US Christians ‘bankrolling’ NO campaign in Ireland

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
The problem is really with Ireland there idea of putting peoples human rights to a vote
is what is offensive to me. Christians continue to marginalize themselves in so many
ways. First they chant the mantra they are not of this world they are about the
kingdom of heaven. In the same breathe they insist on dictating the attitudes of this
world.
If this were a vote as to whether there would be freedom to practice religion there would
be hell to pay
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
The problem is really with Ireland there idea of putting peoples human rights to a vote
is what is offensive to me. Christians continue to marginalize themselves in so many
ways. First they chant the mantra they are not of this world they are about the
kingdom of heaven. In the same breathe they insist on dictating the attitudes of this
world.
If this were a vote as to whether there would be freedom to practice religion there would
be hell to pay
Since when is getting married a human right?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
Nonsense, Franciscus lives by the dictum "Who am I to judge?"


Well that's a stupid rule to follow if you're the Pope. The whole point of the Pope is to enforce traditional papist teachings.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
Geezus, I thought the whole point was Christian charity.


Christianity is against homosexual marriage. If the Pope was doing his job properly he'd be campaigning against it and will spiritually punish the Irish if they vote in favour of it.

There's no point in having a church if the church brazenly follows every PC policy the state comes up with. The church's job should be to defend its teachings against the state.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
11
Aether Island
Christianity is against homosexual marriage. If the Pope was doing his job properly he'd be campaigning against it and will spiritually punish the Irish if they vote in favour of it.

There's no point in having a church if the church brazenly follows every PC policy the state comes up with. The church's job should be to defend its teachings against the state.

Fear not. When Charles becomes the head of the Church of England, Camilla will tell him what to do.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,650
9,661
113
Washington DC
This reminds me of the thread about American democracy. We act as if all this voting is democratic. What could be more democratic than a single issue referendum? Why does it matter that one side of the issue has massive foreign funding?
Then the other side should acquire massive funding. Or not.

Do we assume that pouring money into a campaign will have undue influence on the electorate?
Define "undue."

It doesn't seem like any arguments in this thread can stand without that assumption. Or at least the assumption that money buys influence and that more money buys more influence. Seems to be the basic premise behind the argument that our democracies are actually plutocracies.
Nope. It's a plutocracy when money buys decisions. What's wrong with money buying influence? More wrong than, say, fame buying influence? Or Stupid Human Tricks buying influence? Or that ability to get the goggle box to pay attention to you buys influence?
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
in that staunchly Catholic country.

That's a little out of date. The Irish have dropped Catholicism like a live grenade. (see: Quebec)
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
When Charles becomes the head of the Church of England, Camilla will tell him what to do.

I hope so.

in that staunchly Catholic country.

That's a little out of date. The Irish have dropped Catholicism like a live grenade. (see: Quebec)

In 2011, 84.2% of the population identified themselves as Roman Catholic, 4.6% as Protestant or another Christian religion, 1.1% as Muslim, and 6.2% as having no religion. According to a Georgetown University study, the country has one of the highest rates of regular Mass attendance in the Western world.

Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
Ireland’s ‘tolerant’ elite now demonise anyone who opposes gay marriage

Brendan O'Neill
The Spectator
19 May 2015
96 comments


Pro-same-sex marriage campaigner Glenna Benson poses with YES badges in English and Irish at an event ahead of the Irish same-sex marriage referendum. Homosexuality was only legalised in the Roman Catholic nation in 1993 (Photo: Paul Faith/Getty)


If you think it’s tough being a Tory voter in 21st-century Britain, try being a ‘No’ voter in this week’s Irish referendum on gay marriage. Sure, Twitterati sneering at all things right-wing might have turned some Conservatives into Shy Tories, hiding their political leanings from pollsters. But in Ireland, to be a naysayer in relation to gay marriage is basically to make yourself a moral leper, unfit for polite society, ripe for exclusion from respectable circles. Irish opponents of gay marriage aren’t only encouraged to feel shy — they’re encouraged to feel shame.

On Friday, the Irish electorate will be asked to vote on the redefinition of marriage as a relationship involving ‘two persons without distinction as to their sex’. Heaven help anyone who says No to this flinging open of marriage to same-sex couples. For the extent to which Ireland’s political and media elites have lined up behind gay marriage ahead of the referendum is nothing short of breathtaking. I’ve racked my brains, and I can’t think of any other political issue in Europe in recent times on which the consensus has been so suffocating, and so hostile to dissent.

There’s a profound irony here: Ireland’s political class calls for a Yes vote to prove that Ireland has moved on from its intolerant religious past, and yet some of that old intolerance is being rehabilitated by the very people backing gay marriage. They shush dissent and demonise their opponents as effectively as any priest used to do, only in the name of Gays rather than God. Backing gay marriage has become, in Irish Independent columnist, Eilis O’Hanlon’s words, a way for influential people to ‘identify [themselves] as members of an enlightened elite’, ‘kindly metropolitan liberals versus nasty Catholic conservatives’. This referendum is now only ostensibly about gay marriage: more fundamentally it has become a means for a new, PC, post-traditionalist elite to distinguish itself from the allegedly hateful and gruff inhabitants of Ireland’s more rural, old-fashioned communities.


