSED of defamation, but no judge has ruled that defamation occurred (you don’t think RTE paying out equals a guilty judgement do you?)
Besides, he didn’t actually call anyone homophobic directly. If you had heard the interview you would know that.
On the other hand we have you making reference to Dutch doctors in 1990 (19 years before any country granted a legal right to die) “hastening” the death of patients without consent. Which would be the unlawful killing of patients – or murder, in the strictest sense of the word.
Now, on a scale of one to ten – how would you rank being called a homophobe when in all likelihood you are, and being accused of murder?
Because a false accusation of murder amongst the medical profession would be a far more serious than someone making a qualified observation of a lobby groups actions.
Again.. Source please.. Or are you just making stuff up?
Nevermind, using your quite I found this, a blog referencing things but not providing any links to back themselves up, arguing the slippery slope fallacy..
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/07/29/more-reasons-to-keep-euthanasia-illegal/
I notice that when I search scholarly articles on the subject my results don’t turn up the numbers you claim, for example – this study covering 1990 – 1995 seems to contradict your assertion..
http://www.eutanasia.ws/hemeroteca/vandermaas199095.pdf
@ Santi.,
Well I’m delighted I cant accuse you of having a sense of humor. I’d be utterly in stitches laughing at all the conventional agendas your so passionate about if behind the fluffy liberal facade they weren’t so sinister and dangerous.
As for your assertion that I’m homophobic, that would have me doubled over with laughter if also behind accusations against people of being homophobic for having differing views to yours and the warriors of the conventional and boring liberal agendas were also very sinister and dangerous :)
Lol..
Where did I call you homophobic? I was referring to the recipients of the pay out being homophobic vs the doctors you’re accusing of murder being accused of murder.. Which would be a more serious case of defamation..
Sorry you failed to see the context, are you truly that defensive about someone thinking you were?
I notice you still can’t provide a source for your accusations.. Which would mean that you are engaging more in defamation than Mr O Neill ever did..
Yawn.. just a load of left wing rubish… Not one bright idea on how lessen the burden ordinary citizens have to bear….
Good thing that’s not the point of the convention, then isn’t it?
Maybe… No new tax shall be introduced without the approval of 75% of the members of tha Dail
Church vs State debate is largely over. The church has very little say in politics today, and rightly so. Religion should be there as a free choice for the individual. Having religious laws defeats the purpose of free will. Most moderate religious people recognise this.
I think the Church Vs State debate is used as a euphemism for those attached to aggressive secularism. The trendy lefties and ultra liberals. Instead of engaging in serious debates about issues that radically change society, they like to simplify the discourse. For them its all about the tautologies of “equality” and “rights” and being “progressive”. If you disagree with them you are labelled as “brainwashed” by the church.
Its easier to portray yourself as a rational hero fighting against religious zealousness, than to demonstrate your own ideological bigotry.
Here, here. The use of the word ‘progressive’ is particularly loaded. Secular trendy lefty wishy washy brain-washing exists and is evidenced by most of the comments on this article.
Thanks for the ‘trendy’ compliment guys, it’s always nice to hear. I’m also always fascinated by how I have somehow brainwashed myself? I’ll figure it out though, have a nice evening.
Wow Tony ! is that the script the Jesuits are issuing these days.
DOB believing in church propaganda is like swimming aimlessly around and around in a fishbowl of sewage. You can’t see very far and your stuck in a cycle of swallowing and regurgitating the same old s€&t.
Let me get this straight here – are you saying that equality and your human rights don’t matter?
If so, get your butt over here, I wouldn’t mind a slave.
Thanks Beabad, you have proven my point. For your information, I would consider myself to be an agnostic.
Nor do I necessarily oppose all the social recommendations proposed by the CC. What I do oppose is the intellectual laziness and vapid nature of some of the justifications for implementing these recommendations.
Indeed, much of the justification is not even based on the virtue of an idea. Rather, it is based upon ridiculing people who hold opposite views.
This is why I use the phrase “trendy lefty”. It is deemed popular and cool to be atheist and liberal. Its even cooler to laugh at people who don’t subscribe to this aggressive secularism. No need to debate with them, just use the right buzzwords.
Why consider philosophical arguments such as Aristotlean Potentiality or Thomist Justifications, when you can simply retweet an asinine Ricky Gervais or Richard Dawkins comment.
