Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
calum

Opus Dei

What TF? It beggars belief that the SNP can choose a member of this secretive cult for their candidate. With Sunday ferries now bringing a long overdue chink of light to the Islands' Presbyterian darkness, why should the SNP think that having a member of Opus Dei is desirable in this day and age?

Opus Dei are infamous for supporting Spanish fascists and centralist dictator Franco and were complicit in the 300k deaths that followed Francos rebellion.

I think my pro-independence vote would go to the Greens if they stood.
Stevie

Is there a shortage of volunteers?

Apparently, the candidates put up at some of the most crucial moments in by-elections by the SNP are the definition of dorks.

Still, the Labour party never fails to produce its own strange buggers.
chicmac

Re: Opus Dei

calum wrote:
What TF? It beggars belief that the SNP can choose a member of this secretive cult for their candidate. With Sunday ferries now bringing a long overdue chink of light to the Islands' Presbyterian darkness, why should the SNP think that having a member of Opus Dei is desirable in this day and age?

Opus Dei are infamous for supporting Spanish fascists and centralist dictator Franco and were complicit in the 300k deaths that followed Francos rebellion.

I think my pro-independence vote would go to the Greens if they stood.


Do you have any information on this?  I ask because there was a very long thread on the TAMB about Opus Dei and this never got a mention. I didn't participate in it because I didn't know anything about them other than that which was depicted in the Da Vinci Code but I did read most of the thread.

The consensus was that the description in the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and elsewhere by other conspiracy theorists was by and large fanciful nonsense and probably anti-Catholic in motivation.  On the contrary they appear to be simply a deeply religious group and mostly do charitable work.

I think we should be very carerful about rejecting candidates on a religious belief basis, even if there is an element of truth to a link to a distateful episode in the past.  I don't think there are many religions/sects/groups which don't have skeletons in the closet.

For example, many elected politicians in Scotland, mostly Labour ones, have allegedly been members of Orange Lodges.  The spectre of Pogroms of Irish and more recentlly Easter European Catholics in N.I. is not held up against those candidacies therefore it would be hypcritical to hold up a skeleton much further removed from Scotland than our geographical and cultural neighbours.

Would anyone object to a Jewish candidate because of the current atrocities committed by Israel or an Islamic one because of the current atrocities committed by Al Qaeda?
Stevie

I do hope he doesn't indulge in gratuitous self flagellation.
Lord Pitsligo

Bravehand wrote:
I do hope he doesn't indulge in gratuitous self flagellation.


He's an SNP candidate after all, the BBC will do enough flagellating in his general direction.
Dave Coull

Re: Opus Dei

calum wrote:
Opus Dei are infamous for supporting Spanish fascists and centralist dictator Franco
That's a statement of fact. Opus Dei ARE infamous for this. Apologists for this reactionary organisation may argue that their infamy is not justified, but that such infamy exists is fact.
calum wrote:
and were complicit in the 300k deaths that followed Francos rebellion.
Two points: first, while successive Spanish governments have, on grounds of "reconciliation", made full investigation of the Franco death toll difficult, if we include the countless thousands murdered AFTER the Spanish Civil War had officially ended, then three hundred thousand looks like a gross underestimate. Secondly, while the extent to which individual members of Opus Dei were involved in such near-genocidal activities may be open to debate, what is NOT open to debate is which side they were on. Opus Dei as an organisation sided with the fascists from the start of the Spanish Civil War, and it is a matter of public record that members of Opus Dei subsequently went on to become  prominent in Franco's government.
calum wrote:
I think my pro-independence vote would go to the Greens if they stood.
No way could I ever support a member of Opus Dei.
calum

I can't state sources at the moment, though Anthony Beevor's account of the Spanish Civil war probably was one, but Opus Dei supplied vocal, financial and possibly arms/volunteers to Franco during and after his campaign. They saw Franco as fighting 'godless communism'.

Someone's personal religion should not be an issue, but membership of extreme groups such as OD, the Orange Order should be.

The SNP are shooting themselves in the foot.
Dave Coull

Re: Opus Dei

chicmac wrote:
there was a very long thread on the TAMB about Opus Dei and this never got a mention.
Then there is a serious gap in the knowledge of participants in the Tartan Army Members Board.
chicmac wrote:
I didn't participate in it because I didn't know anything about them other than that which was depicted in the Da Vinci Code
I have never read or seen the Da Vinci Code, and I know absolutely nothing about its portrayal of Opus Dei, but I do know quite a bit about history, including quite a bit about the history of Spain during the 20th Century. Enough to know that Opus Dei are seriously bad news.
chicmac wrote:
they appear to be simply a deeply religious group and mostly do charitable work.
Would you believe me if I were to tell you that, through a fortunate family inheritance, I have recently come into personal possession of the Golden Gate Bridge at San Francisco, and could sell this to you for a bargain price?
Stevie

Does anyone here actually know if he's Opus Dei or are we all talking away about much ado?
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
Does anyone here actually know if he's Opus Dei
The Herald said he had been a member of Opus Dei for 7 years. So far as I'm aware, he hasn't denied that. This implies he ceased to be a member of Opus Dei after 7 years, but it's a bit like being an EX-member of the masons.  If there is such a thing, they are few and far between, and, anyway, given Opus Dei's track record of secrecy, what makes somebody an "EX"-member? The only "EX" member I might believe is one who publicly denounces that anti-democratic organisation and all its works.
Dave Coull

Re: Opus Dei

chicmac wrote:
I think we should be very carerful about rejecting candidates on a religious belief basis, even if there is an element of truth to a link to a distateful episode in the past.
The SNP have NOT rejected this candidate. Maybe the electorate of north east Glasgow won't reject him either. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to keep silent. It's only in the context of the weird, topsy-turvy politics of Northern Ireland and those parts of Scotland with close Irish connections that criticism of Opus Dei can be seen as in some peculiar way opposing a republic and supporting a unionist monarchy. In Spain, where Opus Dei comes from, members of Opus dei and of Monarchist organisations fought alongside each other, and alongside the fascist Falange, AGAINST the republic. They also fought for a highly centralised Spanish state  -  both the Basques and the Catalan nationalists, as well as the anarchists, were on the other side.
chicmac wrote:
Would anyone object to a Jewish candidate because of the current atrocities committed by Israel or an Islamic one because of the current atrocities committed by Al Qaeda?
I'd have no objection to a Jewish candidate, and no objection to a muslim candidate, but I personally would NOT vote for a member of an organisation which actively supported atrocities committed by the Israeli state against Palestinians, and I would NOT vote for a member of an organisation in sympathy with atrocities committed by Al Qaeda.
chicmac

Well this seems to be an area of sensitivity, as does anything Catholic v Protestant in Scotland, sadly.  However my main interest is in how it refelects on the SNP  and its leadership.  Frankly, if I were Alex Salmond I would be rather more afraid that a juicy news item, namely that  I had opposed a candidate on religious grounds, got to the press (as it inevitably would) than the alternative of accepting someone who happened to have  religious leanings as a candidate.


