Italys Constitutional Court has ruled that Italian laws and customs take precedence over any rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. With Ireland facing a number of challenges to articles of our Constitution from secularist, humanist groups with an anti-christian agenda, perhaps this will provide some backbone to our Supreme Court when they have to face the rulings of this European quango, who are more interested in promoting their own agenda by asserting imaginary rights, rather than doing what is right
And what challenges are the poor persecuted christians facing in Ireland?
There's a case before the European Court demanding the "right" to abortion.
Well, as a secularist and a humanist, I see no good reason why the laws of a country should be based on (as I see it) fairy-stories, rather than human requirements. Are Christians not able to exercise personal restraint in support of their beliefs, or does everyone have to be corralled into doing what's right (like Islamists)??
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 25, 2010, 09:40:42 AM
Well, as a secularist and a humanist, I see no good reason why the laws of a country should be based on (as I see it) fairy-stories, rather than human requirements. Are Christians not able to exercise personal restraint in support of their beliefs, or doesn everyone have to be corralled into doing what's right (like Islamists)??
If you feel that way, how about trying to get the Constitution changed?
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2010, 09:56:20 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 25, 2010, 09:40:42 AM
Well, as a secularist and a humanist, I see no good reason why the laws of a country should be based on (as I see it) fairy-stories, rather than human requirements. Are Christians not able to exercise personal restraint in support of their beliefs, or doesn everyone have to be corralled into doing what's right (like Islamists)??
If you feel that way, how about trying to get the Constitution changed?
I'm on the case.
Quote from: Pangurban on February 25, 2010, 02:47:54 AM
Italys Constitutional Court has ruled that Italian laws and customs take precedence over any rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. With Ireland facing a number of challenges to articles of our Constitution from secularist, humanist groups with an anti-christian agenda, perhaps this will provide some backbone to our Supreme Court when they have to face the rulings of this European quango, who are more interested in promoting their own agenda by asserting imaginary rights, rather than doing what is right
Such certainty .......... what's it like living in that black and white world pangurban ???
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 25, 2010, 09:40:42 AM
Well, as a secularist and a humanist, I see no good reason why the laws of a country should be based on (as I see it) fairy-stories, rather than human requirements. Are Christians not able to exercise personal restraint in support of their beliefs, or doesn everyone have to be corralled into doing what's right (like Islamists)??
Pangurban can't even see the hypocrisy of his post specifically in relation to the protection of living childrens human rights (if abortion is the crypric reason for the post in the first place)
Haven't seen him hopping up and down with the protectors of his black and white world on the subject of child abusers being institutionally protected by the church
Quote from: Pangurban on February 25, 2010, 02:47:54 AM
Italys Constitutional Court has ruled that Italian laws and customs take precedence over any rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. With Ireland facing a number of challenges to articles of our Constitution from secularist, humanist groups with an anti-christian agenda, perhaps this will provide some backbone to our Supreme Court when they have to face the rulings of this European quango, who are more interested in promoting their own agenda by asserting imaginary rights, rather than doing what is right
Lets look at these imaginary rights for a second.
* Article 1 - respecting rights
* Article 2 - life
* Article 3 - torture
* Article 4 - servitude
* Article 5 - liberty and security
* Article 6 - fair trial
* Article 7 - retrospectivity
* Article 8 - privacy
* Article 9 - conscience and religion
* Article 10 - expression
* Article 11 - association
* Article 12 - marriage
* Article 13 - effective remedy
* Article 14 - discrimination
* Article 15 - derogations
* Article 16 - aliens
* Article 17 - abuse of rights
* Article 18 - permitted restrictions
Yea, what a load of toss. Lets bring back slavery. Forget about the courts too, waste of time. Torture and summary execution, thats the way forward. Not a christian, are you? A Johnny foreigner?? Out the gate! How foolish of me to believe in my imaginary rights ::)
You wouldn't be long extolling the virtues of your human rights if someone stopped you going to mass.
