Irish army parades at Lourdes

zakalwe

Active member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
171
Cael said:
Were the free staters hoping for Our Lady to turn them into a real army? Maybe next time around they wont stand idly by?
as apposed to guinness drinking surrender monkeys!

the "free state army" as you call our defence forces actually defeated the brits in the 26 counties, something your rabble couldn't do.
 


Bacon-Egg

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
15
zakalwe said:
Cael said:
Were the free staters hoping for Our Lady to turn them into a real army? Maybe next time around they wont stand idly by?
as apposed to guinness drinking surrender monkeys!

the "free state army" as you call our defence forces actually defeated the brits in the 26 counties, something your rabble couldn't do.
The IRA defeated the Brits in the 26 counties, not the free staters
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
zakalwe said:
Cael said:
Were the free staters hoping for Our Lady to turn them into a real army? Maybe next time around they wont stand idly by?
as apposed to guinness drinking surrender monkeys!

the "free state army" as you call our defence forces actually defeated the brits in the 26 counties, something your rabble couldn't do.
The free state army was mostly made up of demobbed Brit soldiers. It was armed and financed by the Brits, and took its orders from the Brits (as in the shelling of the Four Courts.) Defeated the Brits? Will you cop on to yourself. It was the IRA who did any fighting against the enemy, the free staters (like Adams and Co. today) collaborated with Ireland's enemies.
 

Bacon-Egg

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
15
aggressivesecularist said:
Tell the truth, is this stuff about the brits and the IRA and the black & tans, etc. really on topic?

I've been accused of being a bit one track, but this is ridiculous.
agreed

but a comment was made and i simply pointed out it was incorrect...
 

Munion

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
317
Kalif said:
http://www.militarychaplaincy.ie/lourdes/index.html


What with artillery units named after saints and military parades at Lourdes the defence forces are far from secular, who claim blame unionists for historically not wanting to be part of the rosary bead circus the Irish republic has always been ?

The vatican army was there to on a military pilgrimage.
Anyone else notice the rather large Union Jack being held up by some other soldiers? You might have to scroll down a wee bit to see it but it's fairly prominent.
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,101
Kalif said:
http://www.militarychaplaincy.ie/lourdes/index.html


What with artillery units named after saints and military parades at Lourdes the defence forces are far from secular, who claim blame unionists for historically not wanting to be part of the rosary bead circus the Irish republic has always been ?

The vatican army was there to on a military pilgrimage.
Yes what an awful army, what with all those peacekeeping missions its involved in.
The British army really is a model that oglaigh na eireann should try an imitate, all they need to do is drop the names of saints from their regiments and invade a few countries.
Then they'll be much more acceptable :roll:
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Munion said:
Kalif said:
http://www.militarychaplaincy.ie/lourdes/index.html


What with artillery units named after saints and military parades at Lourdes the defence forces are far from secular, who claim blame unionists for historically not wanting to be part of the rosary bead circus the Irish republic has always been ?

The vatican army was there to on a military pilgrimage.
Anyone else notice the rather large Union Jack being held up by some other soldiers? You might have to scroll down a wee bit to see it but it's fairly prominent.


Not 500 of them though, a token group.

500 is a bit excessive ?
 

Roger

Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
66
At the risk of being considered discourteous for interfering in the internal affairs of the ROI, I agree with the view that employees of the State should not be going on religious activities during their hours of duty. Nor should they be doing so at the expense of the taxpayer.

There is, however, a much wider problem. Where in the world is there a complete separation of Church and State? Possibly North Korea. The USA might be the democracy which comes closest to a complete separation of Church and State. Even there, the State is not atheist. Coins carry the slogan "In God we trust". Sectarian feasts such as Christmas and Easter are public holidays.

