137 Comments

• EamonnDublin | Jan 28, 2013, 02:51 PM EST

  Night Night, Everybody. Éamonn. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZSleepingSoundlyZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZSleepingSoundlyZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

• EamonnDublin | Jan 28, 2013, 02:46 PM EST

  Eiriamach - Firstly, I suggest you have a look around for the meaning of the words "Islamist" and/or "Islamism". It does NOT mean "all Muslims". Secondly, your blanket criticism of "Pro-Life" supporters beggars belief. As for yourself, Seánie (does it ever bother you that you bear the same name as Seánie Fitzpatrick? No, NOT the rugby player!) I doubt very much if even YOU would suggest that Israel directs phosphorous bombs into the midst of the Palestinians for no reason and randomly. Only kidding about Fitz - I know you are twice the man that little runt is. Yes, I know that's bad grammar, but, hey!, it's my birthday on Thursday. I look forward to loadsnloadsnloads of good wishes from all my lefty liberal loonie fans on the Irish Central site - fans who, despite their amazingly off the wall outlook, realise and understand that they are wrong and I am right. I tell you, fans, it really DOES bring a lovely, warm glow of comfort, knowing one is ALWAYS right. As my late great great great granduncle, Amon the Crusader, used to say "If you ever think I got one wrong, it just means you got it wrong AGAIN". Éamonn, Dublin, Irlande.

• jacersagain | Jan 26, 2013, 08:06 PM EST

  eiriamach butts into a lively, fascinating bantering discussion between Seano and Eamonn. What’s the bets Eamo and Seano are falling in lurrve w/ each other?

• eiriamach | Jan 26, 2013, 10:55 AM EST

  On Thursday, a California court sentenced David Headley, who organized the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, to 35 years in prison (he testified against his fellow Muslim extremists to avoid life in prison; he's 52 now). Headley is an American. So as I began reading Eamonn's Jan 25, 05:17 AM post, I thought he was writing about the USA! Today's NY Times reports this month's poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, which found that among Catholics who describe themselves as “pro-life,” one-third oppose gun control laws. Are these "pro-life" Catholics not "extremists"? Which of these two groups is in fact "pro-life" -- Islam or "Pro-life" American Catholicism? The Muslims I know all decry mass slaughter, they support gun control, none owns a lethal weapon, they allow abortion in life-threatening pregnancies, and they do not demonize other religions. By contrast, a huge number of "pro-life" Catholics are content to "let women die" in pregnancy crisis while supporting the right of anyone to own a hoard of high-capacity lethal weapons and labeling extremists of *other* religions "evil."

• seanomelb | Jan 25, 2013, 07:36 PM EST

  I wonder who protects the Palestinian whlist they sleep Eamonn They go to bed each night wondering where the next phosphorous bomb is coming from. Well may we sleep Eamonn!!but then again it is not all about us a duine uasal

• EamonnDublin | Jan 25, 2013, 05:17 AM EST

  Come, come, a Sheán, The only group I hear constantly telling the rest of the world that they will annihilate every civilization except theirs - and conducting ongoing atrocities to prove its point - is Islamism. Islamism is an evil which, if it is not disabled, will continue to grow and commit these atrocities. There is no room for Political Correctness where evil is concerned, especially when the aim of that evil is to exterminate everybody else by killing them. And, please, Seán, don't make a fool of yourself by replying with something like "well, Christians want to do the same". They don't. And you are much too intelligent to give reason for your views to be laughed at. Now, it's my birthday at the end of the month, so give me some peace! Oíche mhait, codhladh sámh (The United States of America is protecting you whilst you sleep). Éamonn, Dublin.

• seanomelb | Jan 23, 2013, 05:42 PM EST

  Now!Now! Eamonn don't burst your boiler. I agree extremist Muslims are making all sorts of threats so are extremist Christians (especially in the U.S.) and Right wing Jewish groups( in your beloved Israel) want to rid the world of Muslims. Therefore there,re Christians,Muslims and Jews living under a siege mentality and you fit the profile of a Christian with a siege mentality. La mhaith agat a chara.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 23, 2013, 06:08 AM EST

  Sean, You are at it again! I wrote "Islamists". ISLAMISTS!! I-S-L-A=M-I-S-T-S. And THEY tell US that THEY are going to conquer the West and subject us all to Shari'a Law. It's not ME saying it - it's THEM. The ISLAMISTS!!!!! Got it NOW? Éamonn, Dublin.

• seanomelb | Jan 22, 2013, 05:53 PM EST

  No Eamonn! unlike you a chara I do not live with a siege mentalty. Most Muslims like the rest of us are only interested in having a good lifestyle. Extreme Muslims/Christians/Jews ought to be marginalised. Maybe we will give them their own country and call it hateland and let them deal with each other.

• adrienrain | Jan 22, 2013, 09:43 AM EST

  I think you're not publishing my previous comment.....

• EamonnDublin | Jan 22, 2013, 04:05 AM EST

  Sean, Coming so soon after the disgusting Algerian atrocity, your post appears to be even more unbalanced than is normal. Do you never stop for a few seconds to consider how our grandchildren (especially the girls) might be treated if Islamism is successful with its threat to conquer the world and subject us all to Shari'a Law? If you have not done so, please take a little time out now. Best Wishes, Éamonn, Dublin.

• seanomelb | Jan 21, 2013, 06:47 PM EST

  Jacer thrvast majority of Mulims do not live in countries where limbs and heads are removed. I find it amusing that pro western Islamic nations are the forerunners in this form of punishment. In fact the west actively arm these regimes to insure their survival. Therefore Jacer you have more to fear from your pro western arab friends than from the bulk of the Ilamic world. It's not that long ago when Chritian european countries defended the wholesale slaughter of Africans(including the followers of Islam) to force Christianity upon them. How well we wear the cloak of arrogance.

• jacersagain | Jan 21, 2013, 04:16 PM EST

  (…more) Having lived in Islamic countries, I can aver that their system of justice is totally barbaric: hand and part arm chopped off below the elbow for thieves (I saw many one-armed bandits, sometimes no-armed bandits), beheadings for murder and male adulterers, and stoning to death for women adulterers. A work colleague of mine told of three bloodied human heads he saw left hanging from street lamps as a reminder to the public of Sharia Law, just weeks before my visit to Abha, Saudi Arabia. Expats don’t call the main execution square in Riyadh ‘Chop-chop Square’ for nothing. It’s open to the public; an Irishman witnessed a beheading there and had his description of it published in the Irish Times years ago. In Afghanistan, boys as young as twelve are being trained to cut a man’s head off with a large knife (you-tube-it for graphic video). Ken has a nerve to defend Islam or accuse anyone on ICentral or anywhere in the West of Islamophobia. So yes, (Seano!), I do fear and despise Islam but do not distrust the vast majority of unfortunate people who live in fear under it. We should be afraid too, very afraid for our children’s future.

• jacersagain | Jan 21, 2013, 04:13 PM EST

  (Fm below) Ye see Andrew007, the WWII topic came up because Ken mentioned Nazis first in this debate and later accused the Church of being murderers (e.g. Inquisitions; in fact Church leaders mistakenly believed they were actually destroying evil when carrying out killings under them. I know, it's not a justification but it is true) and the West of being large scale murderers during WWII. He says Islamic countries (they were hardly Independent back then, were they?) were peaceful during WWI and WWI, conveniently forgetting the input of Muslims of Turkey, Punjab, Egypt, Algeria etc and other Muslim countries in both wars. Ken says we should look at what is really going on and he’s right. He should also take his own advice and edumacate hisself to see what’s really going on in Islam. Islam’s ultimate aim is to introduce Sharia Law in every country in the world. Toronto, in Canada, very nearly acquiesced to its introduction a few years ago (google for that) and parts of Britain came under the same pressure. The surreptitious invasion of Islam throughout the Western world (Islam is now the third biggest religion in Ireland) is well-known: for proof Ken can google ‘Changing Demographics – How Muslims are growing’. (More…)

• jacersagain | Jan 21, 2013, 04:11 PM EST

  Apologies, Andrew007 - my knowledge of German nuclear bomb history is pretty slim and faded but the general gist of my points on Germany possibly giving Japan the nuclear bomb was based on cursory reading a book in a library years ago. While I did mistake dates (German surrender pre-Hiroshima) it was known that Germany was working on fissile uranium. Two physicists, Trinkle and Schumann if I remember right were to the fore on that in 1942. There were reports that Nazi Germany carried out three fission ‘bomb’ tests in the Alps. As late as 1944, the Japanese embassy in Sweden knew of the German nuclear stuff and sought the Nazi secret bomb for the Pacific. There were also reports that Germany had used low-level fission bombs on the Eastern Front in 1944 and that before their surrender in May 1945, had killed hundreds of POWs in another fission test somewhere. That’s all I can remember from my library browsing. I don’t even recall the book’s name. (But you’re right - WWI and II do not belong under Ms Bacik’s allegation above, so it’s back to Ken from Dublin next. Like all online discussions, someone saying an aside often sends the discussion off tangent on an unrelated topic. The fact remains that the Church does not hate women as Ms Bacik stupidly claims and instead holds them in highest regard (plenty from the Vatican on that which eiriamach, in her Catholic hatred, illogically ignores).

