Atheist Ireland Forum

Has anyone done a comparison of the candidates views that affect us? I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't yet taken the time to find out what they're all about.

There's not a whole lot the President can do for anyone's agenda, but I suppose having someone in the Aras who is more open to our goals would be the better option.

So right off the bat Dana & Gay Mitchell should be off the agenda as both are the darlings of the religious (catholic) right.

I've no idea about Mary Davis and her views on religion. The same can be said for Sean Gallagher, however as a former member of the Fianna Fail National Executive, it's reasonable to assume his views would be in line with that of Fianna Fail, which historically has been in the back pocket of the Catholic Church, however I'm open to correction on that.

David Norris says he's a devout Christian who goes to church once a week. However he's a strong on human rights campaigns so again it's reasonable to assume he'd be more open than others to our goals.

Martin McGuinness is a devout catholic (what a laugh!) and wears some under garment or other, the wearer of which is guaranteed not to go to hell (what another laugh!).

I don't know the religious views of Micheal D. Higgins, however, given that the Labour leader and the minister for education are both atheists and given that on track record the Labour party has been the most open to our agenda, he'll be getting my vote.

*Disclaimer* I campaigned for Ivana Bacik for the last general election and am a member of the Labour Party so of course, I would say that wouldn’t I? Well, I joined the Labour at the same time as signing up to campaign for Ivana. The main reason I campaigned for her and joined was because of her views on the need for a more secular society. There was some stick given to AI for suggesting that people might like to campaign for Ivana saying it was an endorsement for Ivana and the Labour party. However, Labour have shown, through direct action, with the ongoing work of Ivana Bacik and More recently Ruairi Quinn in education that our agenda is very much in line with the way they think, not all of course, but much more than the other parties.

As far as I can tell there aren't really any candidates pushing a secular agenda of any kind. There is however one candidate who's mere presence in the race is a huge slap in the face to the catholic church and every crazy right wing christian whackjob on this island.

Well they all have to believe in god otherwise they need not apply...

I do realize the president is pretty irrelevant, but they do have the power to embarrass us when dealing with other heads of state. We need whoever will do the least of that.

"Goo goo ga joob, Mary Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo..."

I haven't made my mind up yet, after last night's LLS, I think MDH came across as the most presidental, with no agenda for office.

Just have to wait and see Vincent Browns interrogation of the candidates.

For me it's not their personal religious practices but the ones they put in the public debate.

Sadly, as he is my first choice, David Norris is the only candidate who is going on about how religious he is and has announced on three occasions in the past week that he is a devout Christian and a weekly church-goer, though nobody asked him.

Gay Mitchell wrote letters seeking clemency for two killers of doctors at women's clinics in the USA - he pretends that he is a campaigner against capital punishment generally but has been let away with this deception by the media.

Dana has a long track record of opposing all social reform in the name of her brand of Catholicism, which makes the Wahaabi Muslims look like liberals.

Personally, I won't be voting solely on the candidates' religious dimensions and if David Norris will just shut up about the Bible I'll still give him my number one - but just to stick it to the Establishment.

Who's the Establishment?
Vote Yes to Lisbon, vote yes to jobs

Norris and Higgins are the only two decent choices.

biped is right in suggesting that Norris is a slap to silly conservatives and Beeb is right in noting that Michael D's affiliated party is more in tune with secularism. Neither are a concrete support to AI.

So from a secularists point of view either of these would suffice. I haven't decided between both Higgins and Norris though.

I have to admit to being quite surprised and taken aback by Mary Davis's position on gay marriage and adoption.

Likewise Gallagher is in support of gay marriage but said he wasn't familiar enough to have a position on adoption. That's a sensible position to take. It's not often you hear a politician (he's sort of a politician just by being in the race) say "I don't know".

The thing about adoption is that it is, and always should be, about what is best for the child. It's not about the "rights" of wannabe adopters. Nobody has a right to adopt a child, all applications are assessed on a case by case basis with a view to what is best for the child. So what's the harm in allowing gay couples to apply and be assessed?

+1 a child has a right to have a stable and loving home. Who supplies that doesn't matter.

I've made up my mind after hearing this:

Michael D Higgins unloads on Tea Party favorite Michael Graham
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOxKnsT-XZg

Really? I remember that. I found it pathetic that in the face of Graham's inane, unreasonable bullshit, the best he could do is shout over him and call him a wanker.

Some funny podcasts from RTE on the election:
1st Oct prez-race
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_greentea.xml
29th Sep Aras candidates talk to Joe ****
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_nobnation.xml

I just love that he would call it like it was and not be PC. I doubt Graham would have understood an intelligent response anyway. I think we need more swearing in politics. Sometimes it's appropriate.