In many countries of the EU, the 15th of August is a public holiday. The UK has a very sectarian constitution. So far as I know Sweden, Norway and Holland have laws requiring their Head of State to be a Lutheran or, in Holland, a Calvinist. There was a time within living memory when the government of Spain had the right to veto the appointment of Catholic bishops. Perhaps that has been changed. I hope so. At one time the UK government demanded the right to veto the appointment of Catholic bishops in Ireland.

In Protestant countries the State has often tried to control the Church. In Catholic countries the Church has often tried to control the State. I do not consider this conduct to be in the best interests of either Church or State.

Given the tendency of armies to be involved in military conflict and to sustain fatalities and, hence, to have military chaplains, one must wonder just secular an army can be when many of its soldiers are not secular. Removing the Angelus from RTE might be simple. Secularisation of the army might cause many problems but I will leave that to people with military experience to debate.
 

taishan

New member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
1
If soldiers have religious beliefs how can the army be secular? If the majority of US citizens practise religious beliefs how can the US be a secular state? Roger, I'd say that the state as a democratically accountable system of social management can act impartially towards all the citizens irrespective of their religious and ethnic differences. US separation of church and state did not have the anti-church connotations of French revolutionary anticlericalism: it was done in order to protect the legitimate social and spiritual interests of religious groups against state power, and it has worked. The state is neutral towards religious groups but accepting of religious sentiments. The US society is undoubtedly religious and generally trusts the state not to trample on social sentiments. Impartiality does not require a state to define itself as nonreligious, or as in post 1789 France, the Soviet Union, Albania etc, as atheist or anti-religious. If a democratic state presents itself as nonreligious it becomes separated from its citizens who give the state their allegiance and on whose collective behalf the state is supposed to act. States are set up for the citizens, not vice versa. Separation between church and state can lead to separation between state and its citizens and their voluntary social institutions. Renunciation of cultural and religious roots is an absurd method of achieving state impartiality. If past and present identity are erased the world becomes meaningless; the past generations are condemned for collective idiocy; the present deracinated generation and its state consider themselves to be wiser than all past societies.

Even Joe Stalin, an ex-orthodox seminarian (a 'spoiled priest' as we might have said in Ireland 40 years ago when vocations flourished) resorted to permitting the public screening of a military recruitment newsreel that showed a peasant mother blessing her soldier son with a crucifix as he went off to the war. He knew that when the USSR was mortally threatened by Hitler's armies the residual religious convictions of Soviet citizens could be skilfully used to boost popular and military morale. He was a murderous cynic of course, but democratic states employ religion too as aids to justifying the morality of their neocolonial military campaigns.

On the topic of national holidays for Christmas and Easter you note: "Sectarian feasts such as Christmas and Easter are public holidays." I'd say that if the majority of citizens want such feasts the state should legitimately set aside days for celebration. Every worker wants holidays whether religious or nonreligious in character. Westerners working in middle eastern countries welcome the several muslim holidays that occur as needed periods of relaxation. I'd quibble your use of the word 'sectarian' in the quoted sentence. Sectarian as used in reporting of Northern Ireland has come to mean discrimination against targeted ethno-religious groups, whereas city governments in the US facilitating the erection of decorated Christmas trees are responding to the seasonal cheer of the taxpaying majority. The public trees nowadays have lost their spiritual significance and are seen to be largely decorative in function, so all citizens can savour the electro-glitter.

In public discourse in Ireland today the terms 'sectarian' and 'denominational' are bandied about indiscriminately (no pun) and people are confusing systematic state discrimination against targeted categories with the lawful operation of denominational institutions, some of which cater generously to members of other denominations or none.
 

Munion

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
317
Kalif said:
Munion said:
Kalif said:
http://www.militarychaplaincy.ie/lourdes/index.html


What with artillery units named after saints and military parades at Lourdes the defence forces are far from secular, who claim blame unionists for historically not wanting to be part of the rosary bead circus the Irish republic has always been ?

The vatican army was there to on a military pilgrimage.
Anyone else notice the rather large Union Jack being held up by some other soldiers? You might have to scroll down a wee bit to see it but it's fairly prominent.