I think he would be potentially far more hurt if it were the case that he did reject on religious grounds and the press got a hold of it.  So because of that I'd say Alex Salmond's astuteness and ability to make the right choice is if anything reinforced by this.
Stevie

The git should stand down if it's causing a problem.
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
The git should stand down if it's causing a problem.
If that happened, then the media would be referring to whoever replaced him as the SNP's  FIFTH  choice, and there would be remarks about scraping the barrel, etc. So the SNP is probably stuck with him. But that doesn't mean those of us who are non-party-political supporters of independence for Scotland have to keep quiet about the unsavoury nature of the Opus Dei connection.
William_Cleland

Re: Opus Dei

chicmac wrote:
For example, many elected politicians in Scotland, mostly Labour ones, have allegedly been members of Orange Lodges.  The spectre of Pogroms of Irish and more recentlly Easter European Catholics in N.I. is not held up against those candidacies therefore it would be hypcritical to hold up a skeleton much further removed from Scotland than our geographical and cultural neighbours.


The Orange Order had absolutely nothing to do with the recent intimidation of Romanian families. Automatically linking any negative action carried out by the ned element (spides in Ulster lingo) amongst Ulster Protestants to the LOL is symptomatic of a very deep prejudice, in my opinion. As for so called "Pogroms of Irish [...] Catholics" it is worth bearing in mind that in many instances such as New Barnsley in 1970 and the Torrens estate in recent years it has actually been the Protestant families who have been chased out by the ned element amongst the RC community.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/commen...been-cleansed-of-Protestants.html

The Today reporter interviewed a Protestant mother of two, Elizabeth Ferguson, who was abandoning her home after 38 years. Three weeks ago, she said, "IRA" had been written on her window and her mother's fence. She said that she was often called "Orange b***h" by nationalist residents of the surrounding streets, and was now frightened to go to bed at night in case she and her family were petrol-bombed.

Ms Ferguson's 91-year-old grandmother, Betsy McClenaghan - who was also moving - told one reporter: "I have come through the blitzes and the 1932 riots but I've never known an upheaval like it." The intimate intensity of the cruelty in such places can be viscerally shocking. Earlier this year, in a Belfast newspaper, a 15-year-old Torrens resident called Sarah Kell - whose father, Trevor, a taxi-driver, was murdered by a republican gunman - described how certain local Catholic schoolchildren regularly shouted "Where's your da?" at her. Graffiti on their street echoed the taunts: "Sarah Kell, where's your da, ha ha ha."

Find it hard to believe that nobody on here has brought up the obvious point yet as to why Labour are completely hypocritical to highlight David Kerr's Opus Dei involvement. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had an Opus Dei member with a family history of IRA involvement in Co. Fermanagh, Ruth Kelly, as a cabinet minister.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4190115.stm
Holebender

Yes, I was wondering about Ruth Kelly myself. But that's Scottish Labour for you.
chicmac

Re: Opus Dei

William_Cleland wrote:

The Orange Order had absolutely nothing to do with the recent intimidation of Romanian families. Automatically linking any negative action carried out by the ned element (spides in Ulster lingo) amongst Ulster Protestants to the LOL is symptomatic of a very deep prejudice, in my opinion.


That is the point intended.  Blaming a member of an organisation in Scotland for actions taken in a another territory and using that as a barrier to selection is not on.  Even less so for actions in a far removed territory.
chicmac

Bravehand wrote:
The git should stand down if it's causing a problem.

I'm not even sure he can be allowed to stand down simply for being a member of a religious group.  It would set a truly frightening precedent in modern (post Natzi) times and may even involve EU HR.
Dave Coull

Re: Opus Dei

William_Cleland wrote:
The Orange Order had absolutely nothing to do with the recent intimidation of Romanian families. Automatically linking any negative action carried out by the ned element
The Orange Order has real sins enough to answer for without blaming it for things it had nothing to do with
William_Cleland wrote:
Find it hard to believe that nobody on here has brought up the obvious point yet as to why Labour are completely hypocritical to highlight David Kerr's Opus Dei involvement. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had an Opus Dei member with a family history of IRA involvement in Co. Fermanagh, Ruth Kelly, as a cabinet minister.
I didn't know about Ruth Kelly's membership of Opus Dei. So far as the "family history of IRA involvement" is concerned, none of us should be held responsible for what our relatives may do. But being an actual member of a notoriously anti-democratic organisation, that's different.
Dave Coull

chicmac wrote:
Blaming a member of an organisation in Scotland for actions taken in a another territory
If the Orange Order really HAD been involved in intimidation of Romanian families in Northern Ireland, then it would be reasonable to ask any candidate in Scotland with Orange connections to denounce this.

Opus Dei comes from SPAIN. That is where it was founded, that is where it developed during the Spanish Civil War and the Franco dictatorship, that is where it actively participated in the fascist dictatorship. It is reasonable to ask any member of the Orange Order in Scotland to denounce any anti-democratic actions taken by the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, and it is reasonable to ask any member of Opus Dei in Scotland to denounce anti-democratic actions taken by Opus Dei in Spain.
chicmac wrote:
I'm not even sure he can be allowed to stand down
If he did stand down, the media would say his replacemment was the SNP's "fifth" choice, and that they were "scraping the barrel".

However, there is no need for him to actually stand down. He could take two actions which would make him more acceptable.

(1) He could make a public statement that he is no longer a member of Opus Dei, and that he regrets his membership of that anti-democratic organisation.

(2) He could publicly denounce Opus Dei's involvement with the dictatorship of General Franco, and the participation of Opus Dei members in that dictatorship's government.
Dave Coull

I suggested that the SNP candidate in Glasgow north east could take two actions which could make him more acceptable:
Quote:
(1) He could make a public statement that he is no longer a member of Opus Dei, and that he regrets his membership of that anti-democratic organisation.

