Comments on: A round of applause, please, for Mary Honeyball

By: James Smith JoÃ£o Pessoa, Brazil

James Smith JoÃ£o Pessoa, Brazil — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:09:05 +0000

Has anyone else noticed that one of the first insults the religious reich uses to attack someone is “homosexual”?

Perhaps this is really just an expression of doubt in their own personalities. Why are they so terrified of homosexuality? You’d think gays were arming for a “holy war” against all religions.

I know several gay people and none are violent and some are deeply religious. The ones that are not only want the god-believers to leave them alone. Not a bad policy for everyone, but one the deists cannot seem to follow.

Why do all religions want to enforce their beliefs on everyone either through the threat of violence by passing laws or by actual violence?

Could it be that they really have no other means such as facts and logic to convert people?

By: Saocalistatheist

Saocalistatheist — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:06:24 +0000

Newspanired you say WE IN ireland elect convicted murderers??? The queen ANd her family are only in there as there ancestors are more bloodthirsty. And our consitution may be underdevolped but why is that oh yes we were taken over ruled and muredered by your ruthless barbaraic idiotic kings queens and governments for 700 fucking years.

By: Broga

Broga — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:37:48 +0000

newspaniard. If you find some of my rhetoric quite offensive then I must be doing something right. Let me know the bits you don’t find offensive and I’ll try to do better.

By: Webcore

Webcore — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:20:53 +0000

–”What she does not seem to realise is that many people seek to become politicians because of their Catholicism.”–

That’ll be why government is so f*&%$ed up…….

By: newspaniard

newspaniard — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:22:37 +0000

@Broga: Hells teeth, why don’t you say what you mean, not pussyfoot around. To argue with you would be like argueing with Bob so I won’t even try, even though I do find some of your rhetoric most offensive. What’s more, don’t mention democracy and Ireland in the same sentence. That’s a country where the people quite happily vote for convicted murderers to represent them and are proud of it. To say nothing of THEIR religion based constitution.

By: Broga

Broga — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:17:04 +0000

I think we are moving off track here but when the Queen, the one in the Palace, whines away in a Christmas Message to her “subjects” that religion is the only game in town (yes, she did, and Barry will confirm) and that religious groups are the only ones who will help the victims of the tsunami (after my missus had sent Â£200) I am both a republican and an atheist and a democrat. I wonder how much Elizabeth Windsor sent with her reputation as one of the meanest payers of staff in the capital. Do you really think Charles Windsor is fit to be King? This is like saying David Beckham’s elsdest son must play for England.

Doing a great job? Look, she is 82, mouths what she is told to mouth, and in my view if she is doing a great job at that age, it cannot be too demanding.

As for Charles Windsor? This is the man who wants dotty therapies from charlatans paid for on the NHS. He, of course, like his mamma heads for the top of the queue when he needs the real stuff.

The Queen cannot be questioned or criticised in Parliament, has all sorts of fiddles going to avoid paying her whack on taxes and all the flag waving kids are set up in advance. When Charles Windsor was whinign a few yewars ago that he wanted to visit Cardiff they refused. Decided the couldn’t afford to fund the visit on the rates.

Philip Windsor. A bigot and racist. The Queen Mum, heavy gambler, loved lots of gin, paid her debts by offering to give The Royal Appointment instead of cash and was famous for being prepared to go anywhere as long as she could attract a crowd of sycophants.

Need I go on? If you want a replacement you could look to the President (female) present and past in Ireland.

It is simple. I am a democrat and I am not a subject of anyone, least of all that bunch. Dysfunctional, emotionally frozen and a totally messed up family.

Anyway, that is my view but I could be wrong.

By: newspaniard

newspaniard — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:01:06 +0000

Hang on. Atheists are not all (bloody) republicans. I, for one, am a staunch Royalist. Imagine what a mess this country would be in if it had a president. At least with a prime minister, his/her party can replace him/her if he/she becomes too much of a liability/embarassment/loony. This is unlike republics where their head of state has to be directly elected by the people and can only be removed by death, impeachment (nearly impossible) or expiry of the term (sentence). In many countries the choice can end up between 2 candidates, neither of which are suitable for the job but have gathered sufficient financial backing to attain that position, which, to me, smacks of corruption. An hereditary, or be it ceremonial, head of state, with a little clout and a lot of common sense, to me is a lot more appeal than, say, ‘President Brown’, Blair, Scargill, or even (bless her), Thatcher.

So kindly, please be careful when you assume atheists are also (bloody) republicans, I think the Queen is doing a great job and despite all the brickbats, Charlie has proved to be right in most of his more ‘outspoken’ statements, and I have a lot of respect for him too.

Nuff said.

By: remigius

remigius — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:37:02 +0000

Broga.

“I think the main problem was the Queen but I donâ€™t know. Nor do I know if the situation remains they same.”

Yeah, we’ve still got a queen. Thought you would have known that.

Oh I see what you mean!

By: Broga

Broga — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:25:11 +0000

quedula. Agreed. There is a politician in the Welsh Assemby, a woman, who states openly that she is an atheist and republican. Can’t remember her name. I heard her in a discussion a few years ago and she was accused of being a hypocrite because you have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen to get into the Assembly. Her reply was that she understood the charge, had felt very uncomfortable, had protested vehemently but the choice was between representing her constituents and doing what was demanded. However, immediately afterwards she said “I am doing this under protest”.

I think the main problem was the Queen but I don’t know. Nor do I know if the situation remains they same.

By: quedula

quedula — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:09:29 +0000

We do need ALL atheist politicians to come out and be counted. In the past they may have been tempted to keep quiet about their lack of beliefs for fear of alienating the religious vote.

Perhaps there could be some kind of campaign on this before the next election. As the difference between the parties becomes ever more difficult to distinguish I personally would be tempted to vote for an atheist (if available) irrespective of his/her politics.