Not 500 of them though, a token group.

500 is a bit excessive ?
Honestly I couldn't give a damn but I doubt 500 Irish soldiers went.

I don't know if you're just being a wind-up merchant or if you're serious. But "the rosary bead circus the Irish Republic", you've either never been here or see a very different Ireland to me.

In my experience the deli counter in my local Centra is better attended on a Sunday morning by hungover people seeking breakfast rolls than the local church.
 

Roger

Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
66
taishan said:
If soldiers have religious beliefs how can the army be secular? If the majority of US citizens practise religious beliefs how can the US be a secular state? Roger, I'd say that the state as a democratically accountable system of social management can act impartially towards all the citizens irrespective of their religious and ethnic differences. US separation of church and state did not have the anti-church connotations of French revolutionary anticlericalism: it was done in order to protect the legitimate social and spiritual interests of religious groups against state power, and it has worked. The state is neutral towards religious groups but accepting of religious sentiments. The US society is undoubtedly religious and generally trusts the state not to trample on social sentiments. Impartiality does not require a state to define itself as nonreligious, or as in post 1789 France, the Soviet Union, Albania etc, as atheist or anti-religious. If a democratic state presents itself as nonreligious it becomes separated from its citizens who give the state their allegiance and on whose collective behalf the state is supposed to act. States are set up for the citizens, not vice versa. Separation between church and state can lead to separation between state and its citizens and their voluntary social institutions. Renunciation of cultural and religious roots is an absurd method of achieving state impartiality. If past and present identity are erased the world becomes meaningless; the past generations are condemned for collective idiocy; the present deracinated generation and its state consider themselves to be wiser than all past societies.

Even Joe Stalin, an ex-orthodox seminarian (a 'spoiled priest' as we might have said in Ireland 40 years ago when vocations flourished) resorted to permitting the public screening of a military recruitment newsreel that showed a peasant mother blessing her soldier son with a crucifix as he went off to the war. He knew that when the USSR was mortally threatened by Hitler's armies the residual religious convictions of Soviet citizens could be skilfully used to boost popular and military morale. He was a murderous cynic of course, but democratic states employ religion too as aids to justifying the morality of their neocolonial military campaigns.

On the topic of national holidays for Christmas and Easter you note: "Sectarian feasts such as Christmas and Easter are public holidays." I'd say that if the majority of citizens want such feasts the state should legitimately set aside days for celebration. Every worker wants holidays whether religious or nonreligious in character. Westerners working in middle eastern countries welcome the several muslim holidays that occur as needed periods of relaxation. I'd quibble your use of the word 'sectarian' in the quoted sentence. Sectarian as used in reporting of Northern Ireland has come to mean discrimination against targeted ethno-religious groups, whereas city governments in the US facilitating the erection of decorated Christmas trees are responding to the seasonal cheer of the taxpaying majority. The public trees nowadays have lost their spiritual significance and are seen to be largely decorative in function, so all citizens can savour the electro-glitter.

In public discourse in Ireland today the terms 'sectarian' and 'denominational' are bandied about indiscriminately (no pun) and people are confusing systematic state discrimination against targeted categories with the lawful operation of denominational institutions, some of which cater generously to members of other denominations or none.
"people are confusing systematic state discrimination against targeted categories with the lawful operation of denominational institutions, some of which cater generously to members of other denominations or none."

Are they confusing it? Or are they merely trying to confuse others - the red herring tactic?
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Munion said:
Kalif said:
Munion said:
Kalif said:
http://www.militarychaplaincy.ie/lourdes/index.html


What with artillery units named after saints and military parades at Lourdes the defence forces are far from secular, who claim blame unionists for historically not wanting to be part of the rosary bead circus the Irish republic has always been ?

The vatican army was there to on a military pilgrimage.
Anyone else notice the rather large Union Jack being held up by some other soldiers? You might have to scroll down a wee bit to see it but it's fairly prominent.