Agnostic me hole ! Nice try but not very convincing I’m afraid . No amount of verbal gymnastics is going to convince me otherwise . Sure your not swimming in the same sewage filled gold fish bowl as DOB above .
Gee Tony ! Sure your not a Jesuit you sure sing like one.
sacerdos in vestimentis ovium,
@Shanti, of course Equality is important. But Equality is not an end in itself, it is one ingredient for a just society. Social engineering, that aims to impose equality irregardless, goes to damage another, more important ingredient of a just society, Liberty.
Human Rights is another unique concept that can be used as justification for the liberal agenda. There are only 3 natural rights, namely Self-ownership, Private Property, and the Nonaggression principle. They are fundamental and inalienable. Additional arbitrary rights have the potential to infringe upon natural rights (For example abortion infringes upon the self-ownership rights of the unborn child)Don’t get me wrong, additional rights can benefit society and the individual, but one cannot justify every arbitrary right by calling it a “human right”.
Do you seriously not see the irony in your rebuttal? You have disagreed with my claim that those who espouse a radical secular agenda, tend to claim their opponents are religious. Yet all you have done is claimed I belong to a religious order.
I think you’re right about one thing, Human Rights do tend to be part of the ‘Liberal agenda’.
It does tend to be liberals who care about the equal rights of others even if it doesn’t directly affect them.
Conservatism tends to me more self serving and concerned about controlling others.
Next thing you know all human beings will have political, social, economic and legal freedoms equal to everyone else, we can’t be having that sort of thing!
How are Human Rights being used as justification for the ‘Liberal agenda’ ?
What is the ‘Liberal agenda’ anyway? Equal rights for all? How is that a bad thing?
Not strictly true old boy I just questioned if you were one. I must say You do bear a striking resemblance to the fellow in this link. http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.ie/2012/01/catholic-priest-father-tony-kennedy-in.html?m=1
I’m really just playing with you Tony a bit like throwing pebbles at a village idiot. Just wondering do you think you’ll graduate soon ?
Word of advice old bean ! When trying to communicate a message one should be aware of the audience one is attempting to communicate to . Using references to Greek philosophisers won’t exactly endear you to the average journal reader. It just makes you look like an indulgent , egotistic , arrogant aloof prat with an over inflated ego. No offence intended just a friendly word of advice . IMHO A bit more humility would make you far more endearing. If this is difficult for you try reading “How to win friends and influence people” by Dale Carnegie. He’ll win you more friends, adulation and respect than all the Greek Philosophers put together.
That is an interesting notion, how would you propose to implement such a broad program of equality? Of course legal equality is an imperative. But political, social, and economic equality? Actually could you define what you mean by equality in regards to political, economic and social considerations?
Perhaps I should have been clearer in my claims about human rights. I think the three natural rights covers the fundamentals of human rights, without requiring undue coercion from the state.
I think those who espouse a a radical liberal agenda, claim without justification, that certain issues are human rights issues. They do this to illicit a sympathy for their cause and add a certain level of gravity to their claim.
I don’t think I would necessarily identify as a conservative. Its not that I oppose liberal ideals in themselves. Its more that I recognise that certain traditional values have served Western civilization quite well and shouldn’t be changed on a whim (chronologically speaking). Nor do I think people who oppose the liberal agenda, be consigned to obscurity for disagreeing.
I hope I explained myself clearly this time. As a philosophy graduate, I am prone to dialectical over enthusiasm.
Love the phrase “aggressive secularism”. It’s like saying “rampant compliance” or “a little bit pregnant”. These are all absolute states. A person is either pregnant or not pregnant, something is either non-compliant or compliant and a government is either secular or not secular. What people are trying to imply using a phrase like “aggressive secularism” is that secularism is totally opposed to religion which is patently nonsense. There are many religious secularists.
Beabad
While I don’t agree with everything he has said, Tony Kennedy is light years ahead of you in his ability to argue a case. In seeking to speak the truth surely one shouldn’t be concerned with how ‘to win friends, adulation and respect’. Perhaps that’s what you’re looking for. In that case you must be hugely popular here with its so called ‘liberal, progressive’ groupthink.
Well michael I’m sure that Tony is delighted to have such a bold darling knight in shining armour such as yourself rushing to his aid . Looks like I was wrong and he doesn’t really need a book about making friends since he now has a little friend in you .How sweet ! Aaahh ! Maybe he is better at arguing a case , its hard to tell. One hasn’t really attempted to really argue anything at all with him. If anything I find his posts slightly more amusing and indulgent than yours. At least Tony can sleep well tonight knowing that he now has a little friend looking out for him.