• jacersagain | Jan 21, 2013, 04:07 PM EST

  Andrew007 (asecret new James Bond pal, eh???) – First things first: there seems to be a bug in ICentral’s ‘Submit’ button. I’ve found if you click ‘Submit’ only once, wait a few seconds, then click ‘See all comments’, your first-time post should appear as normal. Otherwise click ‘Return to article’, click ‘See all comments’ and you should then see your post. Now for the German nuclear stuff…

• EamonnDublin | Jan 21, 2013, 01:35 PM EST

  Eiriamach, I was considering "letting it go" as you suggested. However, having seen that you are intent - as per your post immediately below this one - of repeatedly and continually stating that I have made an error of reasoning, I have decided to respond to you once again, as follows. You are still off the mark. Here is a list, from www.thesaurus.com, of synonyms for "distrust". "Disbelief, doubt, misdoubt, misgiving, mistrust, qualm, question, skepticism, suspicion, wariness." Nope, nary a sign of "fear". Away you go, back to "start" and try again. Perhaps you might try to argue that "obstinate" is a synonym of "pushover". You might have more luck. Have a lovely Sunday evening. Or, perhaps you think it's Wednesday? Oops, I nearly forgot, a "phobia" is not just a fear - it is, as you no doubt know (but did not say, as it did not suit your argument) an unreasonable fear of something. Now, perhaps if one were working in Algeria, one should "fear" the Islamists - but it wouldn't be a phobia, as there are good and solid reasons for fearing Islamists in Algeria. But not in Ireland, as yet. Éamonn, Dublin.

• eiriamach | Jan 21, 2013, 12:04 PM EST

  A conversation "can go anywhere and everywhere," as Eamonn says, but here it has come full circle back to the ad hominem fallacy that I pointed out on Jan 11, 09:53 AM EST. falconflash and mairint have no use for conversation. They're here only to express their hatred for women who make their own decisions and do their own thinking, women like Ms Bacik. Earlier I hinted to Eamonn (but he did not pick up on it) that Ms Bacik's first argument was also, like his, an ad hominem fallacy. She argues that the bishops simply hate women and so they cannot be right about opposing the legislation -- bad reasoning! What do the IC women haters do? They imitate Bacik's mistake and attack her character-- not her argument-- to try to show her argument is wrong, LOL! Will they ever grasp simple, common sense logic, or are they the hopeless cases that Andrew007 alludes to, so full of ideology that their minds are closed to common sense? Bacik's character, good or bad, is irrelevant to whether her reasoning is valid. Bacik's other argument, however, is a good one and probably right: the bishops assume that women are inherently deceitful and thus cannot be trusted with life-and-death decisions, and for this reason, they argue, the government must not allow abortion under any circumstance. She's right: this sexist assumption is the basis of the bishops' opposition to giving women any choice with regard to even life-saving abortion: they assume that women are demons who lie. This is also my reply to Andrew: If I abandon common sense, what's left? Demonizing, insults and invective, like fflash's / mairint's! Ugh!

• EamonnDublin | Jan 21, 2013, 10:57 AM EST

  One of the joys of an Irish conversation is that, once started, it can go anywhere and everywhere. Éamonn, Dublin.

• falconflash | Jan 21, 2013, 10:09 AM EST

  Mairint: keep it short and positive: the Irish people do not kill babies.

• mairint | Jan 21, 2013, 04:39 AM EST

  So this Labour senator thinks the bishops hate women - their own mothers, sisters too I suppose. What a load of gibberish the pro-abort the babies crowd can rattle off. Every woman knows that when pregnant she carries a unique human life. That life is entrusted to her for those nine months of gestation and that is an amazing time in a mother's life. The utter selfish brain washing that has been dribbled in through the feminasty anti-humanity and anti civilization channels now weakens in universities while Planned Parenthood grows frantic with their indoctrination programs. The 'hate the baby -inconvenience' attitude is being eroded by a new growth of intelligent young people. What a joy to see all the videos of the Irish people rallying FOR LIFE in Dublin. They came from all over the country. Beautiful, mostly young, men and women with joyful faces. The hundreds of thousands that will gather in Washington on 25th will look just as joyful as they arrive from every corner of the U.S., and further afield, to tell the President to give up his pro abortion mentality and love American babies, all of them. He should listen to Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr.Martin Luther King who continues on his campaign for Rights. This time the Right to Life for all humans both Black and White and in between. So Senator Bacik, 'tis you who hates women, at least the ones who want to allow their babies to be born.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 21, 2013, 03:11 AM EST

  Sean, a chara, Where ever did I say that either your good self or Eiriamach "condone terrorism". I simply said that those nice Islamists are at it again. Is it something on your conscience that makes you assume I am implying that you support the Islamists? An bfhuil chead agam dul amach anois? Éamonn, Dublin.

• seanomelb | Jan 20, 2013, 06:38 PM EST

  Jacer what may have been or could have been is irrelevant. It is the "now" and ath future we have to contend with.I notice you did not contradict my argument on th'Vietnam" debacle. Andrew is correct what has it all to do with the above article! still the banter and contra opionions are worth reading.Eamonn my school buddy when did I or Eiriamach condone terrorism??

• Andrew007 | Jan 20, 2013, 01:05 PM EST

  @jacersagain: Also, I just read your comment "After Hiroshima, German military leaders knew their country could be next to being one-bombed, so surrender was the only option left to them." This is completely wrong. German surrender at Rheims: 7 May 1945. First atomic bombing (of Hiroshima): 6 August 1945, second atomic bombing (Nagasaki): 9 August 1945. While there were some rumours going around at the time about a special allied "super weapon", to my understanding there was no firm knowledge of it except for a tiny few until August 1945.

• Andrew007 | Jan 20, 2013, 12:54 PM EST

  @jacersagain: you're wrong about WW2 German atomic energy research. Most German physicists were actually Jewish (or anti-Nazi) and were forced by the Nazis to flee during the early 1930's; this included Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Max Born, John von Neumann, et al, many of whom were then recruited by the allies to work on the Manhattan Project. If this wasn’t bad enough for the Nazis, despite being warned by renowned physicist Max Planck (father of Quantum Theory), they then compounded their stupidity (thankfully for the rest of the world!) by drastically undermining physics research by politicising the education system and sending gifted researchers to the front (as soldiers!). By the time the idiots realised that they had produced a nation of superb soldiers and engineers but no researchers it was already 1942 and far too late to change it. This fact is indicated by the transfer of control over the German Uranverein project from military command to a research body in 1942, and the continued failure to produce radioactive fissile material was shown by repeated failed explosive experiments to produce measurable radioactivity. Source (amongst many): Rainer Karlsch and Mark Walker New light on Hitler's bomb physicsworld.com, 2005-6-1. Even just a "Google" search will show you some reliable history websites you can check (such as Wikipedia article references).

• Andrew007 | Jan 20, 2013, 12:51 PM EST

  @eiriamach: I think you're going to have to realise that most pundits commenting here just don't have your grasp of English diction, historical knowledge or research and quoting standards, or come to think of it, simple logic! :) ***** arrrghh!!! Now there's too bloody many repeats! I can't win here! :P

• Andrew007 | Jan 20, 2013, 12:46 PM EST

  Dammit! I forgot how stupid & frustrating IC's comment formatting is! OK, here goes a 2nd time! Greetings and Happy New Year everyone! It's been a while hasn't it? I just hopped onto IC and found, once again, a confusing cacophony of voices arguing about insults, grammar, WW2 history and almost anything you can think of that's irrelevant to the article! :P

• Andrew007 | Jan 20, 2013, 12:44 PM EST

  Greetings and Happy New Year everyone! It's been a while hasn't it? I just hopped onto IC and found, once again, a confusing cacophony of voices arguing about insults, grammar, WW2 history and almost anything you can think of that's irrelevant to the article! :P @eiriamach: I think you're going to have to realise that most pundits commenting here just don't have your grasp of English diction, historical knowledge or research and quoting standards, or come to think of it, simple logic! :) @jacersagain: you're wrong about WW2 German atomic energy research. Most German physicists were actually Jewish (or anti-Nazi) and were forced by the Nazis to flee during the early 1930's; this included Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Max Born, John von Neumann, et al, many of whom were then recruited by the allies to work on the Manhattan Project. If this wasn’t bad enough for the Nazis, despite being warned by renowned physicist Max Planck (father of Quantum Theory), they then compounded their stupidity (thankfully for the rest of the world!) by drastically undermining physics research by politicising the education system and sending gifted researchers to the front (as soldiers!). By the time the idiots realised that they had produced a nation of superb soldiers and engineers but no researchers it was already 1942 and far too late to change it. This fact is indicated by the transfer of control over the German Uranverein project from military command to a research body in 1942, and the continued failure to produce radioactive fissile material was shown by repeated failed explosive experiments to produce measurable radioactivity. Source (amongst many): Rainer Karlsch and Mark Walker New light on Hitler's bomb physicsworld.com, 2005-6-1.

