'We Must Heed What is the Creed'

by C Murray Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:48

Apart from the problems on the Statutes which were envinced by the recent 'D' case, with regard
to the privacy of the pre-consent girl and her position within the constitution, the primacy of the
family within the Constitution is antithetical to international human rights law.

Within the last ten years State Catholic School Boards who attempted to bring in the 'Stay Safe'
programme for primary level children were resisted at every meeting by organised groups
of catholic parents who insisted that the issue of sex education and awareness of boundaries
with regard to the issue of safety from child sexual abuse was against the right of the family
to educate their children regarding these issues. The Programme is now installed at
Primary School level but it was resisted at inception throughout the discussion and voting
stage at the school committee meetings. Reserving the right to opt-out of these educational
modules is well and good, but when the primacy of the family within canonical law is evoked
above the human right to knowledge and education, it created in the instance of the 'Stay Safe'
programme an exemplar of the divergence between the Church and State on issues of
education considered to be in the moral sphere by the church; and the legal sphere
of duty of care within the state.

by C Murray Tue Sep 11, 2007 17:42

The government is being called upon to address the rights of unmarried parents in legislation,
which has provoked a call for a constitutional challenge on the issue of rights.

The article in question appears to be the primacy of the family . The mother of the children
had removed them to the UK without consent. It is unclear whether he is asserting his
constitutional rights to his role within the primacy of the family or if the whole article
is in question-

The last legislative challenge to the idea of the traditional family and homosexual/co-habitation rights
was taken just before the general election as a private members Bill by the Labour Party, under
the sponsorship of Brendan Howlin TD. it was voted down by a combination of FF/PD, ex
Minister for Justice and Tanaiste MInister Mc Dowell rejected the private members motion.
RTE covered the reasons for Minister Mc Dowell's rejection of the rights at the time, the case
against the State in the matter of 'G' represents an interesting approach by the ex-minister
to the issue. Another victory for father's rights within the narrowness of the definition of the
family- the last being the right of the father not to pay for the education of any children after the
marriage breakdown of the case involving the frozen embryos.

by C Murray Tue Sep 11, 2007 18:11

The debate between Minister for Justice and Brendan Howlin TD on the veracity of introducing
a civil union bill is at:- http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0631/D.0631.200702200024.html
This took place on the 20th of Feburary 2007 (in its second stage) the Bill was dated 2006.

The defence of the Government's adherence to an all party committee on constitutional
reform was that Ireland is in keeping with its commitments under international law by not
amending the constitution (on the primacy of the family). Mr Mc Dowell stated that
legal protections must be placed for co-habitating hetro-sexual couples in terms of
inheritance and pension rights but that the issue was not compatible with homosexual rights
and would require constitutional amendment that would not be won at this time.

The entire debate is at link, in which minister Mc Dowell cited the work and life of Alan
Turing during the debate. The call, today for a constitutional referndum but would seem to fly
in the face of the government's rejection of any amendment to the primacy of the family
within the constituion under advisement from both an all-party committee and their stated
case against the Labour Bill of 2006.

The international laws on the issue of co-habitation and same sex union rights are at:-
http://enwikipeadia.org/wiki/recognition_of_gay_unions_...eland

by Welwyn Wed Sep 12, 2007 06:36

Separated fathers have been demanding their rights of access to children, claiming that the family courts tend to favour the biological mothers unless drunkness, mental problems, insolvency or some other serious matter burdens that mother. We've had asserted the right to invitro fertilisation, yet a divorced husband went to court to cancel his ex-wife's intention to use his frozen sperm for conceiving a baby. We demand individual rights for children under the age of 18 (the age when they can vote as ordinary citizens) yet when teachers try to physically restrain school students who are constantly disrupting lessons they are threatened by angry parents with civil court prosecution - even though the right of other members of the class to a decent education is being denied by the disrupter.

The list could go on. Individual rights are clashing all along the line with other individual rights. It's like nuclear fission; it can go on endlessly, causing more complicated critical mass in society, unless the equivalent of a neutron rod is inserted to stop the chain reaction.

But what sort of anti-chain reaction in the individual rights sphere will do the job while ensuring humkan dignity and freedom?

by C Murray Wed Sep 12, 2007 09:10

Many of us are raising the next generation of Irish kids and the Legisation's insistence on
gender neutrality may save money by lumping difference between sexes into a manageable
grey area but it genders roles, refuses to recognise difference and is anti the human rights
of the child. This , it seems causes problems down the line when we hit the whole area of
article 41.

The articles in question were grounded in the history of Post and pre-war Europe, and the RC
church (the constitution is undeniably RC) has shown itself a pragmatic animal in relation to
the doctrine of infallibility- it has never been applied to contraception, JPII attempted to put
the issue beyond debate but Cardinal Ratzinger advised against. The issue of gender is trickier,
The view of women in relation to the priesthood is infallible- put beyond argument.
In the microcosmic Irish sense De Valera showed some pragmatism in undemining the
Archbishop in relation to Ecumenism and Contraception but article 41 remains. The Church
uses political language grounded in deeply sexist view of the sexes(specifically women)
It recognises 'diversity' in role, but not 'Difference' in emotional and psychological make-up.
The reason why there are so many knots is that in many ways the church has had to evolve
in line with international law- but it holds firm on the view of women and this informs
the political outlook of legislations in countries dominated by the RC Faith.

We are bringing up our children without the basic rights of the child and we are copperfastening
determinism by accepting that the issue of gender differentiation is only a token
acceptance of difference. Accepting the majority view of the RC faith In Ireland should be
an issue of private choice, the issue of theological concepts informing legislation that
is anti-human rights is completetly wrong and has led to laws that create harm
in relation to:-
1.Human trafficking.
2.Medical abortion Rights.
3.Recognition diversity/difference.

The words that are used in relation to women's rights are very carefully chosen- woman
has a gendered 'role' (reflected in article 41) but in our law she is gender neutral. The
concept of 'woman' begins at that role- puberty =she is defined by her ability to reproduce.

by Welwyn Wed Sep 12, 2007 09:54

You write something I hesitate to endorse: "We are bringing up our children without the basic rights of the child." I'd say a constitutional lawyer would be able to cite cases that established rights for children, based on the inalienable rights of the family stated in Article 41. The family based on marriage has rights and therefore children as the result and end of marriage have rights. Their rights cannot be 'equal' to those of parents because if under 18 they don't have all the skills and means to perform the functions of equal citizens. Rowdy disruptive schoolchildren often deprive classmates of their right to a decent education, so there's a necessary balance needed between rights and responsibilities.

This concept of the family was first challenged by Marx in the late 19th century, with unhappy results in the Soviet Union and Mao's China. In different ideological circumstances nazi Germany also challenged the inalienable rights of the married family, with sad results.