I think this topic should be Aborted.......ABORT...ABORT.....ABORT ;D
It's in the early stages so I don't see any reason why not....it's not as if it's a real discussion YET
Typical, thoughtless, infantile,knee-jerk responses from the usual suspects. While the majority of citizens across the European community are becoming exercised and debating the fact that so much of our legislation on matters of social concern is being dictated by Judges whose views on what constitutes human rights is questionable . The willingness of these judges to ride roughshod over the long standing and deeply held beliefs which have underpinned European society and culture,with decisions based on some distorted idea of individual morality and freedom, is in fact creating a tyranny These legal libertarians argue the right of individuals to think and act according to their conscience. The child abusers, pornographers, wife beaters, torturers and all the assorted criminal scum who inhabit our society, will have no difficulty supporting that premise, after all they are the people who benefit. If on the other hand your conscience or reason leads you to the conclusion that Abortion,Same sex marriages, are bans on forms of religious expression are wrong and dare to express those those views, then do expect to met with the same degree of tolerance. Opprobium and the full weight of the law will be heaped upon your Head by our freedom loving liberals, who fear debate or any form of challenge to their godless philosophy. When Human rights are interpretated as human licence, we are all in trouble, as societies throughout Europe including our own are finding to their cost
what does farreaching mean,is it an oirish word
Quote from: Lady GAA GAA on February 25, 2010, 10:44:50 PM
what does farreaching mean,is it an oirish word
I think it is the Donegal pronunciation of foraging.
Quote from: Pangurban on February 25, 2010, 08:19:54 PM
These legal libertarians argue the right of individuals to think and act according to their conscience. The child abusers, pornographers, wife beaters, torturers and all the assorted criminal scum who inhabit our society, will have no difficulty supporting that premise, after all they are the people who benefit. If on the other hand your conscience or reason leads you to the conclusion that Abortion,Same sex marriages, are bans on forms of religious expression are wrong and dare to express those those views, then do expect to met with the same degree of tolerance. Opprobium and the full weight of the law will be heaped upon your Head by our freedom loving liberals, who fear debate or any form of challenge to their godless philosophy. When Human rights are interpretated as human licence, we are all in trouble, as societies throughout Europe including our own are finding to their cost
Correct me if I'm wrong but I take it you believe society should be regulated by the rules of the church/christianity?
The premise that the ECHR is licence for the 'criminal element' to run wild is ridiculous.
The ECHR does not ban religious expression, it seeks to stop religious fundamentalists imposing their value systems and beliefs on other members of society who do not share those views.
Do you believe society should have the right to outlaw same sex marriages? I bloody hate cucumber, but I don't get annoyed about other people eating it ;)
No Scud, i do not believe that society should be regulated by the rules of the Church, that is patently ridiculous. But i do believe there should be a moral concensus which informs and supports the laws. In a Christian society that concensus would likely arise from shared values. As for the so called human rights not preventing expression of religious beliefs, i can only assume you are being willfully blind to to the facts. I can cite you numerous examples, where they have attempted to do so, the most recent being an attempt to prevent Catholic schools displaying the Cross, a small thing in itself but the thin end of the wedge for the forces driving this anti-religious agenda. Yes i am opposed to same-sex marriages, and consider them a travesty, but i would not oppose civil partnerships, as i believe they are legally necessary to provide a framework of protection for homosexual or lesbian partnerships in regard to wills and next of kin issues
Quoteto stop religious fundamentalists
taymto tamoto
one man fundamentalists is another man faithful ,in other words you will kindly allow people to follow their religions as long as they don't take their fairy tales too seriously. spoken like a true imperialist.
meanwhile the killing of babies and the elderly continues to pick up speed .