Not 500 of them though, a token group.

500 is a bit excessive ?
Honestly I couldn't give a damn but I doubt 500 Irish soldiers went.

I don't know if you're just being a wind-up merchant or if you're serious. But "the rosary bead circus the Irish Republic", you've either never been here or see a very different Ireland to me.

In my experience the deli counter in my local Centra is better attended on a Sunday morning by hungover people seeking breakfast rolls than the local church.


The article says 500.

So tell me about what secular schools I can send my kids to ?
 

Roger

Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
66
"So tell me about what secular schools I can send my kids to?"

And your point is? What has that comment to do with the army at Lourdes?
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Its in response to your post implying the church has no power in the republic.

As a tax payer, the state should provide a choice in education.
 

Roger

Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
66
Kalif said:
Its in response to your post implying the church has no power in the republic.

As a tax payer, the state should provide a choice in education.[/

Why? The State does not provide Catholic schools or Church of Ireland schools. Why should it provide you with secular schools. Establish your own. Stop leaving it to the State. I understand the State provides assistance to organisations setting up schools.
 

westkerryblue

Active member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
137
Cael said:
zakalwe said:
Cael said:
Were the free staters hoping for Our Lady to turn them into a real army? Maybe next time around they wont stand idly by?
as apposed to guinness drinking surrender monkeys!

the "free state army" as you call our defence forces actually defeated the brits in the 26 counties, something your rabble couldn't do.
The free state army was mostly made up of demobbed Brit soldiers. It was armed and financed by the Brits, and took its orders from the Brits (as in the shelling of the Four Courts.) Defeated the Brits? Will you cop on to yourself. It was the IRA who did any fighting against the enemy, the free staters (like Adams and Co. today) collaborated with Ireland's enemies.
It's Óglaigh na hÉireann to you.I think we should invade lourdes.we could send patients out there.they stand a better chance that way.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Roger said:
Kalif said:
Its in response to your post implying the church has no power in the republic.

As a tax payer, the state should provide a choice in education.[/

Why? The State does not provide Catholic schools or Church of Ireland schools. Why should it provide you with secular schools. Establish your own. Stop leaving it to the State. I understand the State provides assistance to organisations setting up schools.


The state funds education via taxes, therefore its only reasonable it offers choice in education.
 

Roger

Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
66
Kalif said:
Roger said:
Kalif said:
Its in response to your post implying the church has no power in the republic.

As a tax payer, the state should provide a choice in education.[/

Why? The State does not provide Catholic schools or Church of Ireland schools. Why should it provide you with secular schools. Establish your own. Stop leaving it to the State. I understand the State provides assistance to organisations setting up schools.

The state funds education via taxes, therefore its only reasonable it offers choice in education.[/

It does offer choice. It gives secularists the same opportunity as anyone else to provide schooling for like-minded people.

When did I imply that the Church (which church) had no power in the republic? Of course, the Catholic Church has power in ROI and also in the UK. It owns property so that gives it power.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
82
Roger said:
Kalif said:
Roger said:
Kalif said:
Its in response to your post implying the church has no power in the republic.

As a tax payer, the state should provide a choice in education.[/

Why? The State does not provide Catholic schools or Church of Ireland schools. Why should it provide you with secular schools. Establish your own. Stop leaving it to the State. I understand the State provides assistance to organisations setting up schools.

The state funds education via taxes, therefore its only reasonable it offers choice in education.[/

It does offer choice. It gives secularists the same opportunity as anyone else to provide schooling for like-minded people.

When did I imply that the Church (which church) had no power in the republic? Of course, the Catholic Church has power in ROI and also in the UK. It owns property so that gives it power.


No the state ships out the running of services to the Catholic church who historically have a monopoly.

It has a moral duty to cater for all members of the community and to provide services, which is the norm in less backward countries.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top