Could the "international law" on childre'n's rights, which seems to have originated in vanguard western countries where such laws have generally never been subject to popular referenda, be unwittingly going down a road similar to that of the soviets and the nazis? The politicisation of children may not lead to state tyranny, but it certainly can and has produced social chaos.

by C Murray Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:32

It is true that we read the family as the sole arbiter of children's rights and in the comments
above you will note that this was inserted into the constitution not by a politician but by
a member of the clergy. The extension of that principle was that the Roman Catholic family
was subject to canonical law as the primary force in moral theology- creating a natural
divergence between the morality of the State's duty of care and the theocratic Church's
role in formation of the individual.. The times we live in present the state with a duty of care
to the individual under international Human Right's treaties and agreements which are not
compatible with the theocratic view. In very serious legal terms this involves the issue of
international human trafficking, child abuse, international legal obligations and above all
the right of the child to health/safety/education and to be accepted as an individual, when
the church subjects the natural development of an individual person to a necessarily
gendered definition it is acting wholly against the basic human right of natural development.
The State too has an obligation to recognise the freedom of religious expression and
association of the dominant RC Church and the right of the parent to educate and
direct the moral education of the child under the rights of freedom of religious assembly, however,
its duty of care to the individual necessitates enshrining the rights of the child in our law
which would do away with the primacy of the family and indeed necessitate a constitutional
referendum. This was indicated by Mary Harney's response to the Criminal law Bill
2006-2007, which insisted that the Government had acted within the Constitutinal framework,
and in the fiasco created by the 'D' case which saw the state appoint two sets of lawyers:-
one to ensure the rights of 'D' and one to ensure the rights of her unborn child. This was
a direct result of the insertion of the co-equality clause into the legislation.

On both occassions a fundamental contradiction occured between the moral and
legal obligation of the state with respect to the duty of care within the existent
framework of constitutional law. it will continue to occur in relation to health
and safety issues for women and children and men as long as the primacy of the
family in article 41 remains on the statute. Is it not better then to provide a reassurance
to RC families that their religion be effectively recognised under international
rights to freedom of religious assembly than create an unworkable and dangerous
precedent in international law which goes against accepted obligations in the duty of care?

by Welwyn Wed Sep 12, 2007 13:08

You want to "do away with the primacy of the family" and you say that the family in Article 41 is "the Roman Catholic family".

If "we" citizens voting in a referendum (in ten years time?) do away with the primacy of the family based on marriage and substitute it with an across-the-board concept of individual rights, it will atomise society and multiply endless lucrative work for the courts trying to adjudicate on conflicting rights of married parents, unmarried parents, frozen embryos, adoptive children and several other conundrums which have come before judges in recent years.

"The Roman Catholic family" i.e. the family based on marriage, was the norm for European societies for many centuries. It was a norm (and an ideal) in the Lutheran states as much as in the RC states, among Jewish communities as much as within states where the Orthodox was the prevailing church. All these religions regarded the family as the norm based on thousands of years of European evolution and social experience, and drawing upon a combination of mosaic and natural law morality to buttress that experience.

In western democracies in Europe and North America the do-away-with attitude to the married family only began to take root among vanguard sociologists and politicians from the swinging sixties onwards. It is amazing that the wisdom of the ages has been supplanted, without popular referenda and based on the influence of sociologists in universities, so quickly in some societies.

At least in Ireland we have provision for referendum, so a society-wide discussion about the family and the wisdom of the ages can thwart fancy footwork by politicians after the election of hung Dails. Unless we have a referendum to abolish referenda.

by C Murray Wed Sep 12, 2007 16:02

I was aware that you that the conversation on rights was being lead, as the provisions in the
constitution were lead by someone of the Church- with no experience in the matter of families,
except of course that garnered from the sexology manuals and a theoretical view of the female-
ie, not experiential. that would require of a process of consultation with women, something
the church does not do..

The Constitution was therefore copiously amended by a man of the cloth with absolutely
no experience in the area of marriage. This is not true of all Irish priests, indeed views from
the ex-partners of some of them would be most interesting, however the issue here is
that a constitution grounded in a jaundiced and incorrect view of women in society and the
home does not represent the truth of experience, as the debacles over the mother and child act,
the cases of abuse, of Magdalean Homes and the refusal to name something for what it is
continues to inform an expedient government out of step with international law and a clergy
refusing to dialogue outside its self- garnered ideologies and concepts. Article 41 was written
within a specific historical era and necessitates review, however, the ex-minister, on
Feburary 20th 2006 refused point blank to open a consultative process, one would only
hope that if the issue were re-opened in relation to child- protections that the consultative
process would occur outside the constitutional framework and in full dialogue with irish
women whose constituency is grossly under-represented in both the Dail and the RC
church.

by C Murray Thu Sep 13, 2007 15:45

I am searching the link on the Law Reform Commission's submissions, in the meantime,
this comment came in the wake of the 2006 constitutional crisis:-

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82652#comment194960

The thread :- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82652 contains in the first comment,
Mary Harney's admission that the response by the last government FF/PD was bound by
the Constitutional framework, the laws introduced in the period of May-June 2006 (subject to
amendment on solicitation 2007) are still on the Statutes. In effect the constitutional
obligations of introducing laws on statutory rape are bound by:-
1. Constitutional Consideration.(gender neutrality)
2.Without regard to international Laws and Treaties because Statutory protection
necessitates the enshrinement of the rights of the Child, which require Referendum.
This was refused on Feburary 20th 2007, in relation to the second stage of the Labour Bill,
but not in reference to the Criminal law (2006-2007) Bill.

The Law Reform Commission are currently advising within that framework on the issue
of spent convictions :-
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83649

by Tom Fri Sep 14, 2007 18:51

It is one thing to criticise the Church, it is another thing to do so fairly and intelligently. C Murray writes:

the issue of theological concepts informing legislation that
is anti-human rights is completetly wrong and has led to laws that create harm
in relation to:-
1.Human trafficking.
2.Medical abortion Rights.
3.Recognition diversity/difference.

What concepts and how? Regarding human rights the fundamental theological concept is that all human beings are intrinsically and equally valuable because we are all children of God. How does that support Human trafficking? In fact the only consistent and rational foundation for human rights is the theological foundation (as Jeremy Bentham knew well).

To buttress this point C Murray unwittingly believes s/he is a voice for human rights while at the same time advocating the killing of human beings re: "medical abortion rights". Inconsistent and irrational. The Church loves all human beings by supporting the most fundamental human right for all, each and every one, not some, but everyone- the right to life. Creating harm? The Hippocratic urged "do no harm" and thus forbade abortion. The hypocratic oath on the other hand...

Re: diversity, the theological concept of the "person" ( prosopon) safeguards understanding of the human being from reductionist attempts to classify him/her as "a bunch of cells" and thus is the key to realising the mystery and the unrepeatableness of each human being, in contrast to what the preachers of scientism-in contradistinction to science- proclaim: banal uniformity

To C Murray, does any of this make sense to you? Can you see at least a reflection of something you find true and reasonable in an authentic understanding of theological concepts, all bias put to one side- is there not something you admire there?

tom

by Christine Murray (female person) Fri Sep 14, 2007 19:03

I do not admire what John Charles Mc Quaid did.
I believe in education of the individual person and not the ring fencing of a growing consciousness
into a mode of being that is antithetical to individuation.

