Connolly Festival (1 Viewer)

[oh shit]

you hidiot.

 

[Janer]

you hidiot.

!ninjaaaa hidiot type smilie?

 

[jackwhite]

Good question about getting speakers with opposing views - and the answer is yes we could ask them.

But for example those who are pro life or against same sex marriage all ready have all main political parties lining up on their side along with the Catholic Church which has weekly meetings (masses) in every parish in the country. They have massive resources on their side - they never invite pro choice speakers into mass or to a Fianna Fáil, PD, Fine Gael of Sinn Fein conference. So why should we with the little resources we have provide space for arguments that are aired all the time by the establishment?

Similarly in terms of Shell and Coca Cola they spend hundreds of millions on advertising persuading us that their products are clean and ethical and all the rest, and we have only tiny resources so rather than providing them with another platform to spread their lies we think it best to concentrate on the truth of what they are actually doing in Rossport and Colombia and spend the rest of the time talking about what we can do to campaign against them. We could spend the whole weekend debating the broader issues of whether or not Shell should be building an unsafe pipeline - or we can get on with the task of organising the campaign against them.

Incidentally both Shell and Coke have been invited previously to publicy debate these issues and have declined. If they have nothing to hide then why won't they debate?

 

[ICUH8N]

both Shell and Coke have been invited previously to publicy debate these issues and have declined. If they have nothing to hide then why won't they debate?

Too busy keeping "the man" down.

 

[Doctor Muscles]

the Catholic Church which has weekly meetings (masses) in every parish in the country

To be fair, they mostly pray, read from the bible and receive communion at those.

 

[jackwhite]

Yes but when issues like abortion and divorce referendums arise then the Chruch kicks into full swing and issues letters from the Bishops which are read out at every mass telling people how to vote.

Yes not every priest is a rotten egg - there's good ones out there like Peter Mc Verry who an outspoken critic of the establishment - but the church is still a huge resource for conservative anti choice campaigners. It ensures that 90% of kids in school are fed this line, while 100% of mass goers get it as well. That kind of access to an audience not even Shell or Coke could buy (yet).

If we had that sort of access to people to get our message across abortion would be free, safe and legal in Ireland now. The church is the same organisation don't forget that blessed the blueshirts going to Spain to fight for Facism, ex communicated those who fought for the democratically elected government in Spain.

In Leitrim in the 30's the Church whipped up hysteria against a community hall that was built with the help of Jim Gralton a local socialist. Because the hall wasn't under the control of the priests they objected to it, got the government to bring in laws banning dances in halls and whipped up the local IRA and blueshirt mobs (an unholy alliance if there ever was one) to burn the hall down. The church is tamer these days but it is still inherently on the side of conservatism particularly the hierarchy.

 

[Doctor Muscles]

Yes but when issues like abortion and divorce referendums arise then the Chruch kicks into full swing and issues letters from the Bishops which are read out at every mass telling people how to vote.

Issues that are legistlated for, but are primarily moral questions. The church is allowed to voice it's opinion on morality (as it sees it). If you're a Catholic, tough luck that's the line.

Yes not every priest is a rotten egg - there's good ones out there like Peter Mc Verry who an outspoken critic of the establishment - but the church is still a huge resource for conservative anti choice campaigners.

I would go as far as to say that most priests are not rotten eggs. I'll assume you're talking about conservative priests as opposed to child-abusing ones (that would make it a very ignorant comment). In any case just because someone is conservative doesn't make them a rotten egg.

It ensures that 90% of kids in school are fed this line, while 100% of mass goers get it as well. That kind of access to an audience not even Shell or Coke could buy (yet).

The last time I was in school (about 5 years ago) the majority of Religious education was given over to learning about other religions (classes even went on tours of Synagogues and Mosques). With the influx into the country of children from other backgrounds I can hardly imagine religion classes continuing in the manner we were accustomed to for much longer.

I might be wrong but wasn't there talk recently of communion/confirmation preparations been taken out of schools? Think I read that somewhere.

If we had that sort of access to people to get our message across abortion would be free, safe and legal in Ireland now.

Says who? That's ridiculous! If the churches audience defected to Labour/Labour youth we'd all be grand now would we?

The church is the same organisation don't forget that blessed the blueshirts going to Spain to fight for Facism, ex communicated those who fought for the democratically elected government in Spain.