(2) He could publicly denounce Opus Dei's involvement with the dictatorship of General Franco, and the participation of Opus Dei members in that dictatorship's government.
It now appears that, far from being an "ex" member of Opus Dei, he is in fact a continuing member. There's an article in the Herald "SNP candidate defends his Opus Dei membership". In this David Kerr is quoted as saying "it does not matter what religion or religious organisation a candidate is in".

Okay, so far as a candidate's personal religion is concerned, that should not matter. But as for it not mattering what religious ORGANISATION they are in  -   OH, YES IT DOES.

The Ku Klux Klan is a religious organisation. It matters if somebody is in the KKK. Al Qaeda is a deeply religious organisation, and so is the Taliban. It matters if somebody is in Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Of course, these organisations are POLITICAL as well as religious. So is Opus Dei.

Of course Labour and the Tories will resort to dirty tricks. But David Kerr can not be allowed to get away with pretending that it's only his Tory and Labour opponents who think his membership of this secretive and anti-democratic organisation matters. It matters to folk who disagree with the unionist parties and who support independence for Scotland.
Stevie

Shooting someone else in the foot is more useful than shooting oneself in the foot.
October1974

Thank god I am an atheist.

Kerr said:

'Modern Scotland and Scottish political parties encompass people of all faiths and none. My faith is a personal matter, and religion has no part to play in this or any other campaign.'

That is where it belongs. Religion should be kept out of politics. It seems some are thiving on it and whipping this up.

For my mind  the sectarian attacks are coming out from a desperately worried Liebour Party / Scotsman/Herald propaganda machine. If it had not been highlighted then this would not be an issue. I don't give a toss.  In most of Scotland this religion thing means nothing. It was time it was irradicated for all time. The press and Labour should be ashamed at whipping up religious hatred.
Dave Coull

October1974 wrote:
For my mind  the sectarian attacks are coming out from a desperately worried Liebour Party / Scotsman/Herald propaganda machine.
If the Labour Party chooses to highlight an SNP candidate's membership of Opus Dei, that is hypocrisy. But the fact of the Labour Party behaving like a bunch of hypocrites doesn't mean his membership of Opus Dei can be ignored.
October1974 wrote:
If it had not been highlighted then this would not be an issue.
Regardless of the motives of anybody in "highlighting" this, his membership of Opus Dei was, apparently, already in the public domain, so it was bound to be "highlighted" sooner or later. This being "highlighted" is a good thing. Anti-democratic secret societies like to keep their activities secret. It is a good thing when they fail to do so. It is a good thing when a bright light is shone on their activities. Yes, the Labour Party is desperately worried. Yes, if the Labour Party chooses to highlight an SNP candidate's membership of Opus Dei, that is hypocrisy, given, as somebody already pointed out, that there have been members of the Labour government who are also members of Opus Dei. But the fact of Labour Party hypocrisy doesn't mean his membership of Opus Dei isn't a problem.
October1974 wrote:
I don't give a toss.
Okay, so you personally don't care that this SNP candidate is a member of a secret society whose founder thought Adolf acted from good motives and was misunderstood. But you not caring about this won't make it disappear.  
October1974 wrote:
Thank god I am an atheist.
So were tens of thousands of the victims of the Spanish Civil War and the mass murder which followed Franco's victory. They were atheists too. But their unbelief didn't save them from the brutality of the regime in which members of Opus Dei participated. In fact, it made them more likely to be victims.
chicmac

Dave Coull wrote:
chicmac wrote:
Blaming a member of an organisation in Scotland for actions taken in a another territory
If the Orange Order really HAD been involved in intimidation of Romanian families in Northern Ireland, then it would be reasonable to ask any candidate in Scotland with Orange connections to denounce this.

Opus Dei comes from SPAIN. That is where it was founded, that is where it developed during the Spanish Civil War and the Franco dictatorship, that is where it actively participated in the fascist dictatorship. It is reasonable to ask any member of the Orange Order in Scotland to denounce any anti-democratic actions taken by the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, and it is reasonable to ask any member of Opus Dei in Scotland to denounce anti-democratic actions taken by Opus Dei in Spain.
chicmac wrote:
I'm not even sure he can be allowed to stand down
If he did stand down, the media would say his replacemment was the SNP's "fifth" choice, and that they were "scraping the barrel".

However, there is no need for him to actually stand down. He could take two actions which would make him more acceptable.

(1) He could make a public statement that he is no longer a member of Opus Dei, and that he regrets his membership of that anti-democratic organisation.

(2) He could publicly denounce Opus Dei's involvement with the dictatorship of General Franco, and the participation of Opus Dei members in that dictatorship's government.


Dave, surely the onus is on you or his unionist accusers, to establish that David Kerr in any way associates himself with alleged 'wrong doings' in far away Spain some decades ago since the odds that he does must be astronomically remote.  There has to be some indication that the proposed respondant agrees with something before he is required to confirm or deny it otherwise they could be required to answer an endless string of equally unlikely suggestions.

It is basic justice that there has to be some evidence before the accused is required to answer.

Frankly, demands or suggestions that he denounce this or that all begins to sound a bit like Torquemada or the Witchfinder General.

Unless it can be established that there is any evidence of terrorist activity or other malevolance regarding the modern Opus Dei organisation then its current members should be required to explain precisely nothing.

I spent over a quarter of a century in Inverclyde which must be a contender for the epicentre of religious bigotry in Scotland.  During the troubles, there were regular fundraising nights on both sides involving various groups where money was raised to go to para-military groups in N.I.  There was even a cache of Kalashnikovs intended for para-militaries in N.I.  found in Greenock.

It was normal in job interviews for locals there to be asked what school you went to early in the interview to establish whether you were RC or Proddy.

All of that mindless crap went on.

However, the SNP there was an oasis of non-bigotry.

I swear, to this day after over 20 years working with the SNP group there, I still have no clue as to which side the vast majority of the local SNP members belonged, it simply was not an issue in the SNP, genuinely no-one was interested in your religion.

Of course, by accident, we did know one or two.  For instance our friend Kenny Ferguson who'se recent passing away caused the council by-election was an elder in our kirk, another couple of SNP members were members of our congregation.  There was also a defector from the local Labour party who from his tendency to sing Irish rebel songs and shout Tiocaidh ar la when drunk, was probably Catholic.

