• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Should civil servents be banned from been members of secret catholic organisations?


sickpuppy

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
88
I initially thought when labour started talking about opus dai and knights of columbanus members running the dept of education, it was a loony left conspiracy theory but i hear now in interviews with other politicians and ex dept ed people that its true. Are they the irish version of the freemasons? I know all civil servants are banned from joining political organisations, should they not be banned from these religious ones too.
 

sickpuppy

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
88
No. Its against their human rights.
in what way? i'm not saying every civil servent should be an avowed artiest but when there clearly is a conflict of interest and there historically has been abuse of the system by people in these secret organisations, do you not think its a reasonable requirement. In fairness i think membership of all secret organisations from the freemasons, opus dai, fianna fail ( well do you know anyone who'd admit to been a member in public? ;) should be barred fromt he public service.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
No. Its against their human rights.
I doubt it De.Reg. Banning you from a secret religious orginisation, if that is what they are, does not impinge on your right to practice your religion, one would have thought. However, banning is over the top. They should merely be required to disclose membership. That would solve all the problems.
 

johnfás

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,727
Perhaps they should be obliged to name any organisation of which they are members.
Should they be forced to state their sexual preference too? or how about how they vote? Seems like the next step from this sort of thing.
 

femmefatale

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
3,805
Should they be forced to state their sexual preference too? or how about how they vote? Seems like the next step from this sort of thing.
We'll be needing a breakdown of their dietary habits as well. Some food groups are down right subversive! :rolleyes:
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
Should they be forced to state their sexual preference too? or how about how they vote? Seems like the next step from this sort of thing.
Politicians have to declare their "interests" of a financial nature, civil servants are not allowed by in active politics, etc etc. It's a matter of proportion. If you are in a catholic right wing lay movement, perhaps people should be aware of that if you have a role, as a public servant, in the education/health system etc.
 

reknaw

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
3,867
No, a ban like that would be unenforceable. I mean, if the organisation is secret, who's going to know who's in it?

Much better would be to have effective oversight of the legality of all actions by persons who are public servants or otherwise wield public power. One way of achieving that would be to give the Ombudsman real powers and resources.

Now would be an appropriate time to do so, since the bicentenary of the creation of the Ombudsman institution is being celebrated this month.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
Politicians have to declare their "interests" of a financial nature, civil servants are not allowed by in active politics, etc etc. It's a matter of proportion. If you are in a catholic right wing lay movement, perhaps people should be aware of that if you have a role, as a public servant, in the education/health system etc.
Why ?

Should Gay people be forced to declared their sexual preference if involved in Adoption discussions?
 

sickpuppy

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
88
No, a ban like that would be unenforceable. I mean, if the organisation is secret, who's going to know who's in it?

Much better would be to have effective oversight of the legality of all actions by persons who are public servants or otherwise wield public power. One way of achieving that would be to give the Ombudsman real powers and resources.

Now would be an appropriate time to do so, since the bicentenary of the creation of the Ombudsman institution is being celebrated this month.
excellent point well made,
perhaps this thread should merged or closed seeing it already on another forum, did search for one before i started this one but didn't see it sorry
http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/76709-dept-ed-secret-societies.html
 

badboy2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
971
Be careful waht you wish for. The elctorate might, given the choice, embrace candidates or people from these organisations.

All our politicians pretend to be liberal, but most are resolutely anti abortion, anti gay rights etc.

If you start a witch hunt against the church it will back fire.

That said I do believe any one should have to disclose anything in their job that could be considered a conflict of interest
 

femmefatale

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
3,805
What do people want, automatons working in the civil service? Human beings have all sorts of political/religious/moral convictions. We think, we feel, we identify with one school of thought over another, etc. To expect people not to have beliefs, preferences and allegiances, of one sort and another, is just ridiculous. To discriminate against those whose beliefs are out of sync with popular opinion, is even more ridiculous.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
Why ?

Should Gay people be forced to declared their sexual preference if involved in Adoption discussions?
They have no choice over their sexuality. A member of a right wing catholic orginisation exercised a positive choice in their involvement in such an orginisation. A member of the oireachtas exercises positive choice over their choice of investment, a civil servant exercises positive choice over involvement in a political party.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,779
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
Yes, but I wouldn't limit it to Catholic organisations. Civil servants should not be allowed to be members of any organisation who's membership is not in the public domain. The only exceptions would be re-hab groups like AA.
 

johnfás

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,727
Yes, but I wouldn't limit it to Catholic organisations. Civil servants should not be allowed to be members of any organisation who's membership is not in the public domain. The only exceptions would be re-hab groups like AA.
How do you make that dichotomy? Alot of people would argue that given Civil Servants de jure act under a Minister it should make no difference what their own opinions or memberships are given that there is a chain of command, but that their attendance at a group such as AA would actually cause them to lack the ability to function properly in work.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
How do you make that dichotomy? Alot of people would argue that given Civil Servants de jure act under a Minister it should make no difference what their own opinions or memberships are given that there is a chain of command, but that their attendance at a group such as AA would actually cause them to lack the ability to function properly in work.
Whereas, de facto, they are decision makers and policy formers. Ministers are, in the main, only nominally in charge of their respective departments, save for very hands on Ministers like McDowall, in his day.

People who blame the present Taoiseach for his tenure in Finance are somewhat deluded. I was in the public service at the time and the word was that he was in thrall to his officials.
Now I am no FF supporter but he can only be blamed for acting on advice and not getting outside opinions.

In the circumstances it is right an proper that any member of any secretive orginisation should declare his or her membership of same. The same for the Masons etc.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,779
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
How do you make that dichotomy? Alot of people would argue that given Civil Servants de jure act under a Minister it should make no difference what their own opinions or memberships are given that there is a chain of command, but that their attendance at a group such as AA would actually cause them to lack the ability to function properly in work.
There is a huge difference. Organisations like AA are for people who are tackling a personal problem, their addictions may have impacted their work in the part, but if they haven't why draw attention to the issue by making them declare their members.

They key difference to organisations like Opus Dei/ the Freemasons etc. is that there is no potential conflct of interest. Opus Dei has already brought down one government, and given the scandal of the abuse compensation could well bring down another.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
They have no choice over their sexuality. A member of a right wing catholic orginisation exercised a positive choice in their involvement in such an orginisation. A member of the oireachtas exercises positive choice over their choice of investment, a civil servant exercises positive choice over involvement in a political party.
Wrong they have in the way they behave.
 
Top