Originally Posted by Toland

Not many. Perhaps a few.

I have no problem with the President representing the country at religious services. I merely think there's a helluva a lot of rebalancing to do, especially in the wake of the very religiously oriented McAleese presidency.

Yet, I'm very much towards the anti-church end of the spectrum on this site and amongst Irish people.

The point I'm trying to make is that very few people want to eradicate anything, despite all the self-serving paranoia/hyperbole of religious conservatives.

Well, if I can remember correctly, you want to get rid of the Angelus, the Papal Cross, religious statues from hospitals and other public buildings. You also want to do away with the religious input in education. You also have a problem with religious references on TV and radio. You also think the religious should have no say when it comes to social/political policy (weren't you annoyed by their presence at some economic forum?).

You want to eradicate quite a bit, actually.

Originally Posted by Toland

More self-serving paranoia/hyperbole.

What he said is 100% accurate.

Can we just say once and for all: we atheists are happy for you to continue believe in whatever fantasies you enjoy. We do not plan to burn you, torture you, throw you out of jobs or otherwise exclude you, as you did to us when you could get away with it. 'Intolerant liberal/secularist sounds like a clever phrase but actual;ly means nothing.

Any way, while we're on the subject of paranoia, can you please refrain from making up the usual 'multi-culturalists banning our cribs/Christmas trees" stories this year please? The stories get a lot of people's blood pressure up, clog the radio shows and waste a lot of time before someone finds out that the tree/crib was moved to a less windy location or was never there in the first place,. At least you are now blaming Muslims, not atheists.

Originally Posted by Venceremos

Can we just say once and for all: we atheists are happy for you to continue believe in whatever fantasies you enjoy. We do not plan to burn you, torture you, throw you out of jobs or otherwise exclude you, as you did to us when you could get away with it. 'Intolerant liberal/secularist sounds like a clever phrase but actual;ly means nothing.

Any way, while we're on the subject of paranoia, can you please refrain from making up the usual 'multi-culturalists banning our cribs/Christmas trees" stories this year please? The stories get a lot of people's blood pressure up, clog the radio shows and waste a lot of time before someone finds out that the tree/crib was moved to a less windy location or was never there in the first place,. At least you are now blaming Muslims, not atheists.

Does knocking down a series of strawmen in succession make you feel smart or something?

Originally Posted by femmefatale

Well, if I can remember correctly, you want to get rid of the Angelus, the Papal Cross, religious statues from hospitals and other public buildings. You also want to do away with the religious input in education. You also have a problem with religious references on TV and radio. You also think the religious should have no say when it comes to social/political policy (weren't you annoyed by their presence at some economic forum?).

You want to eradicate quite a bit, actually.

I want a radical rebalancing in the relationship between religion and politics in Ireland.

I have no problem with the religious participating in conferences on, for example, economics (that was the issue, remember?). I have a difficulty with unqualified people being given invitations to speak on event on which they have no idea, simply because of their religious status. I particularly object when such invitations prevent other, more qualified, people from contributing.

Originally Posted by Fr. Hank Tree

Does knocking down a series of strawmen in succession make you feel smart or something?

you started it.

Originally Posted by citizen pat

I agree
it is surprising that M Dee agreed to so much of this religious ceremonial nonsense .He was elected as a head of state not a religious entity, it should have been a 'civic' ceremony .

As his election was under the auspices of Bunreacht it doesn't seem that strange that there should be a religious presence. Rather than people getting upset at their presence, possibly Bunreacht should be altered to accommodate the Changes within the Republic ?

Originally Posted by Toland

I want a radical rebalancing in the relationship between religion and politics in Ireland.

I have no problem with the religious participating in conferences on, for example, economics (that was the issue, remember?). I have a difficulty with unqualified people being given invitations to speak on event on which they have no idea, simply because of their religious status. I particularly object when such invitations prevent other, more qualified, people from contributing.

From what I can remember, those religious attendees were suitably qualified to be in attendance.

Your "radical rebalancing" involves the eradication of many of the ways in which religion plays a part in our society, so you weren't being honest when you stated above that "very few people want to eradicate anything, despite all the self-serving paranoia/hyperbole of religious conservatives."

I have no objection to a religious element, after all if it is an inclusive ceremony then to exclude would be wrong. I think the radical atheists on this site should bear in mind that most people in Ireland do have a religious belief. That said, I do not agree with Muslims taking part in such a ceremony - except if they use the platform to call people to Islam.

Muslims can ask that Allah blesses the leader with wisdom and prudence, they can ask for alleviation from oppression and persecution and in the case of a non-Muslim leader they should petition Allah to change the heart of the one in power in favour of Islam. But can a Muslim join a platform of non-believers (Christian, Jew and humanist) and publically bless a non-Muslim president?

Ireland’s Presidential Inauguration Speech and a Muslim blessing? | EireMuslim

Originally Posted by The Saltees Eagle

The whole nonsense about some half nuts Welsh shepherd bringing christianity to Ireland is handy for simplicity but I believe historically he was well preceded by a bunch of other missionaries. All of whom were hellbent, if you will, on introducing the Irish nation to the notion that there was only one god and if anyone said any different they were to be burnt in hell and have their goolies scraped by Satan for eternity (in his infinite mercy).

Prior to the slithering of that foul creed down a gangplank there were many different local and some national gods and goddesses which were not in competition with each other for followers- hence no sectarianism. We all know what two bunches of loons using different versions of gods can do to a society.

Again, I suggest that you read a history book before posting such rabid delusional nonsense, and then ask yourself, did sectarianism start with St. Patrick stepping off a boat, or with the 16th and 17th century plantation of Ireland by English monarchs? Even the conflict that it precipitated had less to do with religion then it had to do with land and wealth and who gets to control either. In fact, if you scratch the surface of any sectarian conflict I think you'll find that they are all the same.
As for northern conflicts and the southern divide, it seems that you've never read the Táin Bó Cúalnge either. Long before St. Patrick ever set foot on these shores we were committing conflict, and our uneasy relationship with the north to epic poetry. I put it to you that if we weren't killing each other over religion, we'd be killing each other over a herd of cows (back to land and wealth again it seems).
I also suggest you read one last thing, your own post again. If you are looking for a textbook definition and fine example of sectarianism, I think you’ll find it in your own words.