• eiriamach | Jan 20, 2013, 09:06 AM EST

  I "trusted" that Eamonn knew the meaning of "infer" and "inference." That was a Mistaken Assumption, not, unfortunately, an Inference! "Distrust" and "fear" are indeed synonyms. Synonyms are words that share some part, or all, of their meaning ("meaning" means their uses in their language). Synonyms allow us to choose among their different shades of meaning, their usual contexts of use, and their connotations. The study of words (using a good dictionary that lists synonyms and gives usage notes and etymologies) is perhaps the only antidote to the delusion that there is such a thing as "my meaning"!

• EamonnDublin | Jan 20, 2013, 06:29 AM EST

  Eiriamach and Sean, I see those nice Islamists have been showing their love of multiculturalism and their religious tolerance, in their own inimitable way, once again. Éamonn, Dublin.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 20, 2013, 06:25 AM EST

  Eiriamach, Thanks a mill for explaining that you misunderstood my meaning, and for agreeing that there is indeed a difference between "distrust" and "fear". Much appreciated. Éamonn, Dublin.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 20, 2013, 06:21 AM EST

  Come on Seán lad! You started it when you criticised the quality of my post, and mentioned my education being possibly lacking. In response, I made a fair point. As for an apology from me to Eiriamach, I don't think so! In her latest post, she notes that I am quite correct in stating categorically that "distrust" does NOT have the same meaning as "fear". QED. Éamonn, Dublin.

• jacersagain | Jan 20, 2013, 01:14 AM EST

  Yes, you’re right Seano – the Germans didn’t have the A-bomb first but their scientists were very close to having it. The American scientists did get it first and sadly had to use it to put down Japanese attempts at autocratic domination of the very area of the Pacific that you live in freely. What would life under the then Japanese leaders have been for you today in Melb if Germany had got the A-bomb first and given it to the Japs? After Hiroshima, German military leaders knew their country could be next to being one-bombed, so surrender was the only option left to them. (Back then, nobody, even the A-bomb-makers, could have known just how devastating the A-bomb was going to be). BTW – I am far from being right-winged. Pay more attention to what I am posting and you should see why. Only people who think and believe that there’s such a thing as a left wing think there’s a right wing.

• seanomelb | Jan 19, 2013, 10:53 PM EST

  Should read "The U.S.assault on vietnam"

• seanomelb | Jan 19, 2013, 10:49 PM EST

  Jacers skewed right wing take on history beggars belief. The Germans did not have an atom bomb and if they had they could'nt use it in europe as the fallout would probably kill more germans than not. History has proven that the U.S. assault was meaningless and an abject failure they ran with their tais between their collective legs begging the french to mediate to save some honour. Johnson.nixon should be charghed for crimes agains hunanity and tried again for the meaningless slaughter of 50,000 young Americans.

• jacersagain | Jan 19, 2013, 10:47 PM EST

  Seano - one cannot label eiriamach a "lady" when she advocates freedom of choice to kill a defenceless unborn human being.

• jacersagain | Jan 19, 2013, 10:41 PM EST

  (Now that I’ve found a way around multiple posts, I’m back to complete my answer to Ken from Dublin). Ken from Dublin’s other comments on Americans using atom Bombs and being in Vietnam are atrocious in their fallacy. Lookit, Ken – go back to school and learn that the Germans were almost to the winning post on the atom bomb and if they had got first, they would have used it in Europe and in America and would certainly have ‘lent’ it to the Japanese in the Pacific theatre of war. America lent its support to the largely Buddhist and Catholic/Christian Sth Vietnam when it was threatened to be over-run by Communist hordes. Ok, so the Yanks (Dublin-speak) pulled out and Vietnam is now predominently atheist. But America didn’t go into all these wars - WWI, WWII, in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan for its own sake – they did do it for the preservation of freedom from tyrannical, autocratic rulers around in our world of many peoples and every year, in remembrance services, we thank America, its families and its military servicemen who gave up their lives for that preservation of freedom which we enjoy today for their help and efforts. The Nth Vietnamese still have to get the message that what they are doing is wrong for their peoples, just as recent Chinese Govts have realised that Communism doesn’t work for their billion-plus peoples. So get your facts right before you label Americans and Christians as world-wide slaughterers. Who is showing their iggerance now, eh, Ken from me own Dublin city?

• seanomelb | Jan 18, 2013, 06:39 PM EST

  You are quite right Eamonn I did misuse the word in question. But thatwas not the issue under discussion. "Taim ar muin no muiche" a chara Maybe an apology to eiriamach would be appreciated,but then you would rather play the schoolmaster and correct grammar than apologise to the lady.

• seanomelb | Jan 18, 2013, 06:39 PM EST

  You are quite right Eamonn I did misuse the word in question. But thatwas not the issue under discussion. "Taim ar muin no muiche" a chara Maybe an apology to eiriamach would be appreciated,but then you would rather play the schoolmaster and correct grammar than apologise to the lady.

• eiriamach | Jan 18, 2013, 12:07 PM EST

  Quite right, I "infer" that when someone uses words like "terrorist" and "distrust," fear is likely involved. Is it a bad inference? It's a legitimate understanding of meaning--though not necessarily of intended meaning. Language has its own autonomy of meaning, as illustrated by such phenomena as Freudian slips and unintended oxymorons and the threads of logic in the rants of the insane. I don't doubt that you believe what you say, Eamonn. But surely you're aware that other people can read and that not everything you call "twisting" of your words is in fact a misreading or a "reading into" words something that is not in them -- in them *as words*, as communally understood signifiers of meaning. That was the point in my original comment--did you construct an oxymoron as humor, or did you not recognize the oxymoron (should I read your words for their shared meaning within a linguistic community, or should I instead find your intended meaning in them)? So piling on more words to defend your original intention is generally a waste of time--with that much of what you wrote, I agree. All you needed to do was to clarify your intended meaning (and recognize that your words did not clearly communicate it).

• EamonnDublin | Jan 18, 2013, 09:08 AM EST

  Seán, I will keep this short. My new name for "Eiriamach" was a play on words - a joke. A joke. You remember those from your Dublin days? Yes, a somewhat distasteful joke, but that's what a lot of Dublin wit is. Now, to be serious. You berate the level of my post, and at the same time you do a whopper of a mistake. I imagine that where you wrote that I was "referring" you actually meant "inferring". The typo is understandable, but not your misuse of the word "inferring" when you meant "implying". I actually remember looking at and listening to the great Barber as he explained the difference, and as he explained it he told us that many, many people mix up the two words, or even think they mean exactly the same. Many years later I am constantly reminded of his words by people's abuse of the word "infer". Including your good self! Come on, Sean, you can do better than that! Éamonn, Dublin.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 18, 2013, 08:53 AM EST

  "Eiriamch" - "Let it go, Eamonn", you suggest! Why on earth? Yes, any half-wit who has read our "discussion" can see that you are twisting what I wrote. That's why I consider that you, as a "whole-wit" are simply writing rubbish about my comment because that is what you do to everybody. I will just draw your attention to two points, which should clear this up. Firstly, "fear" and "distrust" are NOT the same. I might fear a man who approaches me with a gun and says he is going to shoot me - but I do not "distrust" him. I trust that he means what he says and I take evasive action. On the other hand, a man who tells me that he will NOT shoot me, but I then find him sneaking up behind me with a loaded gun - I distrust him. I might or I might not ALSO fear him, but they are two separate issues. I do not fear Islamists, because at the end of the day, if and when it comes to it, superior firepower can be brought to bear in order to eradicate the disease of Islamism. And no, that is NOT all of Islam, it is exactly what it says, ISLAMISM. Look it up. I should add that in your definition of "phobia" - which you apparently lifted from Wiki or whatever - you added the word "distrust" as an equivalent of fear. You ADDED it, to suit your argument. It does NOT mean the same as fear. In other words, as I say, you twisted what I wrote in order to suit your argument. I have wasted far too much time on this already. Good Day to you and Best Wishes. Éamonn, Dublin.

• stanJames | Jan 18, 2013, 01:40 AM EST

  One of the main reasons our family left the church is its treatment of women. You can meaure the progressivity of a church by whether or not it allows women to be religious leaders. My wife btw - she told me that if I went to church any more until there is some progress on this issue - I can sleep in the guest bedrooom.

• eiriamach | Jan 16, 2013, 12:35 PM EST

  Let it go, Eamonn! Probably half the IC visitors who read your original statement noticed nothing while the other half saw an oxymoron, and only Seano and I bothered to comment. But if you draw attention to it, more people may see it. Look, you want to comment on logic? Consider the logic in Patrick Counihan's putting two sentences together: Bishop Jones said, “Any suggestion that Ireland is an unsafe place for pregnant mothers due to the ban on abortion is a complete distortion of the truth” and "He then repeated the bishops’ opposition to legislating for the 1992 Supreme Court X case which allowed for abortion in the case of a suicidal pregnant teenage rape victim." It seems to me in those two sentences taken together there's a challenging problem of logic, but perhaps you think I'm just "twisting" the bishops' words to find a self-contradiction?

• EamonnDublin | Jan 16, 2013, 08:08 AM EST

  It worked this time! I will do a response again tonight, as it won't "paste" now and I can't hang about. You chancers must spend all day on here, firstly reading, then twisting waht you have read to suit, then "responding". Quare world altogether! Until later today - get your "twisting" machines ready. (1 1 = whatever you guys want it to be!!) Éamonn.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 16, 2013, 08:04 AM EST

  Testing - I keep repeating a response to Eiri and Peaches, but it won't send. Éamonn.

• hollabackgurl | Jan 15, 2013, 05:16 PM EST

  It's the same bogus rhetoric as 'love the sinner but hate everything about them, with the pope's blessing.'

• seanomelb | Jan 15, 2013, 04:59 PM EST

  " I Despise Islam but not the people the follow Islam" wha t a cop out for religious bigotry Jacer from Dublin.

• jacersagain | Jan 15, 2013, 03:03 PM EST

  Ken from Dublin (I am ashamed for true Dubliners that you call yourself a Dubliner like I am, so gross are our comments) - You clearly did not read my last post; I never said I’d been to Japan or China. Saying “Japs” and “Chinos” or ‘Chinks‘ are Dublin expression which has no disrespect intended to the people of those countries… it’s just pure Dublin-speak. I have travelled extensively otherwise and I spent a number of years in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia where even educated Saudis know Islam is false, a concoction of The Jewish and Christian Churches with Mohammed’s own system of justice thrown in. Just as there are non-believers in Christianity, there are Saudis and others of Arabic countries who don’t believe in Islam (I’ve met and discussed religion with them) but won’t say so aloud for the reasons you know (or ought to).

• jacersagain | Jan 15, 2013, 03:03 PM EST

  Ken from Dublin (I am ashamed for true Dubliners that you call yourself a Dubliner like I am, so gross are our comments) - You clearly did not read my last post; I never said I’d been to Japan or China. Saying “Japs” and “Chinos” or ‘Chinks‘ are Dublin expression which has no disrespect intended to the people of those countries… it’s just pure Dublin-speak. I have travelled extensively otherwise and I spent a number of years in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia where even educated Saudis know Islam is false, a concoction of The Jewish and Christian Churches with Mohammed’s own system of justice thrown in. Just as there are non-believers in Christianity, there are Saudis and others of Arabic countries who don’t believe in Islam (I’ve met and discussed religion with them) but won’t say so aloud for the reasons you know (or ought to). I despise Islam for its falsity and cruelty but not the people who practice Islam – it’s not their fault. Most are indeed holy, god-fearing people but for all that they are supremely mis-guided and daily living under threat of the sword daily. Christianity is supreme for the simplicity of its teachings – To Love God and to Love your Neighbour. There’s no religion in the world that has such simple precepts for living a good, holy life. Carrying out deliberate abortions is not part of loving God or one’s neighbour, especially the innocent infant so-killed and I say the Bishops are right. As people who love God and their neighbours, it is utterly ridiculous for anyone to say the Bishops are women-haters.

• jacersagain | Jan 15, 2013, 03:01 PM EST

  Ken from Dublin (I am ashamed for true Dubliners that you call yourself a Dubliner like I am, so gross are our comments) - You clearly did not read my last post; I never said I’d been to Japan or China. Saying “Japs” and “Chinos” or ‘Chinks ‘is a Dublin expression which has no disrespect intended to the people of those countries… it’s just pure Dublin-speak. I have travelled extensively otherwise and I spent a number of years in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia where even educated Saudis know Islam is false, a concoction of The Jewish and Christian Churches with Mohammed’s own system of justice thrown in. Just as there are non-believers in Christianity, there are Saudis and others of Arabic countries who don’t believe in Islam (I’ve met and discussed religion with them) but won’t say so aloud for the reasons you know (or ought to). I despise Islam for its falsity but not the people who practice Islam – it’s not their fault. Most are indeed holy, god-fearing people but for all that they are supremely mis-guided and daily living under threat of the sword daily. Christianity is supreme for the simplicity of its teachings – To Love God and to Love your Neighbour. There’s no religion in the world that has such simple precepts for living a good, holy life. Carrying out deliberate abortions is not part of loving God or one’s neighbour, especially the innocent infant so-killed and I say the Bishops are right. As people who love God and their neighbours, it is utterly ridiculous for anyone to say the Bishops are women-haters.

• jacersagain | Jan 15, 2013, 03:01 PM EST

  Ken from Dublin (I am ashamed for true Dubliners that you call yourself a Dubliner like I am, so gross are our comments) - You clearly did not read my last post; I never said I’d been to Japan or China. Saying “Japs” and “Chinos” or ‘Chinks ‘is a Dublin expression which has no disrespect intended to the people of those countries… it’s just pure Dublin-speak. I have travelled extensively otherwise and I spent a number of years in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia where even educated Saudis know Islam is false, a concoction of The Jewish and Christian Churches with Mohammed’s own system of justice thrown in. Just as there are non-believers in Christianity, there are Saudis and others of Arabic countries who don’t believe in Islam (I’ve met and discussed religion with them) but won’t say so aloud for the reasons you know (or ought to). I despise Islam for its falsity but not the people who practice Islam – it’s not their fault. Most are indeed holy, god-fearing people but for all that they are supremely mis-guided and daily living under threat of the sword daily. Christianity is supreme for the simplicity of its teachings – To Love God and to Love your Neighbour. There’s no religion in the world that has such simple precepts for living a good, holy life. Carrying out deliberate abortions is not part of loving God or one’s neighbour, especially the innocent infant so-killed and I say the Bishops are right. As people who love God and their neighbours, it is utterly ridiculous for anyone to say the Bishops are women-haters.

• jacersagain | Jan 15, 2013, 03:00 PM EST

  Ken from Dublin (I am ashamed for true Dubliners that you call yourself a Dubliner like I am, so gross are our comments) - You clearly did not read my last post; I never said I’d been to Japan or China. Saying “Japs” and “Chinos” or ‘Chinks ‘is a Dublin expression which has no disrespect intended to the people of those countries… it’s just pure Dublin-speak. I have travelled extensively otherwise and I spent a number of years in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia where even educated Saudis know Islam is false, a concoction of The Jewish and Christian Churches with Mohammed’s own system of justice thrown in. Just as there are non-believers in Christianity, there are Saudis and others of Arabic countries who don’t believe in Islam (I’ve met and discussed religion with them) but won’t say so aloud for the reasons you know (or ought to). I despise Islam for its falsity but not the people who practice Islam – it’s not their fault. Most are indeed holy, god-fearing people but for all that they are supremely mis-guided and daily living under threat of the sword daily. Christianity is supreme for the simplicity of its teachings – To Love God and to Love your Neighbour. There’s no religion in the world that has such simple precepts for living a good, holy life. Carrying out deliberate abortions is not part of loving God or one’s neighbour, especially the innocent infant so-killed and say the Bishops are right. As people who love God and their neighbours, it is utterly ridiculous for anyone to say the Bishops are women-haters.

• eiriamach | Jan 15, 2013, 10:14 AM EST

  Honor killings in Muslim families are worrisome not because they're a tradition inherent in Islam, but because into the 20th century, the USA had a tradition of killing for the sake of honor. Under the 19th century "unwritten law," husbands successfully pleaded "temporary insanity" to avoid prison after killing their wives' lovers and often their adulterous wives. In "Temporary Insanity: The Strange Life and Times of the Perfect Defense," Russell Covey gives the 1859 example of NY Congressman Daniel Sickles' killing of the son of Francis Scott Key: "Sickles discovered the infidelity and forced his wife to confess. The following day, upon spotting Key strolling near Lafayette Square, Sickles pulled a gun from his coat and cried out, 'Key, you scoundrel ... you have dishonored my house--you must die." Sickles then shot and killed Key. At trial, Sickles contended that the killing was the product of 'an uncontrollable irresistible impulse.'" The jury found him not guilty under the "unwritten law" of male honor. Juries refused to convict in cases of "killings of male seducers by fathers and brothers of their once-virtuous daughters and sisters, and in a smaller number of cases, killings by women seduced and abandoned by men promising marriage." Muslim honor killings are nothing new to America, more like ghosts from the past revisiting us.

• eiriamach | Jan 15, 2013, 09:55 AM EST

  My apologies for the repetition below. The "Submit" button was not responding so I repeated the process and then some. Oops!