But as to the other 50 or so, haven't a clue.

Again, in Inverclyde, I emphasise this was far from the norm.

The point I'm trying to make is that in the SNP, despite accusations of being the Proddy Party or the Papist Party by unionists depending who they are talking to, there really is no interest at all in whatever religious view someone has by the vast majority of SNP members.

I think that is the right stance.
Dave Coull

chicmac wrote:
Dave, surely the onus is on you or his unionist accusers
Come on, Chic, you know me well enough to know that, as always, the only person I speak for is Dave Coull, and the only person who speaks for me is Dave Coull. I'm not even sure exactly what "his unionist accusers" have said. But that's beside the point. Since it's me you're arguing with (in a friendly sort of way, I hope) the point is what   I   say.
chicmac wrote:
to establish that David Kerr in any way associates himself with alleged 'wrong doings' in far away Spain some decades ago
It has already been established that he is a member of Opus Dei, an organisation whose links with Spain are as close as those of the Orange Order with Ulster. It has already been established that he is a member of the same organisation which actively participated in the government of the dictator Franco.
chicmac wrote:
There has to be some indication that the proposed respondant agrees with something before he is required to confirm or deny it
So far as I'm concerned, the fact that he is a member of that secretive and anti-democratic organisation is enough. And I have already indicated the two things he could do to allay suspicion.
chicmac wrote:
It is basic justice that there has to be some evidence before the accused is required to answer.
In a court of law, yes. This isn't a question of law. Unlike many of the victims of Opus Dei, he isn't in any danger of being sent to jail. This is about somebody who is seeking to convince the public he can be trusted as their representative. The onus of proof of that is on him.
chicmac wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that in the SNP, despite accusations of being the Proddy Party or the Papist Party by unionists depending who they are talking to, there really is no interest at all in whatever religious view someone has by the vast majority of SNP members.
Your point is totally, completely, utterly beside the point. This has nothing to do with the primitive billy vs tim politics of Northern Ireland and the more backward parts of Scotland. The vast majority of the victims of the regimes which Opus Dei backed and participated in were not protestant, but atheists or agnostics from a catholic background. That anti-democratic secret society developed around seventy years ago as a supporter of centralised authoritarianism and one of the main organisations opposing the "left" and republicans in Spain, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it has changed its ways in recent decades.

Okay, the SNP calculates that he is the right candidate for that constituency. They may even be right. But whether he loses or wins, I will go on saying that no member of that secretive anti-democratic organisation deserves to be trusted.
chicmac

Dave Coull wrote:
chicmac wrote:
Dave, surely the onus is on you or his unionist accusers
Come on, Chic, you know me well enough to know that, as always, the only person I speak for is Dave Coull, and the only person who speaks for me is Dave Coull. I'm not even sure exactly what "his unionist accusers" have said. But that's beside the point. Since it's me you're arguing with (in a friendly sort of way, I hope) the point is what   I   say.
chicmac wrote:
to establish that David Kerr in any way associates himself with alleged 'wrong doings' in far away Spain some decades ago
It has already been established that he is a member of Opus Dei, an organisation whose links with Spain are as close as those of the Orange Order with Ulster. It has already been established that he is a member of the same organisation which actively participated in the government of the dictator Franco.
chicmac wrote:
There has to be some indication that the proposed respondant agrees with something before he is required to confirm or deny it
So far as I'm concerned, the fact that he is a member of that secretive and anti-democratic organisation is enough. And I have already indicated the two things he could do to allay suspicion.
chicmac wrote:
It is basic justice that there has to be some evidence before the accused is required to answer.
In a court of law, yes. This isn't a question of law. Unlike many of the victims of Opus Dei, he isn't in any danger of being sent to jail. This is about somebody who is seeking to convince the public he can be trusted as their representative. The onus of proof of that is on him.
chicmac wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that in the SNP, despite accusations of being the Proddy Party or the Papist Party by unionists depending who they are talking to, there really is no interest at all in whatever religious view someone has by the vast majority of SNP members.
Your point is totally, completely, utterly beside the point. This has nothing to do with the primitive billy vs tim politics of Northern Ireland and the more backward parts of Scotland. The vast majority of the victims of the regimes which Opus Dei backed and participated in were not protestant, but atheists or agnostics from a catholic background. That anti-democratic secret society developed around seventy years ago as a supporter of centralised authoritarianism and one of the main organisations opposing the "left" and republicans in Spain, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it has changed its ways in recent decades.

Okay, the SNP calculates that he is the right candidate for that constituency. They may even be right. But whether he loses or wins, I will go on saying that no member of that secretive anti-democratic organisation deserves to be trusted.


Dave I hope I wasn't implying that you were speaking for the unionists only that they were making similar anti-candidate arguments using Opus Dei and should provide evidence of wrong doing by Opus Dei as it currently is.

I think my last point was relevant because even where religious bigotry is at a maximum in Inverclyde, in the SNP there religious background is completely irrelevant.  

And Opus Dei is a religious organisation.  I spent a half hour or so looking up Opus Dei and Franco on the web last night and here were the salient points found.

Opus Dei is an official grouping of the Catholic Church recognised by the Vatican.
It is fundamentalist in nature, anti-abortion etc.
Therefore it is more similar to say, the Wee Frees, rather than to allegedly non-religious organisations like the Freemasons.  Actually, I'd say even less fundamentalist than the Wee Frees.

Regarding history, I found confirmation that some members of Franco's government were members of Opus Dei.

However, a background fact of note is that the Catholic clergy of Spain, en masse (no pun intended) backed the Nationalists.  Thousands of priests were killed by the Republicans.  So it was not simply a matter of only Opus Dei support for the Nationalists or of atrocities only on one side.

It is also reported that there were Opus Dei members who opposed Franco and had to flee into exile.

It is also reported that there were Opus Dei members who were involved in attempts to remove Franco and were instrumental in engineering a break with Francoism.

So Opus Dei's relationship with Franco would appear to be at best ambiguous.
October1974

Chicman - thanks for looking that up. I came to the same results when I did a search as I heard never heard of this organisation until recently. I also did not see what David Kerr did in the Spanish Civil War either as he was born nearly 30 years after that war. I suggest those who seem to disagree with this organisation write or speak to David Kerr direct with their queries and concerns and write back with any answers.