In Leitrim in the 30's the Church whipped up hysteria against a community hall that was built with the help of Jim Gralton a local socialist. Because the hall wasn't under the control of the priests they objected to it, got the government to bring in laws banning dances in halls and whipped up the local IRA and blueshirt mobs (an unholy alliance if there ever was one) to burn the hall down. The church is tamer these days but it is still inherently on the side of conservatism particularly the hierarchy.

That's super, but has no bearing on anything now. Fine Gael spawned the blueshirts years ago, but I'm not expecting a far right totalitarian government to start abusing us should they be voted into power.

 

[jackwhite]

Some good points raised.

I

would go as far as to say that most priests are not rotten eggs. I'll assume you're talking about conservative priests as opposed to child-abusing ones (that would make it a very ignorant comment). In any case just because someone is conservative doesn't make them a rotten egg.

I agree with you that in fact most priests are to varying degrees probably good eggs, people who joined up because they wanted to serve God and their communities and so forth. The issue isn't with the individuals involved, it is more with the institution. Much the same as the Gardaí - there are plenty of decent individual Gardaí - the problem is with the institution. And despite the work of some progressive elements of the church - it is overwhelmingly a conservative institution.

Issues that are legistlated for, but are primarily moral questions. The church is allowed to voice it's opinion on morality (as it sees it). If you're a Catholic, tough luck that's the line

.


Now most people who are involved in the church and going to mass are well intentioned people who wish to serve god and their community. There is no problem there as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that tied into that - and there is no choice of getting out of it unless you switch church - is that with catholicism comes a right wing conservative morality as set down by Rome, which in fact is a political set of values been passed off as religion. So while I might want to get a wee bit of mass in, a few prayers and maybe a cup of tea afterwards in the parish hall, I also get a bit of right wing conservative bullshit which has nothing to do with loving thy neighbour and in fact may be more about hatred thrown in.

I see the church as everyone who is involved, not just the hierarchy. I don't think any bishop or pope has the right to claim to be the sole interpreter of Catholic morality just so they can push a right wing conservative agenda.

Says who? That's ridiculous! If the churches audience defected to Labour/Labour youth we'd all be grand now would we?

Sorry I should have been clearer - when I said "we " I meant those of us who are pro choice. 40% of people in Ireland are pro choice - that's with the entire poltical establishment, church and 90% of the education system stacked against us. I bet if we had some of that on our side swinging 10% of the population to a pro choice view point would be easy.

The last time I was in school (about 5 years ago) the majority of Religious education was given over to learning about other religions (classes even went on tours of Synagogues and Mosques). With the influx into the country of children from other backgrounds I can hardly imagine religion classes continuing in the manner we were accustomed to for much longer.

I might be wrong but wasn't there talk recently of communion/confirmation preparations been taken out of schools? Think I read that somewhere.

You were lucky with your experience of religious teaching in school. I'd love to see communion and confirmation preparation taken out of school. Kids and parents are still to this day under huge pressure to conform and participate in these "big days"

That's super, but has no bearing on anything now

Now I disagree with you totally on this point. The history of the role of the Chruch is very relevant. I'm not suggesting that they are as bad now as they were in the 30's - but if you want to know the true nature of a beast then you have to see the beast at the height of its power. Communism when it is a small oppositionary idea looks very benign and liberating. When it was in power under Stalin it was a different story with innocent people rounded up and sent off to die in slave labour camps in Siberia.

The power and influence of the Church is waning here - hence we don't immediately see just how conservative and oppressive they are, but given half the chance they lead mobs to burn non believers out of their homes as they did in Ireland 70 years ago. Its a long time ago, but not long enough that we should forget.

 

[classic seanc]

So why should we with the little resources we have provide space for arguments that are aired all the time by the establishment?

It's more about giving people balance really innit? If you're just gonna say "Issue X is wrong because of this, that and the other", you're only giving one side of the story. And it harks right back to the "we're a special little group, and we're right and everyone else is wrong and that's that! (folds arms)" mentality that got me started on this particular topic. It's no different than (for want of a better expression) "The Man's" attitude, and it's why people don't like politics.

You say they have advertising. Yeah, Shell have deadly advertising, because they've had such shit PR over the years, but that's all it is, advertising and PR. There's absolutley no parrallel between a PLC's ad and a political debate.


BAH! I hate the politics forum.

 

[Doctor Muscles]

I agree with you that in fact most priests are to varying degrees probably good eggs, people who joined up because they wanted to serve God and their communities and so forth. The issue isn't with the individuals involved, it is more with the institution. Much the same as the Gardaí - there are plenty of decent individual Gardaí - the problem is with the institution. And despite the work of some progressive elements of the church - it is overwhelmingly a conservative institution.

