Advantages of a Secular Republic

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

I believe a secular Ireland is something that is badly needed, and highly desirable for all sorts of reasons that should be obvious even to those who would have regarded themselves as 'neutral' on the issue previously.

Advantages:

(1) Removal of the possibility of a religious cultural war within the education system in terms of demands for freedom to wear religious symbols or perceived slights to any one or more religions groupings. This will save money, time and angst within an already struggling education system.

(2) Removal of references to any one religion, either overt or covert within the Constitution removes the possibility of the Constitution being used as a religious football between for example christians and muslims.

(3) Ireland as a political entity sits better within the protections of international courts such as UN and ECJ. At this time we have a 'pretend' unbiased constitution and that opens a loophole for mischevious challenges quite possibly funded by groups outside the state. This is not aimed at any one religion but for example US hard-right evangelicals funding strawman challenges or extremist muslim groups with a European agenda and a need for legal precedent in Europe to attack other systems.

(4) A truly secular Republic does not mean a bias against religious people in Ireland of any description. A secular constitution can and will protect the right to worship of any group which is highly desirable and fair but does not entitle any of those groups to skew the legal system in their favour or demand preferential treatment.

(5) A secular Republic with a constitution reflecting that status contains freedom of speech and we can avoid legislative time and energy at a time of national emergency being taken up by 'angels dancing on pinheads' style debates in the Dail.

I have more but lets not make the post too long. I would be delighted to engage with anyone who thinks the above reasons are not thought out but I must admit that I really would like to debate down here on earth and not on issues of whether religious doctrine allows such a constitution. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before there is a spirituality-based troll on a discussion of proper public ADMINISTRATION of the Republic.

thanks.

[Panopticon]

I believe a secular Ireland is something that is badly needed, and highly desirable for all sorts of reasons that should be obvious even to those who would have regarded themselves as 'neutral' on the issue previously.

Advantages:

(1) Removal of the possibility of a religious cultural war within the education system in terms of demands for freedom to wear religious symbols or perceived slights to any one or more religions groupings. This will save money, time and angst within an already struggling education system.

(2) Removal of references to any one religion, either overt or covert within the Constitution removes the possibility of the Constitution being used as a religious football between for example christians and muslims.

(3) Ireland as a political entity sits better within the protections of international courts such as UN and ECJ. At this time we have a 'pretend' unbiased constitution and that opens a loophole for mischevious challenges quite possibly funded by groups outside the state. This is not aimed at any one religion but for example US hard-right evangelicals funding strawman challenges or extremist muslim groups with a European agenda and a need for legal precedent in Europe to attack other systems.

(4) A truly secular Republic does not mean a bias against religious people in Ireland of any description. A secular constitution can and will protect the right to worship of any group which is highly desirable and fair but does not entitle any of those groups to skew the legal system in their favour or demand preferential treatment.

(5) A secular Republic with a constitution reflecting that status contains freedom of speech and we can avoid legislative time and energy at a time of national emergency being taken up by 'angels dancing on pinheads' style debates in the Dail.

I have more but lets not make the post too long. I would be delighted to engage with anyone who thinks the above reasons are not thought out but I must admit that I really would like to debate down here on earth and not on issues of whether religious doctrine allows such a constitution. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before there is a spirituality-based troll on a discussion of proper public ADMINISTRATION of the Republic.

thanks.

1. No. France at the moment is a direct contradiction to this. They have always argued over religious symbols and whether they may be used by individual students or schools. Of course, the "cultural war" here is between anti-religious and pro-religious, but that should still count.
2. Hypothetical situation. Besides, the political football match would be removing religious references in the first place, so this isn't much of an argument.
3. Possible but again hypothetical, so not very convincing. I don't see why it matters if the money comes from abroad or at home, this is a classic appeal to xenophobia.
4. This would be good. However, it happens at the moment anyway.
5. We will always have time wasted in the Dáil.

=. I don't understand what you are proposing and how the "benefits" happen only under your solution.

[Factorem]

Cap'n Con and Cato attempting to force their ideologies on us yet again.

I can't believe you've made a post without revealing the Catholic chip on your shoulder.

[garlandgreen]

Cap'n Con and Cato attempting to force their ideologies on us yet again.

I can't believe you've made a post without revealing the Catholic chip on your shoulder.

I don't know on what planet posting an opinion on a message board can be called forcing an ideology on someone. Once again the overreaching hyperbole of the religious nut serves only to expose themselves

[Cato]

Cap'n Con and Cato attempting to force their ideologies on us yet again.

I can't believe you've made a post without revealing the Catholic chip on your shoulder.

Factorem, nothing will happen without the consent of the majority of the population, which I believe is not, as yet, open to a fully secular republic. I, as a citizen of a republic, reserve my right to put forward my beliefs and argue for them.

I have never, and will never, advocated the imposition of anything upon the majority of the population against their will. I am a democrat.