As to religion and philosophy and poetry, there is loads I admire.
The list is endless and people should be exploring the links between the religions,
not accepting an imprimatur on human ideas.

Sila Inua,
Sila ersinarsinivdluge

= don't be afraid of the universe.

I will not now include the books on religions that I read, or the striking individual ones
that are available through libraries and second hand bookshops all over Ireland.
Theres real treasure to be had in reading the mystics, the visionaries, thebiblical
stories and metaphors- it is a terrible pity that elements of RC do not see this
and treat anything outside of rigourous dogma to be sespect.

by C Murray Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:56

The Day that James Joyce was buried in Zurich, (an exile from his home) was the day that
Dublin welcomed the new Archbishop to Dublin. He considered the poetry and human
thought of Joyce to be a 'dirty book' and urged censorship of that thought. Both men
have had far-reaching influence in the creation of culture. One person cannot imprimatur
the ideas of another under the limitations of his historical and religious education because
that leads to the categorisation of the human imagination and the consequent abuse
of originality.(evinced in the rejection of Roualt;- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84095)
The Destruction of Tara and the sacking of human endeavour and creativity in war is
treated of in the Fisk article:- http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article/29141871.ece.

'Let us think of a culture that has no fixed and Sacred Primordial Site'- F Nietzche, from:-
'The Birth of Tragedy'- our cultures cannot attempt 'progress' without synthesis, in simple
terms the coincidence of the Burial of a Great writer and the accession of his detractor
have led to part of the specialness of Irish Cultural expression-it is degraded and debased
without a recognition of the place of both the theological expression and the perceived
profanity of the human voice in the great Poetry of 'Chamber music' through the poetic
expression of 'Finnegan's Wake'.+ yet the absence of women's voices from the political
and theological directioning of our culture is something that is subject to reductionary
and dismissive comment.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:20

C Murray,
If you are referring to McQuaid you are quite wrong. He was made Archbishop of Dublin in 1940 whereas Joyce did not die until the next year. Besides it is unfair to single out either him or Ireland for objections to Ulysses. It was an extremely controversial book in not a few countries, by no means all catholic ones. Besides there is not a contradiction in admiring it as great art but also recognizing it as vulgar and base in places. Different sensibilities existed at that time – it is only fair to recognize that. Thus the bans and censorship though this book was never actually banned in Ireland. Note also that Joyce was a voluntary exile from Ireland. He was not forced abroad.

by C Murray Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:28

Archbishop Mc Quaid was officially welcomed to his role of Archbishop on the 13th of January
1941, the day that James Joyce was buried in Zurich. The Ellman book woud confirm that
as well as the John Cooney bio of the Archbishop. This was the official welcome by the
city fathers and it indeed coincided with the burial of Joyce in Zurich. As to Joyce's exile
it was voluntary and his relation to the RC church is wonderfully documented in the
Richard Ellman book. His companion of many years indeed refused the last rites on
his behalf and she who provided the voice of Penelope was determined a great sinner by the church,
as was another great writer 'Collette' in France. and yet their writing provides so much
joy to so many people- thousands of women carried bunches of violets to her funeral
in direct protest at the refusal of the establishment to recognise her art-

The chapter in the John Cooney book on Archbishop Mc Quaid's accession and his
amendments to the constitution provided some of the backround to this and the previous comment.
most interesting is his referral to the 'supernatural' in relation to gynaecology, in his
notes on the 'Mother and child' act- but sex education of the female was always a sticking
point with the dogmatic church.

by C Murray Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:51

Interesting report in Saturday's Irish Times from the Commission of the Bishop's Conference
of the European Committee (meeting in Krakow), the President of the Europan Parliament was
in attendance as was the President of Poland (Lech Kaczynski). Archbishop Diarmuid Martin
attended and suggested a proclamation:-

'A next step will be to ensure an adequate and appropriately articulated proclamation
of the Gospel and the Central teaching of Christianity in those centres of cultural and intellectual
formation where the ideas and policies that will shape our country are being forged'

The proclamation was in respect to the re-evangelisation of the Irish Church and was
expressed in broadly ecumenical terms , sited as it was in the Christian ethos and not
in the specifics of the RC doctrine (Papal Infallibility/ RC as the true Church based in the
apostolic sucession/ the uniqueness of Catholicism as a world religion). The language
chosen was diplomatic- the renewed Proclamation of the Faith is envisaged for those
already baptised.

[The report is page 5 of the Saturday Irish Times. (reporter Patsy Mc Garry).]

In addition to this, the current Pope, Benedict the XVI was photographed at the Judenplatz
Holocaust Memorial on his recent trip to Austria re-iterating both visually and orally
the Church's opposition to abortion and again stating that RC's should not vote
for anyone who supported abortion as a matter of 'policy'. The issue of overt interference
in the political progress of nations by religious interests is something we do not
necessarily look to enough. That issue would be in the area of 'expertise'.
This was amply signified in the interferences by the RC Church in the election of Ortega,
and in the constitutional crisis in Poland which was grounded in rigorous interpretation
of doctrine without adherence to international laws and human rights treaties.

by Welwyn Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:55

The RC church opposes abortion everywhere, whereas certain other christian churches take divergent attitudes in several western countries. It may depend on whether they are 'high' or 'low' or of a certain class composition. The Afro-American baptists as well as white baptists strongly oppose, while mainstream white protestant churches with big middle class memberships tend to waver according to whether it is middle America or the liberal states.

In Northern Ireland the protestant churches oppose, even the 'low' Church of Ireland. This latter doesn't have the easy attitude to ordination of a gay episcopalian bishop in USA that maybe Anglicans have in the Dublin area. But Dublin 4,6 and 8 attitudes don't represent general perceptions throughout the island.

Trying to play the protestant churches off against the RCC, or playing women off against men, can backfire on such core issues, in Ireland and elsewhere.

by C Murray Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:57

I do not think that I am capable of 'playing churches or sexes off each other'- I was quite simply
pointing out that there are divergences within the structures and accepted belief systems
within the churches. RC , for example claims to be the one true Christian Church, with Pope
Benedict the XVI stating the veracity of the claim quite recently, by declaring the Protestant
Church to be a Christian fraternity and not grounded in the Apostolic sucession. I have also
questioned the issue of the doctrine of infallibility in relation to contraception. I wonder
if it will be applied to the creation of chimeras (which Britain, a nominally Christian country has
legislated for). In my experience, the issue of abortion is largely confined to theological
imperatives and not to the sexes- indeed, many male lawyers and doctors argue for the human right
to abortion.

The Row currently occuring at Wyclef college in Oxford, where a respected woman academic
has been fired , would point to the issue of open theological interpretation of sacred texts
as opposed to a radicalist fundamental interptetation of the Christian message. The
biggest enemy of openness is not censorship, but 'crystallisation': interpretation of sacred books.
(in our attempts to intepret them, and then to pursue the issue into the political arena).
For those who wish to pursue learning in Christianity, the area is huge and the teachers
are guides but applying doctrinal directioning to people who do not wish it, necessarily
would involve an imprimatur on texts that do not reflect the Christian message-
where would you start?

