|
Post by Los leandros on Oct 14, 2011 15:24:58 GMT
In order to ensure that all Presidential candidates will pledge their unswerving allegiance to the " State " ( in this context the State of course means all right thinking liberals/feminists ), RTE proposes to ask the following of each presidential candidate - " should the state decide that the vote will in future be reserved solely for practicing Catholics, will you comply with the states decision & sign off on the legislation ".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2011 15:52:07 GMT
Now Los Leandros, is this you being a bowsie again with your sarcasm or was this an actual proposal by RTE? I never can tell with you whether you're being serious or not. I never can tell with RTE either mind you.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Oct 14, 2011 17:29:24 GMT
I plead guilty banaltra, my feeble attempt at sarcasm/irony ( always get those two mixed up ). The RTE question would probably be - " if the state passed legislation to allow abortion on demand ( now that's top of RTE's wish list ), would you do the decent thing & sign off on the legislation ".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2011 17:35:07 GMT
Los Leandros is actually making a perfectly reasonable point. The candidates are always being asked will they put the law of the land before their personal views (i.e. State before church) on the assumption that no-one could legitimately object to this under any circumstances - but of course there are circumstances under which an unjust law ought to be defied (David Norris would say that the anti-sodomy laws repealed in the early 90s were such a case, whether or not you agree with that - he certainly did not subordinate his personal views to the law of the land in that case) and when a President ought to resist the passage of such a law insofar as they can and resign if they cannot (e.g. if abortion were to be legalised). [ADDENDUM - I wonder how many of the commentators who have been denouncing the church on the basis that "the law of the land must be supreme" had previously celebrated the anniversary of the feminist "contraceptive train" which of course was precisely based on defying the law of the land?] Los Leandros' point is that the candidates would not pledge themselves to abandon their personal convictions if a clearly unjust law such as the example he mentions were passed, so why should RTE expect anyone who opposes the Politically Correct Agenda to bow down before the State?
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Oct 15, 2011 10:41:09 GMT
Spot on hibernicus. You have clarified exactly the point I was labouring to make. I suppose St. Thomas Moore put it more elegantly/profoundly than me - " the King's good servant, but God's first ".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 13:29:48 GMT
I've deleted this post, it clearly came across the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Oct 18, 2011 14:59:57 GMT
Don't wish to be offensive Banaltra, but are we getting a little personalised. Let's keep personalities out of this. Not sure what you mean by your reference to newspapers, if it's good it's good. Take care.
|
|