Now, please lay off on the personal attacks. While I am broadly sympathetic to the Captains view, I do not share all of them. I thank him, not because I agree with him 100%, but because I am thankful for this debate.

I am open to having my mind changed on issues, and indeed have changed my mind on some issues partially because of the points and arguments of other posters on this site. Can you honestly say that you are the same?

[TradCat]

1. Decisions on uniforms should be a matter for the school and no legal challenge to that should be entertained. Why the obsession with a 'once-size-fits-all' solution.

2. Whatever we think about this no government is going to look for a referendum on it unless it causes a problem. This is only a issue for a very small number of people. Far more of us would be interested in a referendum to abolish the upper house for example.

3. If an issue comes up we will deal with it.

4. Rights belong to individuals not groups. Groups should have nothing at all said about them in the constitution. The right to worship is not in the gift of the state. Get your statutes off our statues. If you give groups a right to worship some judge might decide you have to pay for it.

By making the state "secular" you are imposing an ideology on it and from what I have seen of some of its adherents I don't fancy it. The rights of individuals to live their lives in peace based on equality under the law is all we need. The state should get out of our way as much as possible.

[Andrew49]

Religion as practiced by the powerful in Ireland tended to set many things in stone - Religion was/is obdurate and blocked social and political change.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Quoting Panopticon;

1. No. France at the moment is a direct contradiction to this. They have always argued over religious symbols and whether they may be used by individual students or schools. Of course, the "cultural war" here is between anti-religious and pro-religious, but that should still count.

I understand the difficulties in France and am aware of the cultural wars raging both there in the UK. My fear is that the cultural war in Ireland will switch from the 'amount of catholicism allowed' style debate into something more akin to France and the UK. At the moment I foresee great danger in this, great expense and considerable angst and distraction on the horizon as Ireland struggles with a newish problem- the multicultural society.

2. Hypothetical situation. Besides, the political football match would be removing religious references in the first place, so this isn't much of an argument.

My argument may be regarded as hypothetical now but there are signs of this becoming reality as I know of at least one major evangelical group in the States funding the argument about abortion for example in Ireland and one group in Manchester certainly ramping up to target the Irish constitution. I would rather not go into specifics as I think there is a danger of the thread subject being diverted.

3. Possible but again hypothetical, so not very convincing. I don't see why it matters if the money comes from abroad or at home, this is a classic appeal to xenophobia.

I am the least xenophobic person I know I care nothing for the amount of pigmentation in someone's skin and am an emigrant from Ireland myself so can see the point of view of immigrants to a society quite well.

On the subject of a slight disparity between what in theory should be the freedoms and responsibilities of the state and its citizens we are off kilter with UN Declaration of Human Rights for example and in others what I regard as a democrat basic freedoms of the Democratic Republic model- free speech being one area where there has recently been and remains an ongoing problem in Ireland which should not even be an issue at this time of economic emergency.

4. This would be good. However, it happens at the moment anyway.

Its a bit devious but I think there is a political and commonsense argument for removing religious debate from the day to day administration of the state. A number of recent events in Ireland would indicate that there is some confusion in state bodies about the desirable concentration on administration rather than 'moral' angst. It is time I believe for an 11th commandment if I may use that christian term briefly - 'Keep thy religion to thyself' and out of day to day admin of the Republic. Religion is personal, not a reality competition to be played out in the civil arena.

5. We will always have time wasted in the Dáil.

Items such as the recent attempt by D Ahern, Minister for Justice to use up
Committee and Dail time with a subject that is mystifying at a time of economic crisis is unpatriotic, wasteful and suspiciously personal to the Minister. This 'blasphemy' debate is of interest to deep set interest groups, polarising, unhelpful and in view of earlier paras guaranteeing free speech and freedom of worship a scandalous red herring which should not be encouraged by a Minister many suspect may be operating from a 'conscience' or 'moral' desire. This is not a good use of expensive legislative time.

I don't understand what you are proposing and how the "benefits" happen only under your solution.

None of the benefits I outlined have happened under our existing status as set by the Constitution and the lack of commitment to sensible secular constitutional commitments have contributed to at least three major 'earthquake' issues in Ireland in recent years. This needs to be addressed for the future and arms of the state and their employees need to be refocused on the jobs they are paid for, not to exercise 'moral' based arguments, interference or aspirational day to day judgements about what they will or will not do.

In summary and for clarity- the head of the civil service needs to be able to say to everyone that civil servants understand who pays their salary and any such public servants who regard themselves as servants of anything other than the citizens and state must seek a living from whichever private organisation to whom they owe first loyalty.

[reknaw]

Based on about 40 years of living in a secular republic, I have no problem agreeing with Cato. Primary and secondary education and health and social services run by the municipality in accordance with State regulations, leaving the church to run -- churches. It kind of grows on you.

[Panopticon]

Thanks to Captain Con for those responses. Your points are interesting. I agree with some of them but not with others.