Would a Christian find the words in 'Daddy' by Sylvia Plath antithetical to the message
of the doctrine , cos she calls her daddy a bastard?
Would the supernatural experiences of vision by Meister Eckhart, or Julian of Norwich
come under imprimatur?
The impetus of the original article is quite simply this:-

Literal interpretation and guidance on issues of religiousity are not something that
can be translated into the political arena because there is a lack of perspective based in
the experiential life of women in relation to fundamental issues that are largely legislated
for without consultation with women (and to many of us seem fairly jaundiced to
put it mildly). The comment you responded to regarding Dr Martin's wish to re-evangelise
the Church In ireland did contain some important points regarding 'policy' and I will
add in the link. It is entitled:-' Church must Help Nominal Catholics' and details
the speeches made in Kracow at the weekend. (page 5- Patsy Mc Garry reports)

by C Murray Mon Sep 17, 2007 16:14

unfortunately the link to the Patsy Mc Garry article is subscriber only, for those with subscription to
I.T:- http://www.ireland.com/
The conference addressed by Dr Martin was :-
The Commission of the Bishop's Conferences of the European Commission and was attended
by, Cardinal Stanislaw Dzwisz (Krakow), Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone,
President of the European Parliament Hans- Gert Pottering and Prof Lech Kaczynski.

There is probably a report obtainable on the discussions- regarding re-evangelisation and
policy decisions in RC and National Politics, which was expanded on in a weekend
audience given by Pope Benedict XVI:-

"Some might question whether the Church is entitled to make a contribution to the governance
of a nation. In a pluralist democratic society should not faith and religion be restricted to the
private sphere? The historical rise of brutal totalitarian regimes, contemporary scepticism
in the face of political rhetoric and a growing uneasiness with the lack of ethical points
of reference governing certain scientific advances... all point to the imperfections found
within both individuals and society"- well, that answers that then, there are references to
'Creation' in terms of eco and the hetrosexual generative relationship standing at centre
and summit of RC philosophy (in microcosm), or the 'proper order and magnificence
of God's creation where man and woman stand at the centre and summit'.

In reply to Welwyn:- Abortion was never the 'sticking point', I refferred in article and
comments to the Doctrine of infallibility, the primacy of the family, the divergence
between Church and State in relation to International rights and obligations, sex
education, literal interpretation of the bible leading to 'crystallisation' of dogmatism
and the dangers therof. The provision of the full range of services to women and girls
in relation to pregnancy issues necessitates an examination of all the issues
and not the copperfastening of theological doctrine into the political sphere.

by C Murray Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:18

Interesting report in the Guardian this morning on the Anglican Community in
the US/UK and Africa.

There will be no public comment on the issue, the two leaders are:-

Katharine Jefferts Schori and Dr Rowan Williams

http://www.guardian.co.uk

Also a brief allusion to the Americanisation of the African Church with failed
bishops from the US getting bishoprics in Kenya, Rwanda,Uganda and Nigeria.

Interestingly there are no more failed evangelical US bishops in Africa than
native Bishops , these are men and conservatives- so great news there for the
equality movement (hell-fire preachers that could not get elected in the US)

Of course a split in Anglicanism would benefit the RC conservative community who
don't like women/homosexuals/ and claim to be the one true Christian Church based
in the apostolic succession of men.

by jahzyus Thu Sep 20, 2007 18:44

Exactly how would a split in Anglicanism which you also term a "schism" benefit conservative Roman Catholicism? Did the schism which produced Methodism benefit right wing or conservative RC congregations or simply copperfasten their loss of Welsh christianity and underscore sectarianist anti-papery in the British Isles? Without even going into the gender / sexuality theological issues which of course are your expertise - Do you think a split will mean return of cathedrals and their respective See incomes to the coffers of Rome? Would such a hypothetical return of real estate & attendent costs of maintainance be a net profit or loss? Do you think it will mean a difference in divestment or investment policies in Africa and the Middle East? Are you perhaps asking us to refresh the mid 19th century arguments of anti-/dis-/establishmentarianism? Do you have some peculiar insights into the worldwide communion of episcopalian or anglican churches you'd like to share with us & back up your assertions?
Do you have any particular thoughts on the priesthood and women or can offer any reason why an article in "The Guardian" of all papers could be thought a reliable indication of no public comment on this issue as you so ridiculously put it.
muscular jesus on a cross for our sins, there's absolutely nothing to your assertion at all. There has been nothing but public debate on these issues since the CofI accepted women priests and the other episcopalian churches of Europe didn't, and that's decades ago. You couldn't even give us a proper link "today's guardian" gurggle gurggle. We know you read the guardian and we know you read the Observer every sunday. This really pisses me off, you're not an anglican and you're not even Christian - yet can obliquely come into an issue after reading a secularist newspaper & somehow think it vindicates your long-standing hatred of RC traditionalism.

I'm scolding you. nunc dimitis. go in the love and peace of the lord jesus christ + but like get a grip.

by C Murray Thu Sep 20, 2007 19:07

Its an interesting way to troll..

The article is about the machinations and politics of Archbishop Mc Quaid and his conservatism.
The link to which the writer 'Jayzhus' refers is linked by virtue of the row that is currently bubbling
under in the Anglican community- interesting that one link is singled out for derision in order to
detract from the issue of article 41 and the primacy of the family, the canonical and legislative
view of the 12-17 year old girl and reproductive rights. Anyway, religious conservatism typified
by a traditional view of biblical literalism is part of the link . Maybe Jayzhus has not gone into the
trad RC sites to witness the salivating RC's pondering on the conversion of the protestants or
the archbishops focus on the 'Supernatural' end of his ecumenism.

er.. won't be going anywhere the 'Love of jesus', long as a bunch of men in dresses are
insisting on the literal interpretation of the bibles- wd much rather the Blasphemers Banquet
thanks very much. Pope Benedict's letters and use of visual imagery to underscore a
Catholicism that is becoming creationist in ideology is not so far removed from the
ethos of those who are currently getting bishoprics in Africa and those who have fired
the whole of the faculty of Wyclef in Oxford. and I don't know anything about theolgy btw-

by jayzhus Thu Sep 20, 2007 19:36

The subtitle reads "Father's Rights and The Constitution". You took as starting point the Mr G case and then not content with bullshitting about one topic decided that last year's frozen embryo case was also grist for your "father's rights" mill. Oh then you decided to garnish it all with Mc Quaid. I've watched the whole thing develop since then with its usual and typical blurred scope which you think proves a link and thus builds an argument. It's mostly crap Chris. But playing it your way let's simply look at the article and not your comments to it.
Mc Quaid did not edit the constitution, Chris. More than one historian's career is being built on the slow examination of the evidence as to the extent of influence McQuaid and others had on the constitution but he did not edit it.
the Doyle case for Paternal access to children of 1953 overturned the 1941 childrens Act & the support given the plaintiff rubbishes your ideas based on no more than ignorant prejudice that the RC church in Ireland was centre of some conspiracy to undermine fathers.
The importance of that case ought undermine immediately your assertion that some type of Mc Quaid line on fathers and their rights has been handed down since 1936.