ling may you livein that middle ground,
how any one can connect this with the poor handling of the church of some of it homosexual and pedophile priests is beyond me . is that like one of those rethorical device where you just have to invoke the name Hitler against the other party in a cheap attempt to shut them up , now banned under Godwin's Law
Quote from: Pangurban on February 25, 2010, 08:19:54 PM
Typical, thoughtless, infantile,knee-jerk responses from the usual suspects. While the majority of citizens across the European community are becoming exercised and debating the fact that so much of our legislation on matters of social concern is being dictated by Judges whose views on what constitutes human rights is questionable . The willingness of these judges to ride roughshod over the long standing and deeply held beliefs which have underpinned European society and culture,with decisions based on some distorted idea of individual morality and freedom, is in fact creating a tyranny These legal libertarians argue the right of individuals to think and act according to their conscience. The child abusers, pornographers, wife beaters, torturers and all the assorted criminal scum who inhabit our society, will have no difficulty supporting that premise, after all they are the people who benefit. If on the other hand your conscience or reason leads you to the conclusion that Abortion,Same sex marriages, are bans on forms of religious expression are wrong and dare to express those those views, then do expect to met with the same degree of tolerance. Opprobium and the full weight of the law will be heaped upon your Head by our freedom loving liberals, who fear debate or any form of challenge to their godless philosophy. When Human rights are interpretated as human licence, we are all in trouble, as societies throughout Europe including our own are finding to their cost
Conscience or reason may well lead you to object to something like abortion (it certainly does in my case), but I don't see what that has to do with religion. You don't have to be religious to find the killing of unborn babies as a form of birth control abhorrent and I personally do not see why the case cannot be made while leaving religion out of the equation altogether. In fact, I think it hurts the case, particularly if lumped together with something like gay marriage, the objection to which seems to be purely religious and does not seem to have any rational basis and is thus indefensible, in my view. As for arguing that those of us who want religion to be a private matter are enabling paedophiles and torturers and wife beaters, get a grip. I haven't seen any atheist group lobbying to make any such abuse legal and the idea that religion should necessarily underlie one's objection to such behaviour is just ludicrous. If one's moral outlook is based purely on religion, then what happens when your particular religion happens to be some extreme fundamentalist version of christianity or islam or whatever? Give me rational humanism where dignity and decency and morality are seen as inherent and necessary human characteristics any day, and people live a decent life for its own sake, because it's the right thing to do, and not, at least in part, a pursuit of some self-interested quest to win a prize in the afterlife.
You are missing the point J70, we are not debating morality or decency. Of course athiests and humanists, can and do lead morally decent lives, in many cases more so than people who profess religion. though i wonder if they question what informs their conscience, but thats a different subject. What we are debating here is the attempt by an unelected, unrepresentative quango, who under the guise of promoting human rights are attempting to nullify or suppress any religious influence in the affairs of society. As Rosnarun points out they concede a limited freedom to harbour private beliefs while doing all in their power to prevent any public expression of those beliefs. Their real agenda is to remove all opposition too their narrow, dehumanising world view, and create an environment where they can promote their half baked sociological ideas free from any challenge. This can only end in chaos, and our societies are already paying the price for their folly
I have no problem with the public expression of religious beliefs, as long as some beliefs are not singled out for privilege or discrimination. So if you want your marian grotto along the public roads, then you shouldn't be objecting to an islamic symbol across from it or an atheist billboard down the street saying its all nonsense. Unfortunately, that type of fair play doesn't always happen when these things are left to public opinion and legislatures and it is often left to judges to interpret the constitution in a certain manner, for better or worse, to change things. In the US, it took a supreme court decision to strike down the legality of school segregation, against the wishes of many of the people and their political representatives in the south in 1954. It might have taken years for the same thing to be achieved through the legislative process. Today, in the US at least, in most cases advances in gay marriage have been achieved by judicial action, as the voters have mainly rejected it where it was put on the ballot. To me, the voters are legalizing discrimination in those cases, so I would have a lot of sympathy for judicial action in those instances. On the other hand, I understand that judicial action can also go the other way, as in notorious US cases with respect to slavery and segregation such as Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson respectively. So its very much a case-by-case basis for me. But assuming that the democratic will of the majority will always lead to the decent and fair outcome is certainly not the answer. And that is why we have constitutions and supreme courts.