P.s I never said I was liberal or progressive.
Well now Tony, I don’t care about church versus state – I just want the church to be separated from the state. Practising Catholics are currently in a minority in this country, yet we have a situation where our public and publicly-funded services such as schools and major hospitals are still run and controlled by the Catholic church, specifically in line with a Catholic ethos, but with our money – this is simply not on any more. Ditto our constitution. Secularism is not a belief system: it is the tolerant and dignified approach that says one group may not assert undue influence in the public affairs of all citizens.
Well said Miss Filed, I have no issue with other people believing whatever the hell they like – so long as I’m not expected to agree and their rules aren’t forced upon me.
I find it telling that you will have people give out about the possibility of living under Sharia law who will in their next breath defend having catholic or Christian rules..
What if we all had to live under the rules of Scientology and be audited weekly? I can’t see many people being ok with that – so why are they ok with any one religion being given preference?
None of them deserve preference, they should all be deemed equal – and equal to non belief also.
Mind you, that’s what secularism is supposed to be isn’t it? So why would anyone oppose being held as equal – unless they simply wish to remain privileged, in which case they really need to work on their ego.
I can understand your point of view, Miss Filed. However the fact remains, as far as schools are concerned, that, where asked, a majority of parents chose not to have their local religiously-run schools removed from Catholic patronage.
Shanti, in what way are religious values being imposed on you? I see divorce, contraception, gay rights available to all. People are not ‘punished’ for their religious offences. We don’t stone adulterers; gay, premarital or extramarital sex are not banned.
Of course people who are pro-choice like to dismiss pro-lifers as religious nuts whereas many of us believe abortion to be contrary to the public good. We don’t need the Church to tell us so. We are quite capable of reaching our own conclusions.
I had to go to a catholic school. There was no such thing as a non religious secondary school when I was growing up.
Because of the schools situation I was baptised without any consultation, and told in school that communion and confirmation were NOT optional.
Never mind the fact that I haven’t believed any of it since around the time of my communion..
In order to take certain jobs you must swear to god – whether you believe in one or not, but specifically the biblical god – not any other one..
The other things you mention do have links to the church, rather large neon coloured ones, I don’t deny that there are some “pro life” people who aren’t religious, but they are the minority. The 8th amendment exists because of the churches influence, the reason contraception is only available for a couple of decades is also down to the church, and they got their own day to oppose the people’s will as expressed by referendum when the abortion legislation was drafted.
And they continue to oppose civil marriage by conflating it with matrimony.
If you do not think that Catholicism is given an undue focus and privilege in this country then one would be forgiven for assuming that you were one. The privileges we have are the ones we tend to be oblivious to. But you say you aren’t, so I will take your word for it.
Naturally a Catholic school is going to have a certain ethos. I accept that the non-availability of totally non-religious schools presents a problem for a growing number of people. The question I have is what do we do when the current level of demand seems insufficient to open new schools to cater for that section of the population? In other words how do we make proper provision locally for that section within reasonable cost?
While you could argue that the Catholic Church had too much influence in the past, clearly that is no longer the case. On the specific issues you mention it is hardly surprising that the Church continues to preach what it believes. It is up to the citizens to then make up their own minds.
As a matter of fact I am a practising Catholic and I make no apology for that. I might add in that context that I am glad we will have a referendum on gay marriage next year.
My apologies, I got you muddled up with the other guy I was speaking with who said he was agnostic.
We don’t have full gay rights as you assert, even outside of marriage, gay people can still be refused for certain jobs because of “ethos”, which is funny because that Jesus fellas message was one of inclusion, seems a tad out of sync with that love thy neighbour message.
I don’t wish to deny them their voice, but many of them seem hell bent in riding over the voice of any and everyone else. See their opposition to the abortion legislation, which was constitutional (and the governments fear of certain catholic groups challenging the legislation had they included TFMR causing them to leave the issue as is). That wasn’t respecting the view of the majority, some TDs were expelled from their party for wishing to override the results of the 12th amendment.
May I ask you, as a catholic, do you feel that Ireland’s most prominent “catholic” group represent you?
I neglected to address one of your first points.
Seeing as all schools are funded by the tax payer and teachers are paid by the department of education, the only reason for these schools remaining catholic is the land.