There are two referenda being held in the Republic of Ireland on 22nd May on two proposed amendments to the Constitution of Ireland: one on whether or not to permit gay marriage and the other on whether or not to reduce the age of candidacy for the Presidency of Ireland from 35 to 21. Above, Michael D. Higgins, the ninth and current President of Ireland


The president, Michael D Higgins, and the prime minister, Enda Kenny, back gay marriage. So does virtually every politician. Indeed, the main parties are enforcing the party whip on gay marriage, meaning any Senator or TD who votes against it is likely to be expelled from his or her party. According to the Irish Independent, even politicians who harbour ‘reservations about this major legislative change’ are not speaking out, ‘for fear of disobeying the party whip’. A professor of theology has written about a culture of ‘intimidation’ in political circles, saying it’s ‘incredible that the political parties have imposed the whip’ on this issue. Only one politician — one — has resigned his party’s whip over gay marriage.

So intense is the whipped political consensus that politicians, desperate to demonstrate their gay-marriage correctness, are openly flouting some of the Irish parliament’s longstanding rules. Wearing political badges is forbidden in Ireland’s parliament, so in recent weeks politicians have been asked to remove the ‘YES’ badges many of them have taken to wearing. And they have refused. And no less a figure than Joan Burton, the deputy prime minister, has supported them. Clearly, parliamentary rules come a poor second to making a public spectacle of one’s devotion to gay marriage. Wearing a ‘YES’ badge has become a shortcut to the moral highground, a passport to chattering-class respectability, and politicians won’t be taking them off for anyone.

Meanwhile, virtually the entire media are agitating for a Yes vote. Especially the Irish Times, mouthpiece of the smug inhabitants of Dublin 4, Ireland’s version of Islington, only more painfully PC. In this rarefied universe, supporting gay marriage is as natural as breathing, and as necessary too: fail to back gay marriage and you’re as good as dead to the Irish Times-reading set. The public sector also backs gay marriage. It’s apparently being strongarmed to do so. According to one dissenting politician — the only one — ‘agencies who receive state funding are being pressured [by officials] into supporting a Yes vote’.

Silicon Valley is fully behind Yes: Twitter, Google and eBay have all come out for gay marriage. Twitter’s Irish boss says a Yes victory will enhance ‘Ireland’s international reputation’ — another way of saying that if you vote No, you are damaging your own country. Even the police are saying Yes: the Garda Representative Association caused a stir by calling on its members to support gay marriage, leading some to wonder if it’s right for coppers to stick their truncheons into politics.


Anti-same-sex marriage campaigners in Dublin


So, the armed wing, political wing and chattering wing of the Irish elite is behind Yes. And what’s more, they’re actively demonising the No side, treating them as pariahs whose backward ways of thinking could harm Ireland and her citizens. The Psychological Society of Ireland issued a dire warning about the arguments of the anti-gay marriage camp, claiming they could ‘impact detrimentally on people’. A writer for the Irish Times called for the establishment of a ‘homophobia watchdog’ to keep a check on the words of the No side. The end result of the sacralisation of Yes and demonisation of No is a strangled, unfree debate. This is especially the case on social media. There, in the words of O’Hanlon, those who express doubts about gay marriage can find themselves ‘driven offline’.

This moralisation of the marriage debate is a dangerous game, for it means that, whatever the outcome on Friday, Ireland will likely feel more divided than ever — between a new class of allegedly decent people in Dublin and the old, the religious, The Other.


Ireland's 'tolerant' elite now demonise anyone who opposes gay marriage - Spectator Blogs
 
Last edited:

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Yeah. The Labour Party is bankrolled massively by the unions.

I don't know. I feel like that doesn't really count. It's a different situation entirely. Groups that fund political parties are essentially buying influence in the party. The Americans bankrolling the No campaign are using money to influence the electorate.

But I can see where you're coming from. It's still a separate issue, but people do complain about the influence many has in political parties, especially the left.

What's wrong with money buying influence?

The assumption made in this thread is that it is wrong. I agree, but I also think we live in a plutocracy. I don't see how others can resolve the idea that money buying influence is wrong and that our system is democratic.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,650
9,661
113
Washington DC
I don't know. I feel like that doesn't really count. It's a different situation entirely. Groups that fund political parties are essentially buying influence in the party. The Americans bankrolling the No campaign are using money to influence the electorate.

But I can see where you're coming from. It's still a separate issue, but people do complain about the influence many has in political parties, especially the left.



The assumption made in this thread is that it is wrong. I agree, but I also think we live in a plutocracy. I don't see how others can resolve the idea that money buying influence is wrong and that our system is democratic.
Money does buy influence, and our system is democratic. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
I find it interesting that Bible Belt evangelicals are bankrolling this battle in Catholic Ireland when their granddaddies were burning crosses on Catholic front lawns.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
I find it interesting that Bible Belt evangelicals are bankrolling this battle in Catholic Ireland when their granddaddies were burning crosses on Catholic front lawns.
BHO was against homosexual marriage just 3 years ago.