• eiriamach | Jan 15, 2013, 09:08 AM EST

  An interesting discussion on logic. Earlier Ken from Dublin called me Islamophobic for simply stating an indisputable fact regarding the tragic consequence of rape when the victim is sometimes murdered by her own family in order to restore the family's honor. If I say that I don't agree with Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank or East Jerusalem - and I don't - it doesn't follow that I am anti-semetic. If I say that I am outraged at the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church - and I am - it doesn't follow that I am anti-Catholic. If I say that I have little faith in religion - which is true - it doesn't mean that I am anti-religion - or that I have little faith. Ken misinterpreted a statement of fact and drew a bogus conclusion. Logic and reason, so often missing in these pages.

• eiriamach | Jan 15, 2013, 09:08 AM EST

  An interesting discussion on logic. Earlier Ken from Dublin called me Islamophobic for simply stating an indisputable fact regarding the tragic consequence of rape when the victim is sometimes murdered by her own family in order to restore the family's honor. If I say that I don't agree with Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank or East Jerusalem - and I don't - it doesn't follow that I am anti-semetic. If I say that I am outraged at the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church - and I am - it doesn't follow that I am anti-Catholic. If I say that I have little faith in religion - which is true - it doesn't mean that I am anti-religion - or that I have little faith. Ken misinterpreted a statement of fact and drew a bogus conclusion. Logic and reason, so often missing in these pages.

• eiriamach | Jan 15, 2013, 09:07 AM EST

  An interesting discussion on logic. Earlier Ken from Dublin called me Islamophobic for simply stating an indisputable fact regarding the tragic consequence of rape when the victim is sometimes murdered by her own family in order to restore the family's honor. If I say that I don't agree with Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank or East Jerusalem - and I don't - it doesn't follow that I am anti-semetic. If I say that I am outraged at the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church - and I am - it doesn't follow that I am anti-Catholic. If I say that I have little faith in religion - which is true - it doesn't mean that I am anti-religion - or that I have little faith. Ken misinterpreted a statement of fact and drew a bogus conclusion. Logic and reason, so often missing in these pages.

• eiriamach | Jan 15, 2013, 09:07 AM EST

  An interesting discussion on logic. Earlier Ken from Dublin called me Islamophobic for simply stating an indisputable fact regarding the tragic consequence of rape when the victim is sometimes murdered by her own family in order to restore the family's honor. If I say that I don't agree with Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank or East Jerusalem - and I don't - it doesn't follow that I am anti-semetic. If I say that I am outraged at the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church - and I am - it doesn't follow that I am anti-Catholic. If I say that I have little faith in religion - which is true - it doesn't mean that I am anti-religion - or that I have little faith. Ken misinterpreted a statement of fact and drew a bogus conclusion. Logic and reason, so often missing in these pages.

• seanomelb | Jan 14, 2013, 10:36 PM EST

  Eamonn when you use Eiri a muc are you referring that eirimach is a pig. AS barber(BRO egan) would have taught you Muc is the gaelic for pig. Your post is well below the standard expected from a St. Vincents boy, it must be the that finish you had to your education in England.

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 08:24 PM EST

  Eamonn, your mistakes in logic are not nearly as bad as your attempts to save them. The Greek word φόβος , phobos, means "fear," or distrust or distress (2 species of fear), anxiety (a non-specific form of fear) . According to the Oxford online dictionary, "Islamophobia" is "a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force." Followers of Islam, whether "Jihadists" or people who perform salah/ salat five times a day, are Muslims. Therefore, it's an oxymoron to say that you're not Islamophobic but you distrust Jihadists or Islamists or Muslims. Go ahead, split hairs and say that although you "distrust" them, you do not "fear" them, uh huh. I'm still smiling. Better to learn from your mistakes what kind of assertions to avoid in the future. "To learn," on my definition, has less to do with book reading than with opening one's mind to attitudes and ideas not already in one's mind and then re-examining the attitudes and ideas that are already there.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 14, 2013, 07:23 PM EST

  "Eiri a muc" and "Sean O'Melba"! I simply do not believe that you guys do not understand my position. My post was NOT an oxymoron. Islam is a religion. Islamism is the form of extremist Islam followed by those who are termed Islamists, and whose aim is to conquer Western civilization by means of murderous terror. Therefore, it is very much in order for me to say that I am not Islamophobic (i.e., I am not afraid of ISLAM) but that I do not trust ISLAMISTS (Jihadists). In no way whatsoever is that an oxymoron. Oh, and by the way, "Eiri", can you point out to me where I said that I "fear" Islamists/Jihadists? I did not say that, because although I do not trust Islamic terrorists I am certainly not AFRAID of them. Now, off the two of ye go and twist all that around and accuse me of something else - possibly you might decide that I have said "the earth is flat". Éamonn, Dublin. (PS, Sean, I had always thought Barber was a Christian. Get my drift? - and don't even try to work that one out, Eirí.)

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 05:53 PM EST

  Oh Eamonn, you do not know what an oxymoron is, do you? The only question was whether your oxymoron was a deliberate attempt at humour, like "brainless brilliance of intellect," or whether it was a slip-up, like "legitimate rape" (courtesy of Mr. Akins) and "I'm not Islamophobic; I just fear Jihadists."

• seanomelb | Jan 14, 2013, 05:52 PM EST

  Well done Eamonn you left youself open to ridicule with an oxymoronic post. How hard you try to hide your muslim hate. Brother Egan would be disappointed with you (rest his soul).

• EamonnDublin | Jan 14, 2013, 05:30 PM EST

  Hello "Eiriamach"! No need to get your knickers in a twist, m'dear! I had considered that the word "Islamism" is now universally understood to mean "extreme Islam", and that an "Islamist" is recognised to be a member of that murderous grouping. The fact that this piece of knowledge has apparently passed you by should make me reconsider whether I should continue to use it or not - as you are, as I previously stated, "ostensibly intelligent", and, therefore, if you are not aware of this connotation perhaps there are one or three others in the same lost boat. Therefore, Eirí, I will use the word which EVERYBODY understands, even the three on the boat. I do not trust Jihadists. Now, you see, no contradiction at all, at all. Now, to make up, I'll buy you a new pair of Calvins. Oops, sorry, wrong gender! Or perhaps not? You can stop laughing now. Éamonn, Dublin.

• eiriamach | Jan 14, 2013, 04:36 PM EST

  I no longer know when Eamonn is joking and when he's unwittingly giving me something to laugh at: "Islamophobic' ...? Not at all; I just distrust Islamists." A perfectly logical contradiction, congrats!

• EamonnDublin | Jan 14, 2013, 06:01 AM EST

  "Ken from Dublin" - "Islamophobic". Moi? Not at all; I just distrust Islamists, for very good and sound reasons. Oh, BTW, when did Liam Neeson become the fount of all knowledge? (Yes, I KNOW he can act.) Éamonn, Dublin.

• seanomelb | Jan 14, 2013, 12:22 AM EST

  Jacer I lived in Libya for four months visited mosques,spoke to the sheiks(Priests). Not once did I hear anyone condemn Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). I was safe walking the streets. You have no experience with Islam or its teachings. Thomas had every reason to doubt Jesus ascending into heaven as it never happened, except maybe in a spiritual sense. Spock must have beamed up his corporal body. I respect all religions and your right to believe but do not force you belief system on me and have the courtesy to respect others beliefs (Religious or not) Is it Christian belief to hate Muslims as you do you hypocrite??

• misneac | Jan 13, 2013, 07:50 PM EST

  I still await an article on Irish Central publishing the latest World report showing that Ireland has a far superior safety record statistically than either the UK or USA in matters of womens health . Child birth mortality is way below either of the above countries .Dont attack me or the Catholic Church on this , its the latest WHO (World Health Organisation) Report !

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 07:45 PM EST

  Ken from Dublin – it’s clear that you have no experience of life, nor knowledge of various religions or of the falsity of Islam. I have those life experiences (admittedly not of all (China & Japan etc but my life experiences show similar trends amongst Japs and Chinos), enough to know the Christianity bits are supreme). I quite well know what ignorance is, I suffered it enough of it meself to know how to spiel it as iggerance for ignorant flip-flats like you.

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 07:24 PM EST

  eiriamach – you keep twisting things around. If Apostle St. Thomas the Doubter ever met you on your road, what arguments of yours would you barrack at him? What do you think he would say back to you?

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 07:03 PM EST

  So too have iggerent non-believers like you have to, Seano. Go to that Tabernacle that I advised you to go to in your own total privacy.

• seanomelb | Jan 13, 2013, 06:29 PM EST

  The commonsense posters on this site have to contend with the ethnic and religous bigotry of the ill informed.

• eiriamach | Jan 13, 2013, 06:12 PM EST

  At Jan 12, 2013, 05:47AM Jacersagain has posted the same as he wrote on the "Catholic Church calls on Irish Government...." article. Since his quotation is misleading, I'll paste here the replies I made on the other page: Jacers, you've quoted misleadingly. From Jeremiah 1, "“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.' 'Alas, Sovereign Lord,' I said, 'I do not know how to speak; I am too young.'” You've added a quotation from the DIDACHE ["You shall not kill the embryo by abortion"] to the words of the prophet JEREMIAH--that's a no-no in working with texts! Amazing! Catholic Defenders routinely dismiss texts like the Didache when they speak of women serving Christian communities as priests, but finding some anti-feminist snippet in the non-canonical texts, they'll disingenuously sneak it into a canonical text.... The words "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion" are NOT anywhere in the bible, though the bishop may have spoken them. And you've presented them as though they are in the bible. Wrong!and deceitful.... evidence of panic on the "Let women die" side of this debate.... moral reasoning is all on the side of preventing repeats of the Savita tragedy. You have no respectable reason to forbid abortion in life-threatening emergencies, so you "quote" alleged scripture -- but it's not scripture. Let's be clear about that.

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 05:45 PM EST

  Ken from Dublin - lift off your own blinkers... Islam is a totally, wholly false religion.

• jacersagain | Jan 13, 2013, 05:37 PM EST

  I have trouble with the word ‘hate’. It’s like an alien word to me. I often have trouble too between the words ‘Like’ and ‘Love’. I am bound by my Christian beliefs to love everyone (xx). That doesn’t mean I have to like them. Ms Foreigner-interfering-in-Irish-Affairs Bacik says that the Catholic Church hates women. The Church is full of women who would tell you to the contrary, something she wouldn’t know about as a non-Catholic. Catholic Bishops are simply, well… like me… bound to love everyone, men and women, but that doesn’t mean they have to like them. I don’t like Ms Bacik a bit but I love her enough to hope she gets some fekkin sense in her head one day and take her sense of hatred back to her real homeland. Maybe she will find the antipathy of hatred there.

• redhand32 | Jan 13, 2013, 01:00 PM EST

  Hey, the bishops may hate women, but they love kids, and those who work for them who love them just as much !

• EamonnDublin | Jan 13, 2013, 10:51 AM EST

  I can add no more to "Gearoid4"s response to "Merefalow". Geraroid's response is the perfect reply to a totally ridiculous, way over-the-top assault on Ireland and her beliefs, practices and medical profession and culture. Mereflow would generate far more interest in anything he might have to say, if he stopped to think for a second instead of allowing the damburst of abuse to overpower his reasoning power, if any. Éamonn, Dublin. (Irish and VERY Proud to be so)

• Gearoid4 | Jan 13, 2013, 10:32 AM EST

  In my commentary before this, I mean't ".."so" wide of the mark" instead of ".."no" wide of the mark"-mea culpa.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 13, 2013, 10:03 AM EST

  @Merefellow, Your caricatural portrayal of Irish belief is no wide of the mark as to portray a very distorted and impoverished picture of the reality on the ground. The "superstition" as you disdainfully describe the Christian(majority Catholic) Faith which has sustained Ireland over some 1,500 years, values each human as worthy of respect with an equal right to live life from conception to natural death. The exact causes and circumstances which contributed to the tragic death of Surita Halappanavar have yet to be determined and yet people like you feel free to blame a "backward theological creed" on this. Deaths like this occur with more frequency in other western liberal democracies which are a lot more secularized than Ireland. Shall we blame religion for those deaths?. The mortality rate for women in childbirth is around 5.7 per 100,000 which compares favorably with other western democracies such as the UK which has around 8.2 per 100,000. You see to be letting a blind secular, humanist ideology get in the way of the truth. In relation to your point about no-one wanting abortion on demand, just take a look at the experience of the UK and the US. The former brought in an abortion act in 1967 with the hope that it would contribute to so-called better healthcare for women and girls and would only be used in limited circumstances. But just look at the present day reality. The abortion rate on average in the UK is hitting around 200,000 annually. The American experience is not much better with over 40,000,000 abortions since the Roe v Roe decision in 1973 legalized the mass slaughter of the innocents.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 13, 2013, 08:08 AM EST

  "KenFromDublin" - since when is one guilty of Islamophobia for telling the unvarnished truth about Islam? I suggest that instead of allowing the Irish media to manufacture "your" opinion, you do a bit of research and learn the truth about what's REALLY going on. Éamonn, Dublin.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 13, 2013, 08:01 AM EST

  "WoundedKnee" - You apparently do not know the meaning of the word "ostensibly". If indeed you DO know its meaning, then why do you ask me such a ridiculous question? Éamonn, Dublin.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 12, 2013, 08:26 PM EST

  Ken, Islamophobia! Surely you jest. I merely referred to a tragic consequence of rape in some parts of the Muslim world, especially Pakistan and Afganistan. For the record, my doctor and dentist of many years are both Muslim, one from Pakistan, the other from Turkey. I am hardly a zealot but certainly passionate about some things, such as the one under discussion here. No doubt I have been influenced by growing up in the middle of seven sisters on a small farm and learning from an early age that they had hopes and dreams and ambitions that went beyond the expectations of motherhood. I learned to respect their ability and their right to make decisions about their own lives.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 12, 2013, 07:50 PM EST

  Thank you Sean. Hope all is well in Melbourne. Slan.

• merefalow | Jan 12, 2013, 07:31 PM EST

  whats wrong with tom swinefords quote,whats realy wrong is a country still enmeshed in the coils of superstition,where logic and reason learning and modern medicine apears to be nonexistant,where a healthy young woman can die because of a backward theological creed propounded by celibate men,nobody advocates the wholesale abortion of babies but it should not cause the death of a woman through medical reasons,not in this day and age,not in a so called modern country,and because it has there is obviously something terribly wrong with this medieval reasoning.

• seanomelb | Jan 12, 2013, 06:08 PM EST

  TomSwinford a thoughtful post full of commonsense. Ignore the zealots who's posts are based on misinformation

• falconflash | Jan 12, 2013, 05:58 PM EST

  Ivana Bacik hates babies. I hate her.

• eiriamach | Jan 12, 2013, 04:56 PM EST

  Not worth answering, Eamonn. Pay no attention to WKnee, who continuously tries to shut me and others up and has thrown around many an insult but never reaches a cogent conclusion.

• WoundedKnee | Jan 12, 2013, 03:26 PM EST

  Eamon: "You are ostensibly an intelligent woman". You're talking about poster eiramach! What evidence do you have for that assertion?

• WoundedKnee | Jan 12, 2013, 03:23 PM EST

  "it is mostly men who express this". You can always rely on TomSwinford for ignorance and bigotry. If this oaf exerted himself out of his intellectual torpor and did some research on the matter, he would see that all statistics show that women's opposition to abortion is consistently higher than of males.

• seamus60 | Jan 12, 2013, 02:03 PM EST

  I think hate is a bit strong. A better word would be fear. Afterall how could they hate woman when they have never been married to one. LOL

• Nicoletta | Jan 12, 2013, 11:54 AM EST

  'At least she helped highlight the fact that many people in the 'pro-choice' lobby who use it as a platform to attack the Church have no idea what they are talking about; in in so doing has done us all a favour.' This silly filly, Bacik, has a lot in common with the IC!!

• Stripes&Stripes | Jan 12, 2013, 11:00 AM EST

  Bacik is NOT a 'top female politician'. She is a member of the Seanad, the Irish equivalent of the Upper House, or Senate. It is a fairly toothless institution which usually rubber-stamps legislation from the Parliament. In Ireland it is considered as a kind of 'runner-up' prize for those who fail to get elected (as Ms.Bacik dismally failed the last time round) to get elected to the Parliament. When she stated that the Catholic church is an organization whose membership is exclusively male, she simply demonstrated, embarrassingly and on a public platform, her total ignorance of what she was talking about. She didn't even have the sense to do her homework beforehand. At least she helped highlight the fact that many people in the 'pro-choice' lobby who use it as a platform to attack the Church have no idea what they are talking about; in in so doing has done us all a favour.

• falconflash | Jan 12, 2013, 10:35 AM EST

  Ah,Tom, what about the baby girls who are aborted simply because they are not a male. Abortion is murder. The Irish race don't kill babies. Take your whining excuse for murder somewhere else.

• falconflash | Jan 12, 2013, 10:16 AM EST

  All this sanctimonious horse s..t about the inviolable sanctity of the womb. What about the woman's sanctity? What about the sanctity of a young girl, brutally beaten, savagely raped and left for dead. What about her sanctity? What if this young girl is now pregnant as a result of an unspeakable crime against her body and her mind? Must she, already scarred for life, carry this pregnancy to term? This, to me, is very much like what happens in much of Islam where the victim of rape,often a very young girl, having "lost her honor" must now be murdered by her own family. To force any woman or girl by law or by custom to bear a pregnancy against her will is to deny her a fundamental human right, the right of ownership of her own body. Yes, this right is not subordinate to the womb - or to the mandate of men - and it is mostly men who express this moral outrage over terminating a pregnancy even if it's nothing more than a mindless cluster of cells. To rob a woman or young girl of ownership of her body is to enslave her. And that, to me, is far more grave than trusting her judgement to make this most personal of personal decisions. As I've said before, we'll never run short of babies. Every single day more than 30,000 die because they are unwanted or cannot be cared for.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 12, 2013, 09:10 AM EST

  My point, Eiriamach, is very obvious to any reader who wishes to read my post without seeking to attack it for non-existent reasons. I did NOT launch a personal attack on Bacik. I responded to the article's headline, which stated that Bacik is a "top politician" (she is not) and I stated the facts when I placed her comments in the context of their genesis. You are ostensibly an intelligent woman, and therefore I consider your responses to be deliberately mischievous by your pretence at misunderstanding me. Éamonn, Dublin.

• cynicus | Jan 12, 2013, 09:01 AM EST

  Ivana Bacik is on a mission. Part of that mission involves attacking organised religion, Catholic or other Christian denominations. The reason? Indiscriminate killing unborn babies and, presumably, euthanasia of the 'no-longer-viable' elderly and the so-called 'right-to-die' fly in the face of most riligious beliefs. Hence, such religious beliefs must be ridiculed, attacked and removed, by any means, so that those on a similar mission as Ivana may succeed in their selfish campaign. Thankfully, the more the godless rail against the church, the more steadfast and determined will her opponents become to resist them. Ivana will be long forgotten, but the church (all churches) will remain. Ivana should remember the old saying: 'The Church is an anvil that has worn out many a hammer.' And Ivana and her kind are merely noisome 'glass-hammers.'

• Smyrnian | Jan 12, 2013, 09:00 AM EST

  Sean - My comment about IC being anti-Catholic is based on the sheer volume of anti-Catholic negativity coming out of this website almost by the hour. It is horrendous.

• jacersagain | Jan 12, 2013, 05:47 AM EST

  Yep, Ms Bacik is an Irish-born descendant of her anti-church Communist mother and father. When will she wake up to the fact that Communism died? When will she learn to keep her mouth shut until she studies the wisdom the Bible e.g. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth… You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish…. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to (mankind) the noble mission of safeguarding life, and (it) must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves… Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”

• Smyrnian | Jan 12, 2013, 04:52 AM EST

  Sean - it is a very rare thing that the choice has to be made between the life of the mother or child. I see this statement a lot. Naturally, in such a rare case, the mothers life comes first. In the other 99.99999% of the cases it is all about convenience and then there is the grisly and horrific late term abortions and partial birth abortions that are conveniently not mentioned here. It must be awfully painful for those babies to be torn apart.

• Smyrnian | Jan 12, 2013, 02:11 AM EST

  Good heavens - a top female politician is it? SIlly filly more like. Looks more like she should be running at the 3:20 from Ascot.

• seanomelb | Jan 12, 2013, 01:07 AM EST

  Smrynian I am happy she never had to make the choice between you and herself count your lucky stars.

• ePHraimAg | Jan 11, 2013, 09:54 PM EST

  I figure She Ought to be married

• Smyrnian | Jan 11, 2013, 09:30 PM EST

  I am so happy my mother did not abort (kill) me. I'll bet the same can be said for all the posters on here.

• falconflash | Jan 11, 2013, 07:44 PM EST

  Ireland: stand proud, you are one of the few nations left that does not kill babies!

• falconflash | Jan 11, 2013, 07:38 PM EST

  Bacik is anti-Catholic. Ireland welcomed her father here but ingrates like her are parasites. They can't leave well enough alone, they must consume the host that welcomed them. I suspect her "Czech" father was not a Christian at all. Aborition is an immense evil, and she wants to lead the children of Ireland into mortal sin.

• falconflash | Jan 11, 2013, 06:22 PM EST

  With 50% of babies being baby girls, I think the Church cares very, very much about women's issues...they actually these young girls to be born....pro-choicers want them dead. Strange world we now live in where evils, like abortions, are presented as something good. Flat out evil, God will fix them for sure.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 11, 2013, 06:18 PM EST

  The theology of St Julian of Norwich, is challenging in terms of it's depiction of the Triune God, which incorporates both male and female characteristics within it, which is a favorable analogy to the male/female completeness as "one flesh" in marriage. Her beliefs certainly bear no relation to the radical nature of Ms Bacik's ideology regarding reproductive "rights" and other matters. The two are not in anyway compatible. At some stage in the future, St Julian of Norwich may enter the ranks of the Doctors of the Church after due reflection by the relevant authorities.

• eiriamach | Jan 11, 2013, 05:02 PM EST

  Ah yes, that persistent double standard: women must not, as Gearoid puts it, "rebel against their natural selves," while men must rise above their natural selves, as Towngate puts it, to resist "the spells of women" (and smiths). I had an Irish ancestor who was both a woman and a smith who ran the family horse shoe business after her husband died. I guess she was double trouble for men!

• Towngate | Jan 11, 2013, 04:52 PM EST

  Research " Sheela-na-Gigs " if you want to understand the traditional Christian attitude to 'Women'. Built into the stonework of early churches throughout the British Isles. Even in "St Patrick's Breastplate" - he prays for Christ to protection him from: ..."...the spells of smiths and Women!"

• eiriamach | Jan 11, 2013, 04:29 PM EST

  Gearoid, will you explain why you omit Julian of Norwich from the female doctors of the Church? Is it because she was a "radical feminist"? Her writings, as well as her life, draw praise from many Christians. Some of her theology, for ex. her view of Jesus as "our true Mother," has been shared by saints like Francis of Assisi. She also had a gendered vision of the Trinity: "In which beholding I saw and understood these three properties: the property of Fatherhood, and the property of Motherhood, and the property of the Lordship -- in one God.... I saw and understood that the high might of the Trinity is our Father, and the deep wisdom of the Trinity is our Mother, and the great love of the Trinity is our Lord" (Revs of Divine Love of Julian of Norwich, trans. J Walsh). It's an ancient vision, dating from 2nd century Nag Hammadi. Why do you find only one mode of thinking by women acceptable, and why do you routinely use the word "feminist," which has a positive connotation for so many, as a term of disapproval?

• seanomelb | Jan 11, 2013, 04:26 PM EST

  Tom is correct the Catholic church do not hate women but seem to treat women with contempt and weak mindedness. They posts are not anti Catholic smrynian merely a reflection of how people perceive certain statements made by the church.

• Smyrnian | Jan 11, 2013, 04:15 PM EST

  The IC search engines are now spewing out anti-Catholic topics on a DAILY basis.

• eiriamach | Jan 11, 2013, 03:51 PM EST

  The "context," Eamonn, is this article on the Irish government's task of legislating on "reproductive rights." It's not a discussion of how members of the Seanad get their seats, what their religious views are, or how much you dislike them. In the present context, nothing you wrote is relevant, so why attack Bacik personally? What IS your point?

• Gearoid4 | Jan 11, 2013, 03:49 PM EST

  I think that Ms Bacik's words are rather an inversion of the truth. Church in fact has raised women to the highest ranks of sainthood and has applauded their genius by naming such Heavenly luminaries as St Therese of Lisieux and St Theresa of Avila as Doctors of the Church. In sharp contrast, The proponents of radical feminism spout ideology that is against the best interests of women and encourages women to reject their fertility, wombs and child-rearing. In short, they teach women to rebel against their natural selves and to be enslaved to lives of sexual and social freedom without any limits and no matter what cost.

• eiriamach | Jan 11, 2013, 03:44 PM EST

  Nicely summarized, Tom Swinford! The vagaries of Catholic Church attitudes toward women are a huge chunk of its history and theology. I mean no disrespect to the historic Mary of the House of King David when I say that too often churchmen have held up the Blessed Virgin Mother of God as an abstract symbol-ideal of womanhood to distract attention from their mistreatment of real flesh-and-blood women who have lived, died and been buried in this world.

• 89west | Jan 11, 2013, 03:14 PM EST

  Pillib04......your rush to a conclusion, clearly, demonstrates your narrow and jaded feminist view. To clear up a point with you, Bacik's family came to Ireland in the late nineteen forties from what is now know as the Czech Republic and were founding members of the Waterford Crystal Factory. As for the blowhard, windbag, Abzug; she never moved very far from her roots as a lower eastside fishmonger.

• WoundedKnee | Jan 11, 2013, 03:12 PM EST

  Cillowen: Bacik is a big booster for Mass Immigration (strange she doesn't seem to worry about all those anti-women Muslims filling up Ireland) but she herself was born in Ireland. I think her background is Czech, but I don't claim to be an expert on nonentities. Speaking of nonentities, it's probably a waste of time to recommend some reading to our poster Tomswinford, given his taste in reading, but more in hope than in confidence I'd suggest he read Warner's book Alone Of All Her Sex, published I guess 30 years now. Still a classic exploration of the cult of the Blessed Virgin, that aspect of our faith which sets us Catholics apart from just about everyone else (though the US Hierarchy often seem like Anglicans, since they try to write Mary out of the Church). Might broaden Tom's bigoted mind a little. One of the defects of the Know Nothing crowd--people such as Bacik and her boosters on this site-- is that they have a narrow knowledge of the world. They think that what went on in Ireland was typical of a Church of a billion people. It wasn't--the Irish created their own nastiness, largely in the decades after the Great Famine, when the indigenous Catholic Church was supplanted by an arid foreign version. Early Gaelic tradition--TomSwinford would know nothing of this, of course--offers a very rich understanding of women's role in creation.

• Searlit | Jan 11, 2013, 02:55 PM EST

  It certainly was a hateful act to break women's pelvises during childbirth.

• Scrivner | Jan 11, 2013, 02:48 PM EST

  Here's a modest proposal: allow abortions up to 16 years post partnum. You really don't knowhow much you want a kid until you've had to put up with his/her antics thru the teenage years. This would also have the beneficial effect of lowering crime rates--since so much criminal behaviour starts in youth, a bit of government pressure on the mother to have the miscreant aborted would solve future problems and save the cost of trial and incarceration. The process could even generate revenue by televising it a'la Hunger Games, with wagering and sponsorships. Ivana may just have solved the fiscal crisis of Western Civilisation!

• cillowen | Jan 11, 2013, 02:22 PM EST

  Ivana Bacik - which country is she from? Blowins and blowouts are the norm for the slivered isle of the UKers.

• cillowen | Jan 11, 2013, 02:17 PM EST

  I don't believe bishops hate women but I do believe that within the Church, historically and pathologically, is a fear of women, largely based on their God-given human sexuality. While the Mother of Jesus was decreed to be a virgin because the notion of the Son of God being conceived by the vulgar and sinful act of coitus was unacceptable, the Church's view of most other women down through a 100 generations is that they are sinful by nature, temptresses, using their sexuality to lead good men into sin. In short, if man was created in God's image, woman was created in the devil's image. In some groupings of the very early and fractured Christian Church women were achieving a degree of status and power - in part because of their faith in Mary Magdalene, a close confidant of Jesus'. This terrified the old patriarchs. In the 5th centure Bishop Augustine of Hippo gave us Original Sin, committed during the sinful but confoundedly necessary act of sex, a sin which the good Augustine laid squarely on the woman and her devilish but sinfully enticing body. Not to worry though, we also had the saving grace of Baptism to cleanse our new but imperfect souls of this potentially fatal blemish. In the 6th century Pope Gregory the Great ended all this nonsense about women daring to achieve some stature and relevance in the Church. He falsely declared Mary Magdalene to have been a whore saved by Jesus. It was time to put women in their proper place and old Greg did it with a vengeance. To this day the Catholic Church struggles with human sexuality and its unending ambivalence toward women.

• Nicomax | Jan 11, 2013, 12:32 PM EST

  It's best in democratic systems to always have civil law trump religious law. The US Constitution states that quite clearly. Unfortunately even recently written constitutions do otherwise, such as Egypt advancing Islamic law over civil law in some instances. Ireland needs to complete the process of removing any and all religious law from influencing the development of civil law.

• pilib04 | Jan 11, 2013, 11:54 AM EST

  89West, I see, in your opinion, a woman's place is in the house. I prefer the Bella Abzug campaign slogan, "This woman's place is in the house- The House of Representatives (or in Ivana's case, the Dail.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 11, 2013, 11:48 AM EST

  Eiriamach, You appear to have an uncontrolled urge to twist every single comment I make. Will you PLEASE read what I said. I merely said that the fact that Bacik is an atheist and hates the Catholic church puts her comments "in context". I said nothing "fallacious". I repeat what I said: Bacik is an atheist and she hates the Catholic church. Nothing wrong with her position on that, but it puts her comments in context. If I say that Manchester United is a rubbish football team, it will help the reader if he/she is made aware that I am an Arsenal fan. Got it now? Éamonn, Dublin.

• pilib04 | Jan 11, 2013, 11:46 AM EST

  gobdawpaddy, I am glad to see that you believe that Ivana Bacik has the right to be heard. I agree with you. My concern is allowing a pulpit for those who protect child-raping priests/bishops! As far as I am concerned, that "crowd" has lost their right to provide their opinions on women's reproductive rights!

• Eschetic | Jan 11, 2013, 11:28 AM EST

  I want to second "markday's" "You go, girl!" comment, but extreme words don't win friends or arguments. Most of these Bishops honestly believe they are protecting women in their wrong-headed actions which have the opposite effect. Those who realize the reality science has amply demonstrated that there is no "life in being" before the ganglia of the brain start to come together must not allow the superstitions of the uneducated to dictate the conversation. Abortion does NOT end the life of any baby - it merely terminates a fetus before it can become a true life. The BASIC principle which must not be lost is that you do NOT put basic human rights (and a woman's right to control her own body is certainly among the most basic) up to a majority vote. History is on the side of this position and we are winning - the ignorant afraid of losing their illusions, the superstitious and the bigoted will scream all the louder because of that, but screaming doesn't win arguments either.

• gobdawpaddy | Jan 11, 2013, 11:22 AM EST

  Senator Bacik is hardly a leading Irish politician, male or female. She has I believe contested election for a dail (house) seat on three occasions and been unsuccessful each time. The Irish senate, while technically the upper house', has little power and is generally filled with congressmen and women who failed to gain re-election, or party hacks who may decide to contest an election in the future. Ivan Bacik is a little 'off the rails', but she is entitled to be heard.

• Eschetic | Jan 11, 2013, 11:21 AM EST

  I want to agree with "markday's" comment, "you go, girl!," but extreme words don't win friends or arguments. These Bishops, while incredibly wrong headed and in a few cases vicious, probably honestly believe they are working to protect women - even as their words and actions have the opposite effect. The basic principle to hold on to is that you DON'T put basic human rights (and a woman's right to control her own body is certainly among the most basic of those) up to a majority vote. Don't let the superstitions of the "right" (that there is a "life in being" before the ganglia of the brain come together) dictate the conversation. Abortion does NOT end the life of a baby, merely a fetus which is NOT YET a human life. That is the reality science has demonstrated clearly; history is on our side and we are winning. That scares the heck out of the bigots and they scream all the louder.

• markday | Jan 11, 2013, 10:19 AM EST

  The only problem is her choice of words. she should have said "male church hierarchy." Nobody's perfect. You go, girl!

• eiriamach | Jan 11, 2013, 09:53 AM EST

  Eamonn, your claims about Bacik being an atheist and hating the Catholic Church are a blatant ad hominem -- completely irrelevant to the question and transparently fallacious, shoddy "reasoning." Some of the best moral reasoning in Western civilization has been produced by atheists. Your personal attacks on pro-choice people are duplicitous and risk discrediting not only your words, but your character as well. This targeted hatred does not speak well for the anti-choice position, and I cannot believe it would attract any decent clear-thinking person to the anti-choice side of the debate! But if you cannot offer a moral argument, well, you launch personal attacks against those who can. I expect no less from WoundedKnee, but I thought you were capable of making a relevant, fair-minded point. Bacik makes such a point when she describes the bishops' position as assuming that women are inherently deceitful and thus cannot be trusted with life-and-death decisions. She's right: this sexist assumption is the basis of their "culture of death" claim.

• Happyhippo | Jan 11, 2013, 09:42 AM EST

  The citizens of the country should be allowed to make the decision vis a vis the Supreme Court ruling on the x case,the issue will have to be put to the silent majority and them alone,and settled once and for all democraticly.The latest poll gives a large majority on the passing by a free vote

• 89west | Jan 11, 2013, 09:33 AM EST

  tell her to go home and clean the waterford crystal! any wonder why the country is the way it is?

• CitizenWhy | Jan 11, 2013, 09:09 AM EST

  I think someone has confused the powerful US Senate with the fairy dust Irish Senate, a set for a bad movie and possessing no political power. On the other hand I thought it was the prerogative of every bishop to hate women. Just saying.

• EamonnDublin | Jan 11, 2013, 09:01 AM EST

  Ivana Bacik is an atheist (nothing wrong with that, but it is to be noted because it puts her comment in context). Ivana Bacik hates the Catholic church (again, this puts her comment in context). Ivana Bacik is very far removed from being a "top female politician". To take one's seat in the Irish Senate (Seanad) one is either appointed by one's chums (very undemocratic) or is elected by a very small number of voters, part of a so-called "elite" grouping who have attended university (extremely undemocratic). The Seanad has no power whatsoever and is a TOTAL waste of money talking shop - which is why it is going to be abolished. So, please don't give us the "top poltician" bit! "Top Mouth" is more like it. Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.

• WoundedKnee | Jan 11, 2013, 08:44 AM EST

  "top female politician".... More nonsense from Irish central. This woman is a failed election candidate, I don't know how times she has stood unsuccessfully for the Irish Dail. She finally got into the Mickey Mouse Irish Senate because she was elected on the totally undemocratic franchise of Trinity College. She represents maybe a thousand or two voters, many of whom are not even citizens of Ireland. She's a Nobody.

• thetint | Jan 11, 2013, 07:42 AM EST

  Well said Ivana. If you don't play the game you don't make the rules.