|
Post by Los Leandros on Oct 7, 2011 10:03:30 GMT
The eminent/distinguished German journalist, Peter Seewald, has written a blistering critique of his profession, arising from Pope Benedicts recent visit to Germany. He reports on the success of the visit despite the " aggressive anti-clerical assault by the media. The vast majority of the German people stood up & refused to be deceived. The much predicted mass of protestors & critics never showed up. Much to the media's annoyance. The media work like crazy in a state of antagonism against the Pope, they preach a new faith without values. We see Benedict XVI walk through the ferocious pack of media dogs without losing his composure for a second, it was amazing ". Strong words, but what a sad reflection on how low/cheap the media have become.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Oct 7, 2011 10:19:11 GMT
Dear Los Leandros is not time to become a member of this board ? ;)Don't worry we won't bite.... well sometimes we might ;D
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Oct 7, 2011 10:31:22 GMT
Thanks guillaume. I have been bitten once or twice ( not by yourself & any of the more rational posters ) by a few reactionary individuals ( or liberal fundamentalists as I prefer to describe them ), but I'm well up for it. Hope you liked the post about Peter Seewald. He could just as well have been describing the Irish media. Journalists lecture us, ad nauseum, about diversity/plurality, but display absolutely none of these characteristics themselves. Lemmings come to mind !.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Dec 13, 2011 11:38:10 GMT
I fear a repeat of the Ruanda situation here such is the level of constant criticism and sneering at the church we are getting in the media. Today on Shannonside, Joe Finnegan asserted that a central tenet of any republic was the seperation of church and state. I would understand this to mean a secularist state not a republic of any sort. Can anyone assist me?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 13, 2011 22:19:52 GMT
The trouble is that the term "separation of church and state" has two possible meanings. The first is that there should not be a state church in the formal sense (e.g. the state pays and appoints the clergy, bishops sit in parliament, the constitution formally declares that X religion is regarded as true). In this sense church and state have always been separate in independent Ireland, or in the US. Individual citizens, however, are free to vote and organise to influence public policy based on their religious beliefs. The second definition of separation of church and state is associated with the French republican tradition in particular (though America has moved towards it over the last half-century or so) and is the "naked public square" model - the view that religious beliefs and associations must be rigorously excluded from public policy and that secularism must be a defining principle of the state. This is what the gentleman on Shannonside meant, presumably. THis can be presented in "republican" terms - that the highest loyalty must be to the state and no competing source of authority can be allowed (in the recent film THE IDES OF MARCH the audience are expected to applaud the politician played by George Clooney declaring "my religion is the Constitution of the USA" [leaving out the minor detail that there are competing interpretations of the constitution; it is also the case that the Clooney character is subsequently shown to be a lecher, a crook and an opportunist, but the audience are still invited to support him because he's not a Republican]) or in "liberal" terms - that to privilege one religion over others, even through the free choice of the citizenry, means that those who hold to other religions are not being treated as equal citizens. This view usually smuggles in two other assumptions (1) Religion is essentially personal, irrational and emotional so that there can be no rational grounds for preferring one religion to another) (2) Secularism is regarded as neutral or self-evident, rather than itself being a religion or religious position.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Dec 14, 2011 21:18:22 GMT
The second definition of separation of church and state ...............- the view that religious beliefs and associations must be rigorously excluded from public policy and that secularism must be a defining principle of the state. I have no problem with the separation of Church and State, in fact the Church tends to stray from its core values when sitting at the top of the table with worldly powers. But the type of separation in the second definition, becoming more and more familiar to most of us in Ireland is a nonsensical, stupid and bigotted demand. Everyone has a view and an opinion, and for some it is coloured by their religion, for others it may be their politics, their philosophy, or be based on their their tastes, pastimes, social standing, economic standing, nationalism and myriad other beliefs and preferences. In short no-one is devoid of beliefs or influences (even if sometimes their beliefs are simply a negation of or reaction to someone else's beliefs. So to pick upon one set of beliefs and influences and wish to banish it from public discourse is nothing short of undemocratic and bigotted.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 19, 2012 15:48:22 GMT
Ok - France is a republic as is the United States. So is Israel. And Iran. And India. Even Mount Athos is a republic. The thing these states have in common with Ireland is an elected head of state (as the Vatican has too) and the principle of sovereignty of the people (not the Vatican). The sovereign people are in some respect limited in religious matters, but in a democratic arrangement, it is the majority, and not some group of cranks who interpret the word Republic in a certain way, who determine what ethos it has. Republic and democracy are not synononyms, but in a democratic republic policy is not determined by a small clique of self-righteous secularists, but by the people as a whole. These pronouncements rather look like an attempt to fix a boundary on the march of the nation, to set down a ne plus ultra - to quote Parnell - something of a hero for secularists.
|
|