Speaking to a  Catholic friend yesterday she was talking of the 'smear campaign by Labour in Glasgow against Catholics'. One thinks that their campaign may have backfired a bit.

Religious belief should have not be a party political issue. These who stir up a hornets nest may end up getting stung.
Dave Coull

chicmac wrote:
Opus Dei is a religious organisation
So is Al Qaeda. You have to be willing to die as a martyr with "God is great" on your lips to join Al Qaeda. So is the Ku Klux Klan. You have to be a white protestant Christian to join the KKK. So is the Freemasons. You have to be a believer in "The Great Architect of The Universe" to join the masons.
chicmac wrote:
it is more similar to say, the Wee Frees, rather than to allegedly non-religious organisations like the Freemasons.
The Freemasons are non-Christian, but not non-religious. The Wee Frees are fundamentalist, but very open about their activities. Opus Dei is a secret society. Like the Freemasons, members of Opus Dei are threatened with punishment for speaking too openly about the society.
chicmac wrote:
provide evidence of wrong doing by Opus Dei as it currently is.
Adolf Hitler hasn't killed anybody since 1945. If there was a secret society of followers of AH, would I be required to provide concrete evidence of CURRENT wrongdoing by them before I would be allowed to be suspicious of a member of that secret society? Opus Dei first appeared in Spain, as a political/religious group deeply hostile to the republic, at a time when General Franco was an officer in the army of the Spanish Republic. But unlike his father, retired navy man Admiral Franco, who remained consistently loyal to the Republic, and strongly opposed the treachery of the one he referred to as "my idiot son", General Franco was planning to attempt a coup d'etat. Opus dei was involved in that attempted coup, and in the civil war which developed from it, and in the regime which General Franco set up when, with the assistance of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, he won.
chicmac wrote:
It is also reported that there were Opus Dei members who were involved in attempts to remove Franco and were instrumental in engineering a break with Francoism.
Franco was the Leader of the fascist governments of Spain for nearly  FORTY  YEARS. Okay, 39 and a bit, and for the first three years they didn't rule all of Spain, but that's still an awful long time to be the Leader of the Government. Now, of course, in the final decade of his rule, some of the members of his government started to feel maybe it would be a good idea to present a more acceptable face to the world. With Hitler and Mussolini long gone, some of them started to feel a bit embarrassed about their connection to the old dictator. But all they really wanted was a change of face. They remained firmly part of the Francoist regime until the dictator died of old age, and they continued to oppose real change after that. Yes, Spain did eventually become more democratic. No thanks to Opus Dei.

Opus Dei was founded by a priest who thought Adolf was much misunderstood. For most of the time since its foundation, Opus Dei has been associated with extreme right wing or fascistic politics and there is no evidence that has changed. The SNP candidate for Glasgow North East is a member of this anti-democratic secret society. Maybe the electorate which elected Michael Martin will have no problem in electing him despite that. But regardless of whether he wins or loses, I will continue to go on saying that there is a very big question mark over whether any member of Opus Dei should be trusted.
Dave Coull

October1974 wrote:
did not see what David Kerr did in the Spanish Civil War
The German Nazi regime ceased to exist in 1945. There are young admirers of that regime, some members of the BNP for example, who weren't born until long after that year. Should I therefore conclude that, being personally blameless, these latter-day nazis are perfectly okay?
October1974 wrote:
I suggest those who seem to disagree with this organisation write or speak to David Kerr direct
Speaking personally, I reject your suggestion. Doing things privately would suit Opus Dei, but my preference is for debate to be conducted publicly.
October1974 wrote:
Speaking to a  Catholic friend yesterday she was talking of the 'smear campaign by Labour in Glasgow against Catholics'. One thinks that their campaign may have backfired a bit.
You are looking at this entirely from a party political point of view. All you are concerned with is which political party wins this particular by-election. I really don't much care who wins this by-election. We will get our referendum on independence, and we will win that referendum for independence, regardless of how this particular by-election turns out. Regarding the candidates in this by-election, for all I know, David Kerr might even be the best of a bad lot. Maybe the electorate which elected Michael Martin will have no problem in electing him despite his membership of an anti-democratic secret society. But regardless of whether he wins or loses, I personally, as a principled non-party-political supporter of independence for Scotland, will continue to go on saying, every time his name comes up in the future, that there is a very big question mark over whether any member of Opus Dei should be trusted.
William_Cleland

October1974 wrote:
Speaking to a  Catholic friend yesterday she was talking of the 'smear campaign by Labour in Glasgow against Catholics'. One thinks that their campaign may have backfired a bit.


Glasgow has a nominally Protestant majority and the backlash against Labour in by elections in the west of Scotland is usually mainly from that side of the social divide. Labour knew exactly what they were doing. The last time the SNP tried to court the RC vote in Glasgow through a mildly controversial candidate selection was the Cathcart Scottish parliament by election and the results were less than stellar despite Mike Watson's fire-raising antics. Going a lot further back Garscadden in the late 70s would be another example. It's time the political elite stopped these antics based on ancestral tribalism and Scottish society finally grew up and fully secularised by integrating the schools. I'd probably vote for the Greens if I were eligible to vote in this by election because they are the only party who have the intestinal fortitude to call for that. A plague on all their houses.
calum

Agree with above. I'd rather the Greens got the pro-independence vote in this one. The SNP should be savvy enough to steer clear of candidates who hold memberships of organisations like Opus Dei who are at the very least 'controversial'.
chicmac

calum wrote:
Agree with above. I'd rather the Greens got the pro-independence vote in this one. The SNP should be savvy enough to steer clear of candidates who hold memberships of organisations like Opus Dei who are at the very least 'controversial'.

I think there is not a snowball in Hell's chance of Alex Salmond or of any of the other parties leaders banning Opus Dei members from candidacy or for that matter banning Jesuits, Wee Frees, Franciscans, Mormons, Shiites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sunnis, Kaballists, Wiccans or any other religious organisation.

Also the Wiki article gives the supporting slant as  well as the stuff we have seen already in this thread.

*****************
According to several journalists who have worked independently on Opus Dei, such as John Allen, Jr., Vittorio Messori, Patrice de Plunkett, Maggy Whitehouse, Noam Friedlander many of the criticisms against Opus Dei are myths and unproven tales. Allen and Messori say that most of these myths were created by its opponents, with Allen adding that he perceives that Opus Dei members generally practice what they preach.