And the Irish people are bailing out the church for their transgressions so perhaps they could negotiate a deal that way, otherwise it could be said that the church had not truly made it’s reparations. And when you have wronged, that is what you are supposed to do is it not?
As it stands we are over represented with catholic schools – even if 84% of the country are practicing Catholics and wished their children to attend catholic school (which I doubt), over 90% of the schools are catholic. That’s at the very least, 6% of people who marked something other than catholic on the census who are not being catered for. There’s no good reason for that many publicly funded schools to have a “catholic ethos”.
Thanks Michael, however looking at the result charts from that consultation, in some areas there was a majority in favour of not having more choice (ie schools remaining under current patronage); in some areas there was not. However, there was always just under half of the parents who DID want more choice – so while technically over 50% in some areas were happy for the patronage to stay the same, this was not in all areas, and in the vast majority of areas there was a significant (usually just under 50%) minority who DID want a different choice (with huge support for Educate Together schools).
My question is this: do you really think it is OK for 95% of our schools to be run in line with a Catholic ethos, managed and controlled by the Catholic Church, when nearly 50% of parents have expressed a preference for something different? Remember that those schools are allowed legally to discriminate in their admissions policies on the grounds of religious belief.
My view is that this is a private institution that is delivering our state education system by contract to the state, with state funding and also heavy state investment in the refurbishment and often re-building of their property, and yet they retain ownership and control of those assets and the ethos of the school and this means in effect that the state is NOT providing an education for that large percentage of parents who want a more multi-denominational education for their children.
I don’t find this acceptable in this day and age.
If
You say Michael that naturally a Catholic school is going to have a Catholic ethos. The problem with that is that children who do not have that background are forced (since our state and state-funded education system is 95% controlled by the Catholic Church) to attend these schools too and be subject to that ethos (which pervades the whole school day) whether they like it or not.
Even in an area where nearly 50% of parents say they want another patronage choice, surely the state either has to build another school (even when the numbers do not justify it) for that sizeable minority, or else where that doesn’t make economic sense, then they have to fund a school to provide our education system that is capable of meeting the needs of all of the children in that area. This could not be a denominational school.
When you say what happens when the demand for Catholic ethos schools gets too low to open new schools for children from a Catholic background (I think that is what you mean anyway!), well I suppose Catholics would then be in the same position we all are in at the moment – not having a right to ask the state to make special provision for their belief system – the state would then have to provide a school that did not cater for any one religious group. The only other option would be the Catholic church setting up and paying for its own school. It’s just not going to be possible for the state, in one small town, to fund one school for Catholics, one school for Buddhists, one school for Atheists, one school for Protestants, when they could just provide one school that caters for all – that is what an Educate Together school does – respects, embraces and celebrates the traditions and background of every child.
When you say clearly the Catholic church does not have too much influence now, I wonder how you can believe that. Most of our major public services (100% paid for by us the people) are run and controlled by the Catholic church. Our main university hospitals (like Vincent’s) is paid for with our money but specifically run in line with the ethos of the Sisters of Charity:
“The affairs of the hospital are managed by a Board of Directors, which is responsible to the Shareholders of the company which are the Sisters of Charity. The Board, as part of its responsibility develops the hospital and its services in accordance with the principles and ethics of the Congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity.”
How is that acceptable in this day and age??? Ditto the Catholic Youth Service, Catholic Marriage Guidance Council – I am not saying they are doing a bad job, but how come so many of the vital public services we contract out to organisations are still being run, with our money, by one religious group?
I would never criticise the church for continuing to preach what it believes – that is none of my business. Nobody wants to stop the church or any other separate organisation or its members from doing or believing what they wish to – but imposing that onto all of us in our public, and publicly-funded, services is another matter altogether. Can you see what I am on about?
Here are results that show that in most cases nearly half of parents were not happy with current arrangements and wanted another choice of patronage and in some cases more than half wanted another choice. That nearly half in so many cases are a huge amount of people (certainly more than can be catered for with the current 5% of non-Catholic schools). And if you have an area where there are only sufficient numbers for only one completely state funded school, and you have 51% who want a Catholic school, and the rest not wanting that, then does it not make sense (given that we are talking about our public and state-funded education system) to have a school patronage that caters for and embraces ALL those families and children? Does the Catholic church really expect us all to fork out for two schools in a small town where only one is needed? It’s just not really on. The only solution I can see is the state funded school that caters for and treasures all children equally and without discrimination, and if the Catholic church want to set up and fund themselves an additional school that is just for Catholic children they could do so…
http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Report-on-the-surveys-regarding-parental-preferences-on-primary-school-patronage.pdf
Well said Tony , brave and poetic.
