Firstly, as a former media student and a current media professional (and a bit of a hippy) I fully support freedom of speech and, of course, democracy. These are just two of my values.
Democracy has its paradoxes however. One for example, is the idea that a majority can democratically elect a completely undemocratic group to power (as happened most notably with the rise of the Nazi Party) and the ethics of doing so that go along with this (i.e. should an undemocratic government, which was democratically elected, be overthrown by the minority?). Another paradox is how Irish democracy (and others) operates under a supposedly highly complex economics system that few understand, or feel they understand, though it directly shapes their lives and votes.
A third paradox is the co-existence of church and state. Of course freedom of religion is only right. However, it's often argued that the state should remain independent from influence of any church when considering issues. This is not always possible. Religious lobby groups exert huge pressure on governments which has a direct influence on their decisions. Examples can be found in the arguments for gay marriage and the right for a persons' choice to choose abortion or contraception. Here, the Catholic Church, a deeply undemocratic institution, represses the freedoms of the majority who support gay marriage - ironically restricting the freedoms and rights of many gay Catholics in the process. Their reasons for opposing such issues are based not on any scientific evidence but on dogmatism and their supposed faith. This is the gist of the principles that my argument with Marc are based on.
Marc's first tweet states that the majority of the Irish population are Catholic- according to the most recent Irish census 84% of the Irish population are Catholic and it would be 'undemocratic to deny their views'. Who could disagree with the second part of that tweet? Of course it would be undemocratic to deny any individual of their views. But for a powerful group to lobby a democratic government their views must be based upon some plausible argument for the well being of the society of which they are a part of.
Basing your societal views on your religious background does not make your argument plausible - there should be no respect or credibility given to an argument with such a basis. Regarding the 84% stating their religion as "Catholic" - this does not reveal the true extent of atheism in Ireland. Only 35% of the population still attend mass at best. The census figures are controversial - many atheists stated "catholic" as their religion as they were born into traditionally Catholic families. There were many calls at the time to have this method of collecting information on religious affiliation improved so that it is more accurate.
Dara O Briain: Atheist, but still "Catholic".
Marc's second tweet was perhaps unfair; that 'secularization of Germany, Russia and China in the 20th century led to Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism and state tyranny'. I entirely disagree that it was secularism that led to this tyranny - the suggestion is ridiculous. Firstly, Nazis were Christian; their belt buckles had the slogan 'Gott Mit Uns' - God With Us. Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism may have had many reasons that led them to tyranny, but religion or secularism probably had little or nothing to do with it.
'The church revived democracy in Poland...'. True enough, the Catholic church supported the movement for democracy in Poland. However, it was the Solidarity Trade Union that performed one of most important roles in this movement. Although the church publicly supported the role, it was hardly responsible for the downfall of such an oppressive and authoritative regime. During this time Poland also received over-whelming support from media and democracies in the west. Ironically, the church now supports the Putin government in Russia (calling Putin a “miracle from God”)- a point also enthusiastically highlighted by Western media through the Pussy Riot case. In Ireland, the church abandoned great democratic leaders such as O'Connell and Parnell to further their own interests which led directly to the violence of the past century caused by an aggressive form of Irish nationalism based misguidedly on Catholicism.
'Collapse of Atheist France into mass murder...' The year of terror (1793-1794) in France following the French Revolution was certainly a chaotic time - but not one caused by atheism. Actually, some of the main factors which caused the appalling situation were that counter-revolutionaries and neighboring enemy states were attempting to overthrow the newly formed republic (this post-revolutionary political chaos also happened in Ireland, Russia, USA, India/Pakistan and other post-revolutionary states). There was also a vicious power struggle within the republic between different revolutionary sides. Incidentally, it was this new French Republic that brought about the end of the Catholic Church's tyrannical Spanish Inquisition.
'Christian faith of American Revolutionaries' vs. 'blood-drenched... of the secular French...' Of course, most American Revolutionaries were indeed Christian. However, the US was founded as a secular state from the outset and this can be found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also, Thomas Jefferson is credited by some sources of having coined the phrase 'wall of separation bettween church and state'. Secularism in the US can also be found more recently, such as with JFK who said;
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials...Marc's last tweet puts the motion, 'If a law is supported by the majority, and also supported by a church then support of that church doesn't invalidate it [the law]'. I completely agree - once the law is supported and passed by a majority, it must be supported by all (unless the law calls for ethnic cleansing or some other horrific act). However, the very point at hand can be found within Marc's question. If the law under discussion is formed without the intervention of a religious lobby group and is supported by a church - all the better. However, if the law is formed after lobbying from a religious group, then can we be sure that the Government wrote the law indifferently to the interests of any church and with only the well-being of the entire population at mind?