The frozen embryo case did not in any sense vindicate the rights of a father to refuse to be responsible for the upkeep or education of his children. It simply established a precedent on complex interwoven contracts between the couple (then estranged and beginning divorce proceedings), the fertility clinic and despite the bleating of the woman firmly established that a frozen embryo has no right to life under the Irish constitution especially if it has an only one in three chance of coming to term based on that particular woman's fertility history.
You then start spouting about canonical law & concepts of medical abortion as if you had any idea what you're writing about. You don't.

It's crap chris. If you had chosen to gurggle about one element you'd have done better. But instead you just put all your usual bugbears in one block of text finishing with the ridiculous "he Primacy of Rome, Papal infallibility and the Uniqueness of Catholicism do not accept in any way the rights of women except in a narrowly defined and purely sexist definition of woman within her perceived familial and reproductive role...........read Moratorium Annos 1928 (Pius XI) ".

and you're quite merrily continuing from there lastly offering us crap about a split in anglicanism.

For God's sake Chris admit it's crap. Like have you read Moratorium Annos?
Could you offer me a link to it? No you effing can't because no such text exists. You were trying to gloss your half-baked crap with this encyclical on ecumenism http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/d....html
Why not read it now since it finished your article & tell me what the problem relevant to today is especially considering that encyclical has been superceded in 1964 by "Unitatis Redintegratio" being both a papal encyclical and an encyclical council document. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_....html

Now you want to talk trolling Chris?

by C Murray Thu Sep 20, 2007 19:39

I stand by what I write.
and use the real name please.

by iosaf Thu Sep 20, 2007 19:58

1) what historical basis is there that Mc Quaid edited the constitution and there is a continuing line of RC thought which has shaped and restricted fathers' rights from 1936 until today? with attention to the 1941 childrens act and the 1953 Doyle judgement and lastly if you wish the 2007 Mr G judgement?

2) how did the frozen embryo case validate or treat upon fathers' rights? & if so why has no-one else shared your misconception of such a startling legal or constitutional breakthrough?

3) how can you cite documents which don't exist??? & gurgle about ecumenism as if it reinforces your prejudices on........... exactly what? chris like explain it to me? what is the problem with ecumenism? how did Pius XI and the AFrican anglican communion end up coming out of Joyce's death day & MC Quaid with lashings of Ratzinger thrown in for good measure??????????

I'm not the only person who is picking holes in this Chris. I was so sorely tempted to leave the first comment and rip it at first go, but held back. There can be no connection made between Mr G and the frozen embryos chris. none at all. Now I'm not going to stop you bullshitting, go ahead.

by C Murray Thu Sep 20, 2007 20:57

Mc Quaid modelled the Irish Constitutional amendments on the Polish Constitution.
He was involved in the drafting of the Constitution from Feburary the 16th 1937:-

He advised using criticisms of the French Constitution and directed and interefered in the writing of
many of the articles. He wanted a Catholic Republic and did not believe in ecumenism. De Valera
has to use his established papal diplomatic channels to subvert archbishop's overt interferences
in the wording on 'The National Question'- in which he refuse to allow the words- 'The Church
of Ireland' appear in the final draft.

His interest in 'The Primacy of the Family' was directly related to creating a RC ethos within the
state ( if you want the text of his interferences and De Valera's attempts to deal with the issues
of article 41 and ecumenism- I suggest the bio by John Cooney, which is entitled
John Charles Mc Quaid Ruler of Catholic Ireland, the relevant chapters on the copious
written amendments on the constitution are in chapter 8- entitled :- 'Co-Maker of the Constitution'
in which details of the sending of the drafts and his hand-written amendments are in the text of the
drafts). The thread you insultingly criticise is based on the writing in the Cooney book and the
garnered knowledge of how censorship effected the arts and artistic development in Ireland.
(Which I alluded to in the Ann Madden thread and how government censorship and lack
of forward thinking created the need for small groups of people to collect art on behalf of the
Irish People)

I am not interested in responding to criticism on the issue of the Mc Dowell case on 'G',
except to say that the article in question (41) creates a 'state within the state' wherin
RC traditionalism has allowed for the Current state to abdicate in the care of the child
by creating a situation wherein the sole rights of Irish Children are provided by the family
and the family is the sole arbiter of those rights. This allows the State to abdicate in the provision
of basic right to Health, Safety and education to either corporate or institutional interests.
The right to privacy and bodily integrity of the 12-17 year old girl and to medical advice in the
need for medical abortion is subverted beneath the view of her as a 'mother' by virtue of
her reproductive ability. Her right to basic sex education for her own safety can be denied
by the family- indeed in some cases young women have given up their right to a 'letter'
and waived anonymity in order to highlight cases of familial rape and incest. I am saying
it again, as I said at the beginning of the thread that article 41 which was drafted
by Archbishop Mc Quaid is anti-human rights and provides a convenience for the State
to not address the issues of basic human rights to women and girls- each response given
by a government in relation to challenging issues of safety has been replied to with:-

' We acted within the constitutional framework'-[ including the Criminal law (Sexual Offences)
Bill 2006 +2007.]

Mc Quaid's words:-

"It devolves on the family to support where it can its own aged members, in a spirit of charity"
(it being unfair to expect the State to take care of everything').

John Charles Mc Quaid was a preceptor and an archbishop with an undoubted expertise
in theology, he possessed no expertise in Government nor in issues relating to women
and girls- If you want the relevant links on reproductive rights published, along with the
constitutional crisis of 2006 ye can feck off, and troll them yourself.

by iosaf Thu Sep 20, 2007 21:27

When someone rubbishes your arguments on the basis of untruth or innaccuracy it is hardly fair to just dismiss them as being a troll. I have not noticed you reply to the other detractors on this thread in that way, so why am I singled out for such? When you've replied to others about particular points, you've just moved the goalposts pleading ignoranc e of theology only to return to the same bullshit a few hours or days later.

It's very annoying Chris. Especially when you're still not clarifying any of your points or even let's get it plain - making a point . You've simply offered us what we all know already - Mc Quaid was consulted on aspects of the 1936 constitution. He didn't edit it as was your assertion. Though you've written you know nothing about theology nor wish discuss it,the bulk of the thread seems to be your rambling thoughts on theology, is that not true?
In the article itself you referred us rather pompously to an encyclical which doesn't exist, as if it was somehow important http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/d....html I offered the link on behalf of those who might take your sources seriously. Anyway that encyclical has been superseded. And not one more word about it from you. Other people pepper their stuff with quotes from Martin Luhter King or Bobby Sands or something funny from Donald Rumsfeld, you just invent papal encyclicals perhaps in the knowledge nobody would pick you up on it.

I'm picking you up on it.

You've still not addressed any of the main criticisms put forward by anyone who has thought to comment this thread Chris. You're just dodging them. It's quite odd that someone who quite happily pings other peoples' articles or adds half-baked crap to them can get so evasive when questioned him/herself.