Liberalism has failed all around the world ,
In the USA , its a disaster , maniacs running around with machine guns killing school children , 30 000 people dead every year as a result of firearms .
Liberal Politics is not modern or new , its around Donkies years , it has failed in every country which has adopted it .
Strange that, considering that the world’s most ‘liberal’ countries (Mostly Western- think Europe, Australia, North America etc.) are also the most wealthy, free and equal societies, with the highest standards of living.
That would be conservatism not liberalism. The NRA advocate for practically no gun control in the US and they are far from liberal.
What, pray tell, does that have to do with the price of sausages?
As an aside, most people would call the Scandinavian countries quite liberal, yet they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.. Their economies are stable, they have great education, health and justice systems.. Hardly failures.
America is a messed up society – they have their own reasons for turning out the way they did. Same with any country. Education is the backbone of the Scandinavian model – something we should “learn” from.
LOL, you must be too ignorant to realise the irony of what you are saying. I think you will find that it is the Christian Conservative Right in the United States that resists all efforts by “Liberalism” (as you put it) to exercise some level of Gun Control. So, the maniacs you refer to running around with guns in the US, probably only have those guns due to Christian Right “values”. There is also a distinct, overwhelming correlation between high crime rates and bible belt states in the US, – ie. more religious, conservative states have higher crime rates than more liberal, secular states ( http://i.imgur.com/kpb5A.png ).
Similarly this pattern is borne out with secular, liberal countries around the world, where various quality of life indices tend to fare much better
Liberal gun laws = anyone can have a gun.
This liberal/conservative thing can be confusing.
Margaret thatchers conservative government liberalised the british economy.
Most of the liberals in Ireland aren’t in fact liberal at all.
Many of the proposals I see in this article are a bit too wooly for my liking, and I suspect would be defeated by the electorate in referenda.
Dave, I know a guy who’s a booking agent for a lot of top comedians, you’re wasted on these guys, you need a stage and an audience that appreciates your unique style
Dave, you’re so wrong its laughable. Its the Liberals in the US who want tighter gun controls.
Seriously, if you’re going to have a rant at least get your facts correct.
Actually it’s not “liberal gun laws”, gun ownership in the US is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, it’s not a liberal or a conservative thing, but the democrats – who most refer to as “liberal” are the ones who want tighter gun controls. The republicans are the ones in bed with the NRA.
Dave is clearly either a troll or a moron. Lets do a venn diagram of those in the US who consider themselves left wing, those who consider themselves right wing and those who oppose gun control legislation and see what we get.
Stephanie ,
you call me a moron because I have an opinion thats not shared by the collective ,
I can think whatever way I like Stephanie , its not your place to Judge me or anyone else . The fact is I’ll never be assimilated into the collective , I’ll never share Liberal views nor will I ever come to love the EU.
I think the way I think , and there aint nothin you can do about it ,
regardless of the amount of Propaganda you put out there , there will always be resistance
Yes Stephanie, remember – only liberals are capable of evolution.. Conservatives resist that stuff..
Seems like the term ‘liberal’ needs redefining. I presume a liberal would be happy to allow people of differing opinions to put those opinions forward in the public sphere, campaign for them etc. However there have been more than a few instances recently of pro-life, pro-chastity and similar groups being supressed in our educational institutions. Pluralism anyone?
May I ask how these groups were suppressed exactly?
What I have seen is that these groups seem to enjoy free access to secondary schools around the country, in spite of the fact that sex education modules are supposed to be evidence based. Their methods are a proven failure, yet they still get access – so how is this suppression exactly?
Unless you’ve gone and redefined “suppression” for the purposes of your comment..
Michael, did you read on here recently about the group Pure at Heart, going to schools and giving talks about sex to teenegers. Filling them with lies. Parents weren’t consulted about it. The group weren’t assessed in any way before hand.
I would certainly oppose religious groups going to schools. People are free to practice religion, but it should be a choice and done in ones own time.
Sure the EU Commission is going into our Primary Schools through the Blue Star Programme filling the children heads with lies and rubbish about the EU ,
and sanctioned by all the political Parties .
yet nobody bats an eyelid .
Are they Sellotaping the kids together as a symbol for European Unity lol…
Ailbhe, Shanti and Miss Filed
Please allow me to respond to your several points together. I will set out my own views on the issues in question.
