Originally Posted by Mary Frances

Perhaps. I'm a lapsed Catholic although I still "probably" believe - I was comfortable enough with the whole thing. Maybe in trying to be inclusive of all religions and none, Michael D (if it was his call) may have unwittingly increased the overall religious input? I don't remeber clearly the amount of religious involvement in previous inaugurations but it was likely to have been more Catholic and less diverse.

There was a tradition that the inauguration was preceded by a religious service, usually the Pro Cathedral but in the case of Childers it was held in St Patrick's. Childers read St Patrick's Breastplate (The Deer's Cry). I think the two elements have now merged but have been expanded to include a Humanist representative. Found it moving. I think you have to look at the entire event as a whole, including MDH's speech which was inclusive.

Originally Posted by Toland

If by place in the public sphere you mean the privileged situation they currently have in ceremonial, in the media and in access to politicians, then I'd agree with them.

What privileged position? AFAICS they have a position proportionate to their size. All other such groups are or should be treated the same way. But i don't see them as enjoying any undue/special treatment. Afterall, it's not like we have a state religion or a reserve no of representatives of the church in our upper house of parliament. It's not as if the state has officially endorsed this faith as the true one.

Originally Posted by Toland

But that doesn't mean either that politicians shouldn't use religious ceremonial on religious occasions and in religious public places (you can be guaranteed that politicians will do such stuff as long as there is public demand for it)

Why just religious occasions or religious public spaces? All you're doing here is extending slightly the conceptual remit of the private sphere/home. The essential point is: you still believe that on state occasions, the traditions and values of the population should be locked out. That is most un-republican.

Originally Posted by Toland

or -- god forbid -- that religious people can't expose their views and paraphenalia in public spaces.

That is not what I meant.

Originally Posted by Toland

you started it.

When and where?

Originally Posted by femmefatale

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

I made it clear that if they were so qualified, I had no objection to their attendance.

But you remember that, of course.

Originally Posted by Fr. Hank Tree

What privileged position? AFAICS they have a position proportionate to their size.

Indeed. AFAYCS.

Originally Posted by Equinox

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.

Good post.

Nice smackdown at the end too.

Originally Posted by Toland

Indeed. AFAYCS.

And this is what it comes down to. Your issues with democracy and the ways and traditions of Irish people.
Hence your obsessive little kulturkampf.

Originally Posted by Venceremos

before someone finds out that the tree/crib was moved to a less windy location or was never there in the first place

Are you seriously saying hours upon hours of radio shows were clogged up over trees that were moved because of atmospheric conditions?

The fact is liberals and lefties want to use law to enforce their ideology of faux inclusiveness (That is, inclusiveness for liberals and lefties, and no one else!).

They use law. They can't use debate and reason.

Originally Posted by Fr. Hank Tree

And this is what it comes down to. Your issues with democracy and the ways and traditions of Irish people.
Hence your obsessive little kulturkampf.

I have no issues with democracy. On the contrary, I have great faith in its ability to get things right in the end.

Like in many other all-embracing categories, I very much value some of the ways and traditions of Irish people and find that others are better off abandoned.


Most people feel that way.

Originally Posted by Toland

I very much value some of the ways and traditions of Irish people and find that others are better off abandoned.

Aye and you want the state to help you in that process.

Originally Posted by Toland

Most people feel that way.

Most people also feel that the state should be neutral.

Originally Posted by Toland

I have no issues with democracy.

Once it agrees with you.

Originally Posted by Fr. Hank Tree

Aye and you want the state to help you in that process.

Most people also feel that the state should be neutral.

Once it agrees with you.

Now you're just making a fool of yourself.