So - is there or is there not a "father right's issue" in the frozen embryo case, and is there any connection between it and the G case? & if this article was supposed to live up to the promise of its subtitle, & we allow your obssessions with theology and ecumenism to go unheeded - then why do you return your pregnant teenagers all the time?

You seem incapable of withstanding the scrutiny and criticism which everyone else endures. For the good reasons that you're writing crap. I can see no connection between these many issues you touch and the flawed arguments of the article. I can see no relevance of thoughts on the Wycliffe evangelical anglican college debacle (another mis-spelling & without source) and anything to be honest. You write about small filler articles you've read in "The Guardian" as if they indicated momentous changes or justified your overarching analysis of European society. They don't. Wycliffe has less than 120 people in it including all students, research types and staff at any one stage. It's tiny.
<
The "schism in Anglicanism" crap which finally sparked me to criticise you is a very public matter. You said "it wouldn't be in public"? http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?...#1026
in any case what has the ordination of an openly lesbian bishop of the ecumenical church in the USA got to do with fathers' rights in Ireland or for that matter those pregnant teenagers you trumpet as a catch-all justification for every article and comment?

You're not making any coherent point Chris & to cap it off you've reduced yourself to insulting me by calling me a troll for simply asking you to make one.

But carry on - by all means.

by Welwyn Fri Sep 21, 2007 00:43

I've lost the train of thought on this thread, which seems to have gone all over the place.

The primacy of the family; the rights of the child; the rights of (divorced) fathers; the extremely complicated issues of bio-ethics - all these seem to be among the main bones of contention.

The Anglican communion somehow got a mention, and some attention. I don't know who 'benefits' if there is a worldwide split over the ordination of gay bishops in the USA. The situation has caused deep anxiety among believers, even in Ireland where the silent majority are 'low church' and/or evangelical in tendency. The Africans, who were evangelised by CMS and other groups in the 19th century, are now saying to the descendants of these evangelisers: where is the biblical authority for your liberal morality; your ancestors told us nothing about it? Sola scriptura (scripture alone) was a basic tenet of protestant reformers from 1517 onwards.

As for John Charles McQuaid: well, I think he had a legalist authoritarian personality. He had a poisonous influence on social relations in Dublin, with the ban on Catholics going to Trinity and his setting up Catholic organisations in order to diminish participation in charitable and other civic enterprises by other believers.

The primacy of the family, I think, is not a specifically Catholic idea. It derives from the experience of the ages, and the disintegration of family life in Europe since the end of WW2 has brougnt unending problems. Sociologists call it the 'dysfunctional' family. The statistics on single parenthood, the tendency of children in dysfunctional families to be unhappy and prone to neuroses and criminal influences etc.; the poverty trap into which dysfunctional people fall - are alarming. No wonder fundamentalist muslims look aghast at this dark image of Western Europe. No wonder that some impressionable young ones have allowed themselves to be sucked into hateful suicide bombing conspiracies.

I'll finish now. This will be my final observations.

by C Murray Fri Sep 21, 2007 09:28

The archbishop amended the constitution and was involved from 1937 in every aspect of it's writing.
Drafts of the constitution were sent by E De Valera to his Palace for amendment, the hand written
notes and letters are archived. As to taking issue with trolling, the first one on the thread was
an attack on the Anglican communion link- the author of the comment then went back through it
to pick holes; and add to that then said that every article and comment was based in my attack
on RC traditionalism. I do not have to answer any points which involve a thread which began in the
criticism of article 41 and the pernicious effect that it has had on legislation that does not
advance human rights to the child. Article 41 quite clearly creates a situation wherin the family
is the sole arbiter of the rights of the child and it was envisaged by Archbishop John Charles
Mc Quaid as a means of control of individual rights ( read the book).

The other points made were from an artistic standpoint and that is literal interpretations of
bibles lead to theocratic fundamentalism , this is evident in the firings of a whole faculty
in Oxford for adhering to the right of ' open theological interpretation'- as opposed to closed
literalism. Oxford is threatening to end its relation to Wyclef as a result of the alleged
harassment of the female theologian, bullying and the refusal of staff to accept the
narrow definitions of the new head of the college.

Whilst iosaf may not agree with me not addressing his points, I do not want to, if it is not
clear from the original post and from the comments that I am totally opposed to literal
interpretation of bibles and to narrow dogmatism thats fine with me. What is very clear however
is the usage of this posting and thread to demolish other pieces I have written and that is
clearly trolling:- attacking every article and post written by attempting to demolish this piece
because of a fundamental disagreement over literalism and interpretation is reducing
everything I have written over 19 months on the newswire is insult , and something I would not
do- even if I disagree with the pieces someone has written- its tantamount to
censorship.

I am not replying any more to the comments by iosaf/jayzhus (etc) except to state this:-
As a writer and a Practioner of art I do not accept that the church has a right to overtly interefe
in the political or artistic development of nations, and it is abundantly clear that many
articles in the Irish contitution were re-drafted, re-written and re-edited by Archbishop mc Quaid,
his literal interpretation of Catholic dogma effected state policy which has repurcussions
today in the refusal of sucessive governments to address the rights of the child and of
women outside of the narrow constitutional framework provided by those amendments.
(specifically in article 41)

As a writer and practioner of art I have a right to question the literal interpretation of
words and images without reference to the dogmatic constructs placed on them by theologians
which I have referred to on other threads too. Indeed I would be sorely tempted to go
over the archives and pick every little post apart that I did not agree with. as to skeptic
and Welywn- I have never read anything on archive that I can de-construct or refute
so points taken.

by iosaf Fri Sep 21, 2007 15:58

And with or without artistic license your article purported to be a prose piece of opinion and analysis. You still won't clarify the main points in your article. It's ok with me if you want to rant about Mc Quaid. I've no problem if artistic license stretches to inventing encyclicals. But I do object to being told to troll the archives for the constitutional crises of 2006. It's almost as if you think the constitutional crises of 2006 is your particular property or marked some great pinacle in your career. Perhaps you've forgotten that that particular crises sparked a series of articles from two people. You and I, Chris.

Fact is - you began your rant claiming to argue a change amongst fathers, as if they were awakening from some dark and nefarious Rome centred ignorance to at last throw off the shackles which had fettered them to a 1936 constitution which if not written by Mc Quaid had all its liberal tendencies blotted out at Archbishop hall. Since then you've decided to change your tune, it's artistic license which now allows you to write utter nonsense about Oxford, Wycliffe Hall, the worldwide Anglican Communion & still pretend it has something to do with father's rights in Ireland. It's a rant & nothing more. You've been ranting continuously under what could have been a good title, nice bit of assonance there - "heed - creed". But after that it's complete rant. If I rant, or anyone else rants, we must be prepared to be taken to account. If I or anyone else injects much needed humour or irony into a report of some news, or opinion of some important matter, we almost always must face the dour retorts.

