bap
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bap on Oct 18, 2011 11:20:18 GMT
I'm surprised people still talk like this. Lets have some discussion on faith rather than trying to impose our views.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 18, 2011 12:00:02 GMT
Pray explain what you mean by "trying to impose our views". Did the US Civil Rights movement "impose its views" on segregationists, for example? Was it somehow contradictory to "faith" to "impose" the "view" that private businesses should not be allowed to engage in racial discrimination? Ever heard the phrase "faith without works is dead?" If we hold these "views" it is because we believe them to be true and it follows that we wish to implement them and act on them and persuade others of their truth. Furthermore, people who hold different "views" often show no such compunction about imposing their "views" on us, and changes in the nature of society as a whole, created by changes in public policy, affect everyone who lives in that society because people's perception of what is "normal" changes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 12:20:05 GMT
I really wish I had typed this up over the weekend as I've probably forgotten half of it. I didn't want to write while there in case they thought I was some Guardian style reporter acting the eejit. So I attended a bit early and was invited in anyway with the members - Richard, Manus and two other men (Chris and Cathal?) were leading the meeting. There were few others, an older couple, a mam and her adult daughter (thirties) (mam ran a few years ago up west), a lady who wasn't very well in herself and left, a younger man (early forties), an older lady with a lot of spunk - I liked her immensely and would vote her for president, then after the break two more middle-aged men (late fifties) came in, an older man alone, a lady in her forties, a young lad (twenties). I can't remember anyone else right now.
I'm going to summarise and paraphrase a lot here so bear with me. Richard was talking about the prolife movement, withdrawing support from Mitchell. He said that when Cox was being put forward the CSP contacted a lot of grassroots Fine Gael members who lobbied against Cox. He said there is a conservative vote in Ireland but they are basically going for the old parties but many people are angry with what is happening and he feels the CSP can move in here. They have started a relationship with The Catholic Voice and ask members and like-minded people to support this particular newspaper. He spoke about the use of the media to garner support (I'm surprised they haven't found these boards yet). He urged urged us to vote for Dana and ask those we can influence to do so too, for she will NOT pass abortion into law here, she is Catholic, not in name only. It is important that she most certainly does not come last for it'll be a bad day for conservative voters, those in power will take it as the nod to get on with ousting faith and family from Ireland's life. There were some questions about the independence of the judiciary, how important it is that government cannot poke its nose too much into the court system.
I'll post this now in case I lose my connection and continue on..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 12:32:42 GMT
I'm surprised people still talk like this. Lets have some discussion on faith rather than trying to impose our views. Bap this website isn't just about the discussion of faith, but what we do with that faith in our lives. We live in society with other people and being Christian doesn't mean bowing our heads and letting people walk all over us. We have to fight for what is right, Jesus upturned the tables in the temple when He saw how they were defiling the Lord's place. We should be similiarly angry and fight for what is right in society too. It's not about praying the Rosary only, what use is that on its own if we don't give reasons for our faith (as St. Paul told us to) and spread the Gospel, building the Kingdom of God on earth as Jesus told us we must do. As Hibernicus said, faith without works is DEAD. No point in fiddling while Ireland burns either, so lets be part of the solution before that happens eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 12:46:45 GMT
Richard also mentioned something which I didn't know - I couldn't quite follow what he was saying, there was a report in the media before about anti-semitism in the CSP? That man was an interloper to the meeting and stood up and spouted this nonsense but he had nothing to do with the CSP, was not a member and obviously doesn't represent their views.
With regard to elections, the members didn't seem to vote but perhaps they could have I'm not sure. One of the committee members nominated for example Paul as VP and another committee member seconded it. Firstly, to make it clear I don't know if those 4 (Manus, Cathal?, Richard and Chris?) are called the committee, it's my own term for them. Also, each time the general members were asked if they wanted to nominate anyone nobody responded, so perhaps they could have seconded it too, they just didn't speak up at that point. Members were sought to sort of represent each province, one for each and one for the Dubs as well as someone for executive assistant? and someone for something else, (PR or the website, can't quite remember).
Richard spoke a lot about his hope that new bishops will be brought in who will preach the faith and guide people in voting, explain how grevious it is to vote for a proabortion candidate and basically speak out more like in America. He spoke of the Tea Party movement and his desire that something like that could be brought about here and capture disaffected Fine Gael as well as Fianna Fáil voters. He does seem to be holding out for bishops but that's a long old waiting game in my own view. He spoke of our own need to form groups and get into society and change things, to see ahead of our times á la Frank Duff and not sit around waiting for others to do it.
Will post now in case the connection goes and continue...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2011 13:13:47 GMT
I spoke to Manus later, his own views don't necessarily represent the views of the party, they haven't developed them that far yet. He is a fan of subsidiarity and Rerum Novarum. I asked about pulling in Polish Catholics, and as he said, if I know of any bilingual Poles who'd be interested bring 'em along. I was quite ashamed of myself, for he hit the nail on the head, no point complaining if I'm not going to do anything constructive.
Oh to go back on one point Richard complained about the fact that the bishops only released a statement against the civil partnership after much berating by some of the faithful, CSP included, and then it was only to say "sure as long as they don't call it marriage". So that was part of his hope for new fearless bishops.
Afterwards I spoke to him about the plethora of Church teaching in his talk and the lack of politics really. He agreed, he gets it, they don't have the expertise, he would love to have experienced experts on various issued get involved but what they can do? They need a hand developing policies. There was one disaster waiting to happen in my view, please God nowt'll come of it. He would love to have somebody in the CSP who is willing to work within a community long-term and really get to know it and vice versa and then stand for election, for they would have a good chance of getting in, basically someone who wants to be a politician, for whom the job will be their bread and butter. That's his hope, to build it up like the Greens did, before they imploded of course! That's his hope anyway.
Ok I think that's it. If anyone has questions ask away, I'll post back if the broadband behaves.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 18, 2011 21:08:16 GMT
Thanks, Louise. I wonder was the trouble-maker in the audience the egregious Emmanuel Sweeney, or some monetary crank ( I can think of one or two possible individuals). Interesting that they have developed a relationship with CATHOLIC VOICE. They will certainly need a platform to explain themselves and their policies to potential supporters. The committee election sounds fairly straightforward - exactly what happens in any small group where there are not enough members for alternative candidates to develop. I think working for the long run will be the only way forward. I'll try to give what help I can, which will not be much I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 18, 2011 21:31:00 GMT
This article is highly relevant to Bap's point about "imposing views" www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/10/3958EXTRACT Theorists of public morality—from the ancient Greek philosophers and Roman jurists on—have noticed that apparently private acts of vice, when they multiply and become widespread, can imperil important public interests. This fact embarrasses philosophical efforts to draw a sharp line that distinguishes a realm of “private” morality that is not subject to law from a domain of public actions that may rightly be subjected to legal regulation. Considered as isolated acts, someone’s recreational use of narcotics or hallucinogenic drugs, for example, may affect the public weal negligibly, if at all. An epidemic of drug abuse, however, though constituted by discrete, private acts of drug taking, damages the common good in myriad ways. This does not by itself settle the question whether drug prohibition is a prudent or effective policy. But it does undermine the belief that the recreational use of drugs is a matter of purely private choice into which public authority has no legitimate cause to intrude... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by losleandros on Oct 19, 2011 11:40:02 GMT
In a previous existence I helped out the CSP a bit. To be honest some/most ( not sure ) of them did't realise how lucky they were to have such a quality individual as Gerard Casey at the helm ( & the late Jim Kearney - a gentleman ). I just felt there were too many crankish individuals at the fringes & I had personality issues with a guy from UCD - not G. Casey, I hasten to add. But there again, maybe he had with me !.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 19, 2011 20:50:27 GMT
ONe point that occurs to me is that they might do well to focus on old people's issues, given that old people tend to be more devout (though they will also tend to be most attached to their traditional party allegiances)!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2011 21:16:57 GMT
What sort of issues? Hospital beds? Medical cards? Pensions? Loneliness? Day centres and bus services cut down? Funds for home helps withdrawn?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2011 21:22:07 GMT
Los Leandros, can you tell us why you stopped being involved with them? Do you know anyone else who left and why? You don't have to name names, I'm interested to know why once involved people then head off. I think I will join them myself, it would be useful to understand what pushes people out.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 19, 2011 21:27:16 GMT
Yes, those sort of issues - the CSP should focus on them and try to discuss what if anything it might do about them as a party (of course there are things that can be done by groups other than parties, or by individuals - such as visiting our own aged relatives and giving them a hand - which a political party can't do.
|
|
|
Post by losleandros on Oct 20, 2011 14:10:32 GMT
A few reasons. Firstly disillusionment. I felt that if the CSP could'nt gain a seat with as good a candidate as Gerard Casey, then there was no future. The second reason is slightly selfish/ageist. I just felt a bit isolated in that most of the members were of a considerably older age profile, so socially etc. we had little in common. My feeling, rightly or wrongly, was that it would make more sense to " infiltrate " ( in the sense that liberals/liberal dogma have largely taken over the other political parties - ideologically at least, which is the most important ) the established political parties. Hope that's of some help.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 20, 2011 22:11:43 GMT
The big problem with an infiltration strategy is that the other parties allow very little influence to their grassroots, and because the right-wing parties are held together by the quest for power rather than by ideology - an ideological conservative party can tolerate a "social conservative" wing even if they are given very little scope, but our parties (except on the left) are not particularly ideological and don't tolerate ideological debate.
|
|