1. I am a member of the Association of Catholics of Ireland. However, neither they or any other organisation speaks for me.
2. While none of you may be guilty of it, it is certainly true that much of the commentary here and elsewhere is vehemently anti-religion in general and hatefully anti-Catholic in particular. I am in no doubt that some in our country would like to see the Catholic Church driven from any public role regardless of constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, etc.
3. While this country has changed beyond recognition in the last 50 years – and I accept that Catholics will have to make a lot of adjustments – it saddens me that few express any gratitude to the Church for all the schools hospitals and other institutions it founded when the State was unwilling or unable to do so. Specifically there are many, myself included, who would not have received a decent education but for the work of priests, brothers and nuns.
4. With regard to changes in society in recent times I think it was the late Sen. Edward Kennedy who said that it was a poor religion which had to have its strictures enshrined in the law of the land. I fully share that view but would point out that my views on abortion are not solely based on my religious beliefs.
5. On gay rights I think some of the concerns expressed are over the top. As long as the Church or the laity are not compelled to act against conscience I think we shouldn’t get too het up about them. Specifically I have yet to make up my mind about gay marriage but I think other difficulties should be cleared up as soon as possible. With regard to children being brought up by gays I feel that as long as these children like all others are covered by robust child-protection laws I think we should regularise their position in what ever way is necessary.
6. Returning to education I have given a lot of thought to these questions in light of your several comments. While we could argue over the statistics I think the writing is on the wall for Catholic control over so many schools. The big question is about adequate provision for all in light of the many demands for this or that kind of education. There is a lot to be said for the Educate Together model. However there is a specific philosophy of Catholic education which is best served, in my view, in a school with a Catholic ethos. My argument is that Catholic parents who pay the same taxes as anyone else have a right to expect the State to materially support that kind of education.
7. As I have seen different versions of the ‘Pure at Heart’ incidents I can’t comment definitively. However I would say that any such interventions should be agreed with parents beforehand and should be properly contextualised. However my comments in this regard were mostly about a number of instances where pro-life or Catholic groups have had their recognition withdrawn or refused in some of our Universities. This is totally unacceptable and displays a lack of desire for true pluralism.
Sorry for the long post.
Don’t apologise Michael, you were just being thorough, which I for one appreciate.
From your post there you sound totally fair enough. And I don’t doubt that there are many more like yourself (when I asked you about Iona I was wondering if as a catholic you felt that they fulfilled their role as catholic spokespeople, as I hazard a guess there are many who would disagree).
I am guilty of anti catholic sentiment but simply because it has been an oppressive force in my life, I do know some people who would love to see all religion banned but personally I think that’s taking it too far. But like you said, a religion that needs to interfere with legislation is on shaky ground..
You may be perhaps a little more “Christ like” than the more vocal Catholics both here and in the media. Something far more worthy of respect than what is often displayed here!
Thank you Shanti for your kind post. I am so sorry that your experience of the church was oppressive. I think you know in your heart of hearts that it is not supposed to be like that. I hope and pray that somehow the Church will find its way again and live out the true meaning of its creed. I believe in Jesus and the simplicity of His message. There seems to be something in humans that seeks to make everything complicated! All the best.
Don’t mention it, and I know what you mean, have often said that if Jesus was real and he came back now he would have a few words to say to some of the hierarchy of the church.
Francis seems like a nice enough chap, but there’s a lot to be done, whether he will manage to do it, well.. Will he actually get the chance?
Sadly, all the great leaders tend to get killed.. They become too inconvenient.
Nice to chat to you, have always felt that there was two distinct types of Christians, the ones who used Jesus as an example and the ones who use him as a weapon.. It’s easy to see which type you are :)
All the best!
If there was ever a reason to vote to abolish the Senate or Labour, Ivana Bacik is it.
here , here , I second that motion
Pity for ye the Irish people disagree lads; do ye not remember the defeat of the amendment to abolish the Seanad?
Seems like the majority in this country don’t agree with your views on the upper house.
To get rid of the Labour Party anyway , as for the Senate , the Jury is still out on that .
The jury is still out??
Er, we had a referendum, the people voted to keep the Seanad, so it’s going nowhere..
wait until after the local elections……
Seriously Dave, do you get anything right? We had a referendum on whether to keep the Seanad or not and the people decided to keep it. Do you not remember that one?
The jury is out? Wow, utter denial!
have your say