I understand and appreciate what you are saying, but my problem lies with the assumption that it is OK to over-ride the will of the people through judicial action, even for a good end. If we concede this power to any judiciary, then they can equally validly use it to achieve an evil end. This applies whether the particular Judiciary, is Christian,Humanist, Muslim or whatever. It also leads to resentment and alienation of the citizens from the political process. I am all for free debate but Dogs muzzled while the Stone throwers are left free, does not foster that. If they cannot convince by the power of their argument, we must deny them power to legislate. I concede the difficulties in the case you quoted re. racial segregation, but hard cases make bad law, and the force and reason of the argument against would have triumphed anyhow, albeit a little slower.
But isn't the whole point of the judiciary to ultimately serve as a constitutional check? If the people's representatives pass laws that violate basic freedoms (I'm talking in a general sense, not referring specifically to gay marriage or anything else) or whatever and the constitutional principles of a given country, then the judges are only doing their job by striking down those laws. As for the people's resentment, I'm ashamed to admit that I know far more about these things in the US than I do Ireland, but for these very reasons, judicial appointments are a major political issue in the states. Those who vote for a given presidential candidate know that they will be getting nominations of federal judges who are more likely to interpret the constitution in a particular manner. Similarly, when it comes to the senate, they know that a given senator will probably reject or confirm the particular president's nominees. If you're not satisfied with the unrepresentativeness (is that a word?) of judges, then maybe that is an issue that needs to be looked at, but the fact that judges have it within their powers to go against the expressed will of the people is a good thing and a highly important thing, in my opinion.
Yes the judiciary must uphold the constitution, provided it has freely adopted by the people, and that is exactly what i am arguing the Irish supreme Court must do, in the face of any challenge from a European Court whose interpretation of what constitutes basic human rights and freedoms, is excessively liberal and in conflict with the expressed will of the Irish people
Quote from: Pangurban on February 26, 2010, 05:43:29 AM
Yes the judiciary must uphold the constitution, provided it has freely adopted by the people, and that is exactly what i am arguing the Irish supreme Court must do, in the face of any challenge from a European Court whose interpretation of what constitutes basic human rights and freedoms, is excessively liberal and in conflict with the expressed will of the Irish people
Just how do you know what the expressed will of the irish people is Pangur? Where do you get this knowledge from?
Just to be clear...my references to paedophile priests within these discussions were merely pointing out a very real reality that a serious ammount of people because of long running scandals going over 20 years not properly dealt by the church have left people to use their own moral compass to guide them rather than to listen to the dogma from those who cover up just to protect themselves and their institution rather than the innocents themselves. There other thing is that as far as I can see there is very weak leadership at a lot levels within the church, so regardless of the losing of their moral authority they also lack the presence to be heard above all the other voices
I have no issue with abortion btw if it's been a well considered decision. It's aborting the development of an unwanted fetus not a killing of a baby in my eyes (too emotive use of language when disussing this issue).
Good discussion, after the posturing ended. I think we'll have to agree to disagree Pangurban - you find the ECHR to be excessively liberal, while I find 'religion-informed' legislation to be excessively conservative or prejudicial.
Quote from: Pangurban on February 26, 2010, 05:43:29 AM
Yes the judiciary must uphold the constitution, provided it has freely adopted by the people, and that is exactly what i am arguing the Irish supreme Court must do, in the face of any challenge from a European Court whose interpretation of what constitutes basic human rights and freedoms, is excessively liberal and in conflict with the expressed will of the Irish people
You do realise that upholding the constitution means that in order for any purported change to the Irish constitution to be effected, it has to face public opinion in the form of a referendum.
I am curious to know how you think any change could be made to the Irish constitution without first meeting the statuary criteria defining general acceptance.
You are right of course Main Street, but, as you well know, where the decrees of Europe are concerned, especially legal ones, National Referendums have become a charade. Not only are the voters threatened with dire penalties in the form of fines, with-holding of monies etc., but if they fail to produce the desired outcome then demands are made that the referendum be re-run until the desired outcome be reached. As this is costly and devisive National Governments usually cave in and employ various devices to gain assent. Recent high profile cases in Italy and Poland illustrate this all too well