Allen, Messori, and Plunkett also state that accusations that Opus Dei is secretive are unfounded. These accusations stem from a clerical paradigm which expects Opus Dei members to behave as monks and clerics, people who are traditionally known and externally identifiable as seekers of holiness. In contrast, these journalists continue, Opus Dei's lay members, like any normal Catholic professional, are ultimately responsible for their personal actions, and do not externally represent the organization which provides them religious education. Writer and broadcast analyst John L. Allen, Jr. states that Opus Dei provides abundant information about itself. These journalists have stated that the historic roots of criticisms against Opus Dei can be found in influential clerical circles.

As to its alleged participation in the Francoist regime, British historians Paul Preston and Brian Crozier state that the Opus Dei members who were Franco's ministers were appointed for their talent and not for their Opus Dei membership. Also, there were notable members of Opus Dei who were vocal critics of the Franco Regime such as Rafael Calvo Serer and Antonio Fontan, who was the first Senate President of Spain's democracy. The German historian and Opus Dei member Peter Berglar calls any connection made between Opus Dei and Franco's regime a "gross slander." At the end of Franco's regime, Opus Dei members were 50:50 for and against Franco, according to John Allen. Similarly Álvaro del Portillo, the former Prelate of Opus Dei, said that any statements that Escrivá supported Hitler were "a patent falsehood," that were part of "a slanderous campaign". He and others have stated that Escriva condemned Hitler as a "rogue", a "racist" and a "tyrant".  Various authors state that Escriva was staunchly non-political. Allen wrote that, compared with other Catholic organizations, Opus Dei's stress on freedom and personal responsibility is extraordinarily strong.

While Opus Dei spokepersons have admitted mistakes in dealing with some members and do not, as a rule, contest their grievances, supporters have rejected generalizations merely based on negative experiences of some members. Sociologists like Bryan R. Wilson write about some former members of any religious group who may have psychological motivations such as self-justification to criticize their former groups. Wilson states that such individuals are prone to create fictitious "atrocity stories" which have no basis in reality. Many supporters of Opus Dei have expressed the belief that the criticisms of Opus Dei stem from a generalized disapproval of spirituality, Christianity, or Catholicism. Expressing this sentiment, one Opus Dei member, Cardinal Julian Herranz, stated "Opus Dei has become a victim of Christianophobia." Massimo Introvigne, author of an encyclopedia of religion, argues that critics employ the term "cult" in order to intentionally stigmatize Opus Dei because "they could not tolerate 'the return to religion' of the secularized society".

Regarding alleged misogyny, John Allen states that half of the leadership positions in Opus Dei are held by women, and they supervise men.
****************
Dave Coull

chicmac wrote:
The German historian AND  OPUS  DEI  MEMBER Peter Berglar calls any connection made between Opus Dei and Franco's regime a "gross slander"
"SLANDER"? Wow! But I don't suppose there is the slightest chance of getting him to sue me or any other critic of Opus Dei. Despite making that rash statement, Herr Berglar is probably well aware of just how easy it would be to prove Opus Dei membership of Franco's government in court.
chicmac wrote:
alleged participation in the Francoist regime
There's no "alleged" about it. It's established and  admitted fact. The only dispute is about the extent of the participation.
chicmac wrote:
historians Paul Preston and Brian Crozier state that the Opus Dei members who were Franco's ministers
See what I mean? Even folk who take a favourable view of Opus Dei admit Opus Dei participation in the Franco regime. Nothing "alleged" about it. Established and admitted fact.
chicmac wrote:
were appointed for their talent and not for their Opus Dei membership.
An utterly pointless statement to make. OF COURSE Franco took the view that he was appointing ministers to his government on the basis of their talent. But he didn't appoint any liberals. Or any democrats. Or any socialists. Or anybody sympathetic towards decentralisation, or any supporters of autonomy for his home province of Galicia, or Catalonia, or the Basque country. Or anybody who had been elected. In fact, he didn't appoint any anti-fascists of any kind, regardless of how "talented" they might be, because, of course, by definition, anybody appointed to his government had to be somebody who was willing to work with fascists. Like Opus Dei, for instance. Opus Dei had been collaborating with fascists since the early 1930s.
chicmac wrote:
At the end of Franco's regime, Opus Dei members were 50:50 for and against Franco
Oh, wow! Unlike in the early years of the Franco regime, when virtually 100 percent of Opus Dei supported Franco, after nearly forty years of Franco dictatorship, half of Opus Dei wanted to keep him in power for another forty years, whereas the other half of Opus Dei thought maybe it was time to retire the doddering old fool and have the Francoist regime present a younger, more acceptable face to the world.
skip

It has been an interesting debate reading the different viewpoints. I wonder how big a difference this membership will make when it comes to the vote? How big a deal will the press make of it and how many of the public will take notice of the fuss or talk about it on the doorsteps?

In my view the people won't bother too much but the west of scotland media will pursue the issue and the line of questioning towards the candidate and the leadership will unfortunately lean towards religion/secrecy etc. Other people might think different.  

Plenty of freemasons and knights, and some opus dei followers (and goodness knows who else) have been elected before or held important positions.   But normally it was only after the election or they arrived in their role that we learned their backgrounds. Perhaps David Kerr expected the same and has miscalculated people's concerns about opus dei.

I dont know what to think about opus dei. I have have read of links to fascism and some of the franco stuff.  But i have also read of charitable deeds, faith, prayer and concern for human life and spirituality. So what do you all think the SNP candidate subscribes to? Some fundamentalist christian do-gooder beliefs within the catholic faith or the franco regime stuff? I'd like to think it would be the christian beliefs and that there should be no secrecy about it!  

At the end of the Dei (ho ho!) my concerns with these sorts of groups is that people in these networks favour their 'own kind' over others. Whoever is fighting the campaign has to remove any fears of nepotism. In my opinion a freemason or equivalent secret group should give up their membership to signify they are going to serve everyone and not just their friends. The secrecy and the relationship to these groups that makes me a bit concerned.  That said, I think the press and political anoraks like us will disect these topics more than the average voter.
calum

Growing up in Midlothian, my local cooncillor was Sam Campbell, very much old Labour but also a staunch Orange Order bigot - he was originaly from the west somewhere. His credentials as an ex-miner though got him elected in an area with many miners, until he addressed a huge Orange rally at Leith Links where he frothed at the mouth about 'closet fenians like Eamon Andrews and Terry Wogan taking over the BBC'. (!!!). He urged 'good Protestants to get on their white horses and fight them'. There was a wee stooshie and he had to stand down for a while. He is, or was until recenlty, convener of Midlothian Council.