My problem with your original quote was that it seemed to imply that most priests were in some way corrupt or bad just because they were conservative. For the most part I agree with what you've said there, it is a conservative institution.

Now most people who are involved in the church and going to mass are well intentioned people who wish to serve god and their community. There is no problem there as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that tied into that - and there is no choice of getting out of it unless you switch church - is that with catholicism comes a right wing conservative morality as set down by Rome, which in fact is a political set of values been passed off as religion. So while I might want to get a wee bit of mass in, a few prayers and maybe a cup of tea afterwards in the parish hall, I also get a bit of right wing conservative bullshit which has nothing to do with loving thy neighbour and in fact may be more about hatred thrown in.

I see the church as everyone who is involved, not just the hierarchy. I don't think any bishop or pope has the right to claim to be the sole interpreter of Catholic morality just so they can push a right wing conservative agenda.

Some people seem to be under the impression that Religion is a liberal democracy; it isn't. Religions are dictatorships, ruled by whoever is recognised as the Pope/Ayatollah or whatever it is. As far as I know they've always been this way. If you want to change catholic doctrine you'll have to convince the Pope and shiteloads of cardinals, and the faithful. You can't just apply Irish party politics to it; it doesn't have some right wing agenda, just the same poxy agenda it's had for the last 2000 years.

Sorry I should have been clearer - when I said "we " I meant those of us who are pro choice. 40% of people in Ireland are pro choice - that's with the entire poltical establishment, church and 90% of the education system stacked against us. I bet if we had some of that on our side swinging 10% of the population to a pro choice view point would be easy.

Fair enough, thanks for clearing that up. I still think it's pretty useless to go about guessing what support it would have without the church.

You were lucky with your experience of religious teaching in school. I'd love to see communion and confirmation preparation taken out of school. Kids and parents are still to this day under huge pressure to conform and participate in these "big days"

It varied from class to class, but even when there was some mad conservative nun people would just rip the piss out of her like she was another teacher. Or even more than another teacher, because she was a mad, religiously conservative nun.

Now I disagree with you totally on this point. The history of the role of the Chruch is very relevant. I'm not suggesting that they are as bad now as they were in the 30's - but if you want to know the true nature of a beast then you have to see the beast at the height of its power. Communism when it is a small oppositionary idea looks very benign and liberating. When it was in power under Stalin it was a different story with innocent people rounded up and sent off to die in slave labour camps in Siberia.

The power and influence of the Church is waning here - hence we don't immediately see just how conservative and oppressive they are, but given half the chance they lead mobs to burn non believers out of their homes as they did in Ireland 70 years ago. Its a long time ago, but not long enough that we should forget.

It shouldn't be forgotten, but it shouoldn't be assumed that the church doesn't move on (albeit at a slower pace) with the rest of society. I'm willing to wager that the population was a good deal more ignorant of things 70 years ago than they are now, simply because it was poorer. I think the church in Ireland today wants to burn Jews out of their homes about as much as fine gael wants a fascist paramilitary wing.

 

[Buzzo]

Good question about getting speakers with opposing views - and the answer is yes we could ask them.

But for example those who are pro life or against same sex marriage all ready have all main political parties lining up on their side along with the Catholic Church which has weekly meetings (masses) in every parish in the country. They have massive resources on their side - they never invite pro choice speakers into mass or to a Fianna Fáil, PD, Fine Gael of Sinn Fein conference. So why should we with the little resources we have provide space for arguments that are aired all the time by the establishment?

I guess if what you're advertising is a Labour conference and your aim is just to reinforce or inspire confidence in peoples established opinions then maybe you don't need opposing speakers. I presume you're trying to sway those who are flirting with the idea of joining labour too. What's the nature of the debate that you're advertising if you're not bringing in an opposing view? Genuinely interested, not being a smartarse...

As someone who isn't a member of the party I'd find it patronising and manipulative myself if I went to a debate/discussion on issues I cared about and had thought out carefully to find that only one side was being presented to me. Then I don't affiliate with any particular political party or manifesto so I guess it's not something I need to worry about.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Yes but when issues like abortion and divorce referendums arise then the Chruch kicks into full swing and issues letters from the Bishops which are read out at every mass telling people how to vote.
.

ok, so your saying that the church only provides a forum for one strand of opinion, which is a bad thing, and that this the reason you guys dont have speakers with differing opinions to your own at your meetings?

 

[jackwhite]

These are all fair points that are been raised.

Basically the speakers will not be debating such things as should same sex couples continue to be discriminated against and treated as second class citizens?

We are starting from the point of assuming that equality is what we want. It would be disengenuous of us to pretend that discriminating against people who are LGBT was up for discussion at our events. It isn't. That's not to say that if you have a different view you can't come along and express it respectfully - you are welcome, but we are committed to equality, full stop and have no time for discrimination.

So where's the debate? Well there's lots of debate within the LGBT community about how we go about getting equality. Do we accept civil partnerships as a stepping stone to full equality or by accepting them, are we accepting that the state is entitled to discriminate against us.

There is a wide variety in the speakers chosen, who will have opposing views on how these issues can be solved. For example three of the speakers are anarchists, they don't believe in voting in elections. Another speaker is a T.D. who runs in elections. There is plenty of room for debate here about tactics, whether direct action is the way forward on these different campaigns, and if so how.

There is massive debate in the anti war movment over the last couple of years about tactics. Some people have taken actions like the Catholic Workers in Shannon who took an axe to a US military plane. Others in the movement have openly criticised them for doing this. All of these campaigns have relevant and ongoing debates about the way forward - debate that is crucial if we are to win on these issues and learn from our mistakes in the past.

We aren't interested in simply talking about these topics and debating them for the sake of it. We want to debate tactics so that we can win Shell 2 Sea, US military out of Shannon, the right to marry, a woman's right to choose and the right to join a union free from violence, fear, and torture.

 

[Buzzo]

These are all fair points that are been raised.

Basically the speakers will not be debating such things as should same sex couples continue to be discriminated against and treated as second class citizens?

We are starting from the point of assuming that equality is what we want. It would be disengenuous of us to pretend that discriminating against people who are LGBT was up for discussion at our events. It isn't. That's not to say that if you have a different view you can't come along and express it respectfully - you are welcome, but we are committed to equality, full stop and have no time for discrimination.

I respect your beliefs and I think I understand what you're trying to do but you don't seem to be expressing any sympathy or welcome to alternate opinions. (in your posts....) Your language usage speaks for itself. You clearly do have time for discrimination if you're refusing to acknowledge the multifarious and varied opinions that people have on the matters you're talking about, and their reasons for having them. You don't have to give opponents a platform, but you don't have to categorise people simply as discriminatory if they don't agree with your beliefs. That's discriminatory!

So where's the debate? Well there's lots of debate within the LGBT community about how we go about getting equality. Do we accept civil partnerships as a stepping stone to full equality or by accepting them, are we accepting that the state is entitled to discriminate against us.

There is a wide variety in the speakers chosen, who will have opposing views on how these issues can be solved. For example three of the speakers are anarchists, they don't believe in voting in elections. Another speaker is a T.D. who runs in elections. There is plenty of room for debate here about tactics, whether direct action is the way forward on these different campaigns, and if so how.

Makes sense. Makes good debating I'd say too.... g'luck with it.

PS: You should get the TD to tell those crusties to get a job and stop bothering the rest of us good folk for once and for all.

 

[oh shit]

I respect your beliefs and I think I understand what you're trying to do but you don't seem to be expressing any sympathy or welcome to alternate opinions. (in your posts....) Your language usage speaks for itself. You clearly do have time for discrimination if you're refusing to acknowledge the multifarious and varied opinions that people have on the matters you're talking about, and their reasons for having them. You don't have to give opponents a platform, but you don't have to categorise people simply as discriminatory if they don't agree with your beliefs. That's discriminatory

what? no political organisation has ever organised an event where they encourage their opponents to come have a say. it's not the school debating society. if you're in a political party you're there because you make truth-claims that necessarily exclude others as wrong (or discriminatory, or whatever).
but if you disagree, go start your own party! or recognise that totalising discourses are inherently oppressive and focus instead on revolutionising everyday life.
or somethin.

 

[Buzzo]

I already acknowledged that Bernard. I had moved on to the language he was using in his post. Do you have the blindness? Your period?

 

[saculusabcybium]

What about discussing stuff like creating a better society through reforming our policies or lack of policies on housing, development, transport and the environment not just these sexy hot issues that don't really do fuck all to sort out the mess we're in. Get some new ideas out ther cos oh lordy if you look at the alternatives they're well overdue.
I'd sooner talk about these issues and get going on creating a proper society than pussyfooting and pontificating around all these irrelevant (apologees to the .0005% of the population they affect) current popular nasties.

 

[jane]

What about discussing stuff like creating a better society through reforming our policies or lack of policies on housing, development, transport and the environment not just these sexy hot issues that don't really do fuck all to sort out the mess we're in. Get some new ideas out ther cos oh lordy if you look at the alternatives they're well overdue.
I'd sooner talk about these issues and get going on creating a proper society than pussyfooting and pontificating around all these irrelevant (apologees to the .0005% of the population they affect) current popular nasties.

Interesting how you were so adamant on the hunger strikers thread about how we should follow the letter of the law, it being right because it is the law. And now you want to go and argue that some policies are inherently flawed? Because that undermines what little argument you had on the other thread.

And these are not just 'sexy hot issues'. They are real issues that affect real people with real lives, and just because you don't think they affect you personally doesn't meant they aren't important. Many of us feel that equality for those who do not already enjoy it DOES affect all of us. If people in the LGBT community can't enjoy equal relationship status, because all inequalities affect all of us. Just because you don't give a shit doesn't mean that the issue is not important. Of course these other issues you mention are important, but so are many others. People are free to choose the ones they want to talk about at whatever event they organise. Isn't that part of what freedom is about?

There's a real trend in political discourse to declare equality issues dead and over, not because equality has been achieved, but because those with white/hetero/male/'national' privilege are bored of talking about them. I dunno about everyone else, but I find it rather worrying.

.0005% of the population? Don't bother apologising. You don't mean it, and it isn't productive.

 

[jane]

These are all fair points that are been raised.

Basically the speakers will not be debating such things as should same sex couples continue to be discriminated against and treated as second class citizens?

We are starting from the point of assuming that equality is what we want. It would be disengenuous of us to pretend that discriminating against people who are LGBT was up for discussion at our events. It isn't. That's not to say that if you have a different view you can't come along and express it respectfully - you are welcome, but we are committed to equality, full stop and have no time for discrimination.

So where's the debate? Well there's lots of debate within the LGBT community about how we go about getting equality. Do we accept civil partnerships as a stepping stone to full equality or by accepting them, are we accepting that the state is entitled to discriminate against us.

There is a wide variety in the speakers chosen, who will have opposing views on how these issues can be solved. For example three of the speakers are anarchists, they don't believe in voting in elections. Another speaker is a T.D. who runs in elections. There is plenty of room for debate here about tactics, whether direct action is the way forward on these different campaigns, and if so how.

There is massive debate in the anti war movment over the last couple of years about tactics. Some people have taken actions like the Catholic Workers in Shannon who took an axe to a US military plane. Others in the movement have openly criticised them for doing this. All of these campaigns have relevant and ongoing debates about the way forward - debate that is crucial if we are to win on these issues and learn from our mistakes in the past.

We aren't interested in simply talking about these topics and debating them for the sake of it. We want to debate tactics so that we can win Shell 2 Sea, US military out of Shannon, the right to marry, a woman's right to choose and the right to join a union free from violence, fear, and torture.

I think you make some important points. I can see why people would be critical of an event like this, but I also think that it can be very productive as a space that is part of a wide variety of spaces for debate and discussion.

Why not create a place where debates within the left/party/whatever can be aired and discussed? I don't see any problem with it. I think it's important for the wide variety of views within a party or political leaning to be debated. Yes, of course, some political events would be more productive were people from the 'opposition' were invited, but I think that to invite an anti-gay marriage bishop to this would displace time and space for the debates that need to take place within those who already support LGBT civil partnerships and/or marriage. What it sounds like to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the debate will not centre on whether or not LGBT people deserve rights, but that this will be the basis of understanding. Instead, the debate will centre on the best courses of action to take, and on what people's priorities are, to bring the main issues into focus so that they can be made productive.

In fact, I think we need to do a lot more debating within the left, precisely because the left/right in politics exist along a continuum, and few people's political positions would fit entirely in either category. When debates within parties or political organisations take place alongside the debates within and with wider society, then people can be better equipped to debate for real, rather than haul out the same opposing arguments that haven't gotten us anywhere.

I don't think it's a matter of people only getting a one-sided view. They will probably get a variety of views, but even so, they will be at an event where they know that they are getting the prevailing views of Labour Youth, not a representative sample of the whole country. That is available elsewhere.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

left/right in politics exist along a continuum, and few people's political positions would fit entirely in either category. .

I think thats the only thing Ive ever 100% agreed with you on.
This could be the begining of a beautiful friendship jane....