I don't really think leaving aside your invented encyclicals, that you have any understanding of ecumenism, & that's why you simple decided that last statement from Ratzinger was an unqualified "bad thing". I honestly think you're confusing oxford envagelicism with fundementalist creationism. & that is why you decided to bring in the Wycliffe Hall (& by the way review of all religious halls associated to the university of which there are 7) debacle. You can't have been running to bring our attention to a feminist or champion of unmarried fathers' rights or dare I be so sharp liberalisation of laws on medical abortion. In fact considering that the debate in the university focuses on 4 of those residential halls [not colleges] which are RC it seems apparent you just brought in a Guardian filler article instead of any real understanding of the issues, the currents of debate from the mid19th century or what Oxford is even about http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=43060 And conveniently you seem to forget that ecumenism was not some artistic filagree, but was referred to directly in your artice as a RC plot to convert the protestants of the north.............utter utter bullshit.

The other commentator to this thread Welwyn on the contrary does seem to have some understanding of anglicanism and by close comparative relation global episcopalianism. We could debate these issues as they affect society in either the USA or Africa on an appropriate anglican thread - I've written a few before Chris, I'd be delighted to explain how important these political issues actually are for christian charity organisations.

Anyway - rant away - your'e not taking any more comments or questions from me, for the simple reason you can't answer any questions from me or make a point. I've merely brushed the dusty crap off all of this, I didn't bring the nit comb - could have Chris - for example......what does this line from the article actually mean "the sole arbitrator in moral and religious affairs is the family and by extension the RC Church."????????

1) you said the frozen embryo case vindicated fathers' rights..........I say it did nothing of the sort.
2) you imply there is a model of fatherhood of more specifically manhood handed down from Mc Quaid............ I say you're living in warped prejudiced and ignorant fantasy & completely ignore key cases and laws from 1941, 1953 etc.
3) you attempt to confuse the issue by bringing in a debate on US anglicanism, the status of a residential hall in Oxford and small splits in African anglican churches all of which still subscribe to the 39 articles of Faith which is Ms Murray the Creed.

rant away - I for one will never comment on your half-baked presumptious tiff again. & I'd thank you to leave your artistic license and guardian filler articles off the comments to my articles.

by C Murray Fri Sep 21, 2007 17:27

The encyclical mentioned at the base of the article which you object to was derived from the
Cooney book, which goes into great detail on the study of Archbishop Mc Quaid's study in
Rome and his links to ultra-conservatism. I have never set myself up as someone who had
any grounding in theology or church law. The only two references in the piece and comments
are to specific occassions in which the Present Pope has used the RC ethos to advocate
political interference by the church in the affairs of ireland. The first was related to the comments
by Archbishop Martin in Kracow last weekend ,wherein he advocated the re-evangelisation of
the RC Church in Ireland, this was expanded upon at a papal audience wherein the present
Pope Benedict XVI made comments regarding the environment and the role of man and woman
in the creation (which is offensive to me) - this comment referred to the man and woman and life in
the womb as the summit and pinnacle of his message, it also made references regarding
the role of the church in the political life of a country, and asserted the fact that the actions of the
RC church in Ireland should not be confined alone to the ethical and moral sphere. If I had
reffered to any rules and laws in catholicism and or encyclicals , I would have sourced them.
I assert , again, that the thrust of the piece was anti the literal interpretation of bibles, be they,
RC or Anglican or the Koran. I never claimed any expertise in the issue of Anglicanism
but referred to an ongoing row in Wycleff in Oxford where the head of the theological department
has dismissed a woman theologian and which has resulted in a staff mutiny this was in
reference to the fact that the head was accused of a creationist ethos which went directly
against the open theological study, research and teaching Of the University,
that was filed onto the onto the thread in following the other links which dealt with the recent remarks of the Pope
and of Dr Martin which I feel are grounded in a similar literalism.

Last week the Pope went to the Judenplatz Holocaust Memorial and again re-iterated his
remarks that abortion is wrong in any circumstance and I queried the usage of image and RC
approach to abortion (which has amounted in New Mexico, Portugal and Nircagua in
direct interferences in the electoral processes of those countries). The image that
accompanied those speeches in Austria was of the Pontiff standing beside the Rachel
Whiteread Holocaust memorial which is a library of turned inside out books.

The Pontiff has also urged practising Catholics to no longer contribute to Amnesty International
on the basis of Amnesty's support for abortion as a human right. I refused to engage in
theological debate on the issue of the literal interpretation of texts that are based and
grounded in sexism by the Traditional RC Church, nor should I have to take on what is
your opinion of what I write. I also said that I do not have that grounding, I have again and again
said that the literal interpretation of poetic and spiritual texts is creating both ignorance
and a slide into theocratic fundamentalism, this was based solely on my reading and writing
and not on a study of RC theology. for this I have been attacked on everything that I have
written over the nineteen months that I have contributed to this newswire.

The ecumenism remarks are quite simply based in the notes by Mc Quaid, where he claims that
the supernatural end of the eventual union of Ireland wd be missed if Protestants were not
drawn in and converted, but again I refer you to the book. i can add in the remarks
which I noted down if you want..

In recent times the Pope, not alone offending those of the Moslem faith also claimed that
the RC church was the one true church and that the Protestant one was a fraternal Christian order
because it was not based in the apostolic sucession.

JPII wanted to apply the doctrine of infallibility to contraception and was dissuaded by
the then Cardinal Ratzinger, and his remarks on women in the church were reduced to
removing the dialogue on women priests to beyond discussion by applying the
doctrine of infallibility to the issue. the reasons given were:-
1. Evolution.
2. the twelve were men. (John Cornwell- The Pope In Winter)

De Valera subverted the meanderings of Mc Quaid by applying to the Pope himself for approval
of the constitution after copious amendments to the drafting.

The doctrine of infallibility can create a situation of deep difficulty for those who do not
accept the church's teaching on :- Contraception, abortion, divorce and the place of woman in
the home . btw- I am RC (which you are well aware, and my tradition is Episcopal)

The article may have meandered but it does not justify attack by someone who claims to
be versed in theology when it was never based in theology but in the opinion that
RC traditionalism and the article prompted by that traditionalism has created a
situation wherein Ireland has (probably uniquely) not transposed the rights of the child
to basic health care,education, safety but instead makes the family the sole arbiter of those
rights. This requires a constitutional referendum, whic I alluded to in realtion to Mary Harney's
remarks on the Criminal Laws 2006-2007.-"We acted within the constitutional framework'

and I stick to my personal abhorrence of literalism, it creates hatred and division.
I enjoy reading many books and understand that dogmatism does not allow of
personal interpretation based in the simplicity of words, symbols, phrases,
relations between words and sounds- such as can be found in my favorite book;-

Hugh Mc Gregor Ross- The Gospel of Thomas (he's a Quaker btw).

by JAYZHUS Fri Sep 21, 2007 18:09

as for your Mc Quaid model of fatherhood & RC family life being pervading all of Ireland's political and social institutions I've got 2 words Chris :-

Celia Larkin

by c Murray Fri Sep 21, 2007 18:19

'various creeds attempt to but can't split
The world of spirit from the world of shit
Crude scrawls and sacred scrolls come from one mind
Scarface subverts the saint and won't submit'

The blasphemers banquet- tony harrison.

Leave Celia alone she shafted Bertie yesterday...

by filler comment Sat Sep 22, 2007 19:00

I'm allowed write nonsense I quote Tony Harrison's poetry

"What I hated in those high soprano ranges
Was uplift beyond all reason and control
And in a world where you say nothing changes
It seemed a sort of pricktease of the soul".

Anyway, back to the point - is there any reason other than grisly pretention and presumption to pretend the frozen embryo case vindicated or expanded "father's rights" and there is an unchanged model of manhood handed down in Ireland from the days of Mc Quaid?

or could it simply be you were wrong?

by C Murray Sat Sep 22, 2007 20:02

anyway- I'll stop the Tony Harrison quotes-

The primacy of the family has been alluded to on another thread, but I won't put in the link
being afraid of disection- in this case it was the baby returned to her natural parents(who
decided to get married) and being taken away from her foster parents who were applying for adoption.
The Primacy of the family was given as the reason for the judgement in favour of the natural
family. In the aftermath of this judgement another case was heard- on deportation-
which led to statements by Justice Catherine Mc Guiness that Minister Mc Dowell had
not alone breached article 41 but had also breached the European Convention on Human
Rights. (Do you want the link- it was heavily trolled by Harry Rea).

The 'G' case was taken by ex Minister Mc Dowell and vindicated the rights of the father
in a co-habiting situation to have a role in the lives of his twin sons, this led to a
call by the single parent's group for a review of the article in question- which the
legal establishment said will not have a 'precedent'- nor change the constitution...

The embryo case- which doesn't have a letter- concerned the mother's taking of her
now divorced husband to court to seek permissions to have the embryos fertilised
and any resultant children to be paid for by him- which at the time of the 'Mrs Egg'
thread- which I added comment to..sticker was this:- She wanted him to pay for the raising of
non-existent children. she is appealing. I do not know under what article or staute
she had grounded her case in but daddy won that one and he won because he
cited the divorce and irreconcilable differences or the right not to have a family
with his ex-wife (or at least not to pay for the privilge). to me that means his rights
were vindicated- which means yes I am wrong, am always wrong- whatever.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79673#comment176146
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79673#comment176221

many of these cases revolve around the societal expectation and perception of the
family and the woman within the family. (and the man)

by iosaf Sat Sep 22, 2007 20:44

http://indymedia.ie/article/77046 Now I note Chris that in the comments to that article you offered your halfpenny bit "writing as a girl" which has been the pretension and presumption used by you to litter other peoples' articles with nonsense for the greater part of 2 years. Well, I'm writing my comments accusing you of the incessant production of nonsense "writing as a boy".

You are completely wrong on models of masculinity and Irish society and Mc Quaid, you are wrong on ecumenism, you are wrong on the frozen egg case - & rather than admit it carry on pouring yet more cross references to your texts at us. But this time it is not going ignored. "Writing as a boy" I am obviously not qualified to tell you about the changing role of women and feminism in Ireland, we long ago crossed that particular rubicon in this collective. But the fact is - you have not written one thing on fatherhood, the development of rights concepts regarding citizens as fathers rather than parents (a key element of the 1953 doyle constitutional challenge). You do not respond to points because it seems you are incapable of responding to them.

You simply offer your opinions as if they were qualified by fact. There is no "passion" beyond self-obsession & agrandisement in your writing, there has been no citizen journalism from you for a long time, there is no incision or general indymedia news-relay value in the vast majority of what you write merely echoes of articles in The Guardian or Observer which are reproduced here as startling news without background, verification or even removal of that fine British newspapers domestic slant.

& most galling of all is the fact you won't admit it when you're wrong. I and many other contributors as you've so many times complained am a male. We are men. If there is any justification in your constant assertions sole arbitration of a catholic chauvinist church in our lives, I'd argue it's long been buried under a lifetime of TV watching & popular culture consumerism. It is to that culture we owe our moral arbitration. How dare you tell us what has made us.

Now lastly there was no fathers' right issue in the frozen embryo case. Apeing my language in that article "mrs eggy", "the daddy" was once a near intolerable affront on your behalf to allign your sophistry with my texts as constantly you added your comments to my material in the knowledge that I wouldn't tell you to Fuck off. I really wish I had. So what will it be now? Endless appending to this thread? or are you as it seems going to explain a poet who is still in copyright to us with innaccurate & distorted versions of the miners' strike? Surely the stage is reached that you just leave these topics to others & go write your book of poems?

by Sophists 'R' Us/C Murray Mon Sep 24, 2007 20:03

Whilst Mr Iosaf gags along about female sophistry, those who may be interested in Women's
Organising and issues on secularism are invited to look at this site:-

http://www.siawi.org/spip.php?article177
http://www.siawi.org/spip.php?rubrique6

and of course his archive, where he has never made a mistake, breached a copyright
or used rhetoric to attain a desired expansion of issues, nor controversy either.

Sophistry is an interesting term- of course now it is used in a derogatory and belittling manner
by those with intellectual pretensions.

[I won't be confining myself to my books, poetry collection or the Guardian btw.]

http://europeanfeministforum.org

by iosaf Mon Sep 24, 2007 20:46

I have apologised for being wrong & taken corrections on numerous occassions. Here's just one of many times I've had the sense to admit I got it wrong, it comes from exactly one year ago. :-
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78484?&condense_comment...68541
Admitting you get things wrong, and admitting you want people to forget a nonsensical bit of drivel you wrote is not so hard Chris. It doesn't call for moral fibre. It has nothing to do with gender, hiding behind sexual politics or being the limp girl's blouse. If you believe what you right, you stand over it. Not move on to some other topic and insult your interlocutor by calling them a troll.

The Frozen Embryo case had nothing to do with Fathers' rights. That you keep returning to this thread and not letting it slip off the comment lists & into the generally forgiving & forgetful archive not only indicates some curious detachment from what you have written, as if it is perfectly ok to send a message, write an opinion, clock up it's hits and google score - yet neither validate it with argument when it is challenged or admit you got it wrong.

I maintain you got it wrong. But I let the article slip off the comments, you are now doing little more than pinging a back article of dubious newsworthiness or opinion value, you are in fact, as usual, merely pinging your thread. For in this whole dreary text - not one other person agreed with you or saw their challenges responded to. So for whose benefit do you return to the fight?

Reading it, it seems you imagine there is some gallery or audience waiting on tenterhooks for yet more insults from you. Have you counted how many you've issued now, simply because I disagreed with you about a case I wrote about?

my article on the Frozen embryo case - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77046
some material for our resident feminist to peruse whilst possibly preparing a counter argumen
from the US bar association http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring98/sp98shapiro.html & the UK parliament http://www.tellparliament.net/scitech/node/view/19 Coz amazing as it seems, it is actually an issue.

Issues deserve real opinions. not self-obsessed pings.