The guy was a fckn tube and there's no place for idiots like this in modern Scottish politics. David Kerr might have a higher IQ than this bampot but religious extremism leaves a bad taste. People should be free to follow whatever church they wish, but taking out a membership of an extremist or secretive sect such as OD or the OO should bar them.
Aventinian

calum wrote:
he frothed at the mouth about 'closet fenians like Eamon Andrews and Terry Wogan taking over the BBC'. (!!!). He urged 'good Protestants to get on their white horses and fight them'.


The image that conjours up for a wee fellow from the Lothians dressed as King Billy and charging Terry Wogan outside the Beeb on a white steed is quite entertaining.
Dave Coull

WHAT  IS  OPUS  DEI?

http://www.odan.org/what_is_opus_dei.htm
Dave Coull

(I've just sent a link to "What is Opus Dei?". That is a link to the website of the Opus Dei Awareness network, ODAN, which is highly critical of the secret society. The Opus Dei Awareness Network was started by a woman who had a bad personal experience with Opus Dei. Many of the folk involved in the network are former members of Opus Dei or their close relatives and friends. Most of them are practicing members of the Catholic church who consider themselves true catholics and reject what they see as being the secret-society distortions of Opus Dei.)

About ODAN

The Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) was founded in 1991 to meet the growing demand for accurate information about Opus Dei and to provide education, outreach and support to people who have been adversely affected by Opus Dei. ODAN challenges many of Opus Dei's Questionable Practices because of the way they affect an individual's personal freedom, choices and family life.

Since 1991, ODAN has been in contact with countless individuals, families, the secular and religious press, clergy, religious, cult awareness organizations, campus ministers, home-schooling parents and more.

ODAN is a worldwide community of people who have had painful experiences as a result of their association with Opus Dei.

Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 4333
Pittsfield, MA 01202-4333

Telephone: 413-499-7168
Fax: 413-499-7860
Email: odan@odan.org

Executive Director: Dianne DiNicola
Dave Coull

(from the Opus Dei Awareness  Network website)

Véronique Duborgel, a 44-year old kindergarten teacher and former Opus Dei supernumerary, has written a book about her 13 years in Opus Dei, "Inside the Hell of Opus Dei."  As recounted by Susan Bell of the Telegraph (Britain), in her book Duborgel "describes techniques of psychological isolation similar to those sometimes used by sects, and claims that Opus Dei intrudes into the most intimate areas of members' private lives, encourages them to inform on each other and drains their financial resources...she was instructed not to tell family or friends that she was a member of Opus Dei."

To read the full article by Bell:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...=/news/2007/11/04/nopusdei104.xml
Dave Coull

Opus Dei, the DaVinci Code, and ODAN

http://www.odan.org/davinci.htm
Rinty

I think his membership is an issue, it is irelevant whether some papers are 'pro-labour' or not, it is news.

I dont agree that any of this is an anti-catholic thing, its just of real interest to know whether a candidate shares the political views of Opus Dei.

I dont agree that there is a general labour=catholic thing or that orangemen oppose labour.  perhaps back in time or even in pockets but my experience of working class areas in central and west scotland that are perceived as being "orange" is that most wiorking clas orangemen support labour and are even active in it.

My local Labour councillor is a prominent member of the local lodge as have many been before him.  Drongan is considered by many to be an orange stronghold and yet elected a labour councillor for decades that was also a catholic, with Orange members campaigning for him.

I agree with Williams points on the coverage of the attacks on romanian families.  It was shocking that tags like 'unionist' and 'protestant' were used to desribe the area when talking about the idiots who carried out the attacks but not mentioned when reporting the people who helped them.
chicmac

I think people are missing the point.  I do not think the press are being anti-Catholic however the fact that Opus Dei is an official sub group of the Catholic Church is still relevant.

Just for once, I know it will require superhuman effort, but just for once, try and look at this from the SNP leadership perspective.

How on Earth can they respond to demands to reject someone because he is a member of Opus Dei?

Neither Iain Gray or Jim murphy Or Annabel Goldie or Tavish Scott would ban Opus Dei members from standing as candidates or even say that it would be a bad idea.

I would love to see the Scottish Press do their job by asking those other leaders whether they would ban Opus Dei members from standing for their party but let's face it, there is more chance of Lord Foulkes saying something sensible.

So why criticise Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon on this?

Well we know why?  But what I mean is that in addition to the usual nat-bashing reasons it is extremely hypocritical and classic double standards as well.
October1974

I see that some politician are now saying they were misquoted:

http://wardogblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/lesser-spotted-tits.html

------------------------------------------------

at the weekend I heard from a very reliable source, it appears that a couple of prominent Labour worthies North of Hadrian's Wall are also members of this branch of the Catholic tree. Shouldn't they be outed too?
O'Flaherty

What a sad anti-Catholic thread..... just about sums up the Scottish mentality.

One poster fanatically goes on about Franco and Opus dei and actually compares it to the rabid bigots ot the OO, whose parades of sectarian triumphalism and outright provocation have literally polluted the Scottish landscape for many long decades without so much as a word of protest from the media. Unbelievable.

Is there no hope for this small nation?

Sheriff William Dunlop rejects the protestations of the residents of Dumbarton and its elected representatives and allows a sectarian march through the Catholic areas of the town... for 8-9-09, which will no doubt result in riots and mayhem as it did 3 or 4 years ago.

Meanwhile, Glasgow City Council bans for the second time an anti-Irish racism march through the city centre. The First council in GB to ban an anti-racism march.

Welcome to  21st century Scotland.
Dave Coull

O'Flaherty wrote:
What a sad anti-Catholic thread
It is well documented that members of Opus Dei are instructed by their organisation to deliberately seek to turn any criticism of their organisation into an attack on the catholic church as such. But it is also a fact that some of the strongest critics of Opus Dei (for instance, folk involved in the Opus Dei Awareness Network) are themselves practicing members of the Catholic church who consider themselves true catholics who reject the secret-society distortions of Opus Dei.
O'Flaherty wrote:
One poster fanatically goes on about Franco and Opus Dei and actually compares it to the rabid bigots ot the OO
You have confused two very different posters. The poster who wrote at considerable length about the history of Opus Dei and how it was closely linked from its earliest beginnings with the Franco regime was myself. I provided a considerable amount of evidence for this, and the reason you dismiss this as "fanatical" is because you can't actually dispute the evidence. The posters who drew a mistaken comparison with the Orange Order were different people from the poster who "fanatically goes on about Franco". Apart from anything else, that comparison is mistaken because Opus Dei is more secretive than the Orange Order. Orangemen parade their bigotry, wearing orange sashes. Véronique Duborgel says that, during her 13 year membership of Opus Dei, she was instructed to keep her membership secret even from her family and close friends. Opus Dei members are instructed to seek to keep their membership of their secret society  SECRET. Like I said, in my view
Quote:
This has nothing to do with the primitive billy vs tim politics of Northern Ireland and the more backward parts of Scotland. The vast majority of the victims of the regimes which Opus Dei backed and participated in were not protestant, but atheists or agnostics from a catholic background. That anti-democratic secret society developed around seventy years ago as a supporter of centralised authoritarianism and one of the main organisations opposing the "left" and republicans in Spain, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it has changed its ways in recent decades
.
William_Cleland

One of the things that makes some of the followers of Irish nationalism seem so backward is that the formation of the modern Irish nation was not a product of the 18th century Enlightenment, which secularised society and created a clear separation of church and state but was centred on the issue of what should be the prevailing religion within state institutions. Opposition to a particular religious sect can, therefore, still be depicted as an attack on the entire tribe fully 200 years after that sort of thing ceased to be a factor in the western societies that experienced a full secularisation of state institutions at the end of the age of feudalism. Tom Nairn has described quite well the similar debilitating effects on the other side of the divide of having missed out on that in books like The Enchanted Glass, which describe the weird cult-like hold the British monarchy still has over some people.
Rinty

"What a sad anti-Catholic thread..... just about sums up the Scottish mentality. "

This thread isnt anti-catholic, what do you mean by that?

"which will no doubt result in riots and mayhem as it did 3 or 4 years ago. "

40 celtic supporters waving scarfs?
calum

What a numpty. So, Franco would have let an anti-racist march go ahead?

Folk have criticised the OO but O Flatherty doesnt claim anyone is anti-Protestant.

More proof that reason and religion cannot co-exist.
landg

O'Flaherty wrote:
What a sad anti-Catholic thread..... just about sums up the Scottish mentality.

One poster fanatically goes on about Franco and Opus dei and actually compares it to the rabid bigots ot the OO, whose parades of sectarian triumphalism and outright provocation have literally polluted the Scottish landscape for many long decades without so much as a word of protest from the media. Unbelievable.

Is there no hope for this small nation?

Sheriff William Dunlop rejects the protestations of the residents of Dumbarton and its elected representatives and allows a sectarian march through the Catholic areas of the town... for 8-9-09, which will no doubt result in riots and mayhem as it did 3 or 4 years ago.

Meanwhile, Glasgow City Council bans for the second time an anti-Irish racism march through the city centre. The First council in GB to ban an anti-racism march.

Welcome to  21st century Scotland.



smells like a green brigade extremist to me.
not worth bothering about.
Aventinian

O'Flaherty wrote:
What a sad anti-Catholic thread..... just about sums up the Scottish mentality.

One poster fanatically goes on about Franco and Opus dei and actually compares it to the rabid bigots ot the OO, whose parades of sectarian triumphalism and outright provocation have literally polluted the Scottish landscape for many long decades without so much as a word of protest from the media. Unbelievable.

Is there no hope for this small nation?


Not whilst one 'side' blindly attacks the organisations of the other. Moaning about the Orange Order is no better than moaning about Opus Dei: both are the preserve of idiots.

Quote:
Sheriff William Dunlop rejects the protestations of the residents of Dumbarton and its elected representatives and allows a sectarian march through the Catholic areas of the town... for 8-9-09, which will no doubt result in riots and mayhem as it did 3 or 4 years ago.

Meanwhile, Glasgow City Council bans for the second time an anti-Irish racism march through the city centre. The First council in GB to ban an anti-racism march.


Ultimately, I'd prefer none of these organisations went around marching: it's a bloody nuisance. I can imagine what an anti-Irish racism march in Glasgow would look like, and I don't think it would be a particularly desirable event to be seen around. However it is their undoubted democratic right to march - you cannot simply wander on and support one side of the sectarian divide and not the other.

It seems odd to me that you'd condemn marchers for 'riots and mayhem' and not the people causing that mayhem...
Aventinian

calum wrote:
More proof that reason and religion cannot co-exist.


It's none of your business how reasonable people are being so long as they are doing you no harm. The vast majority of religious people - who are a large majority of the population - never cause anyone any bother at all.

I would say it is rather more contrary to reason to suggest that you are capable of judging the reasonable motivations of other people than to suggest there is some sort of higher being in the universe.
Dave Coull

"O'Flaherty" wrote that some orange walk in Dumbarton
Quote:
will no doubt result in riots and mayhem as it did 3 or 4 years ago
and, while I'm certainly no supporter of King Billy, or Queen Liz, or any other kind of royalty, I was wondering why I hadn't heard about this mass rioting a few years ago. Rinty, who uses the name of an Irish sportsman here, and whose family background includes folk with quite recent connections to Ireland, provided a clue
Quote:
40 celtic supporters waving scarfs
turning to another place in the more backward parts of Scotland,
O'Flaherty wrote:
an anti-racism march
I have taken part in literally dozens of anti-racist demonstrations, mostly in London, but a couple in Glasgow, and one in Dundee. These marches were mostly opposing "white" racism against blacks and asians. But of course there are other kinds of racism. For example, yesterday's "Courier" had a report about instances of anti-English racism here. The only principled stance is to oppose all racism.
O'Flaherty wrote:
an anti-Irish racism march
Aventinian wrote:
I can imagine what an anti-Irish racism march in Glasgow would look like
Unfortunately, so can I.
O'Flaherty wrote:
What a sad anti-Catholic thread
Rinty, whose family background includes those of Catholic persuasion, says
Quote:
This thread isnt anti-catholic
and asks O'Flaherty a direct question:
Quote:
what do you mean by that?
a question which, so far, has not been answered.
O'Flaherty wrote:
just about sums up the Scottish mentality.
This thread is about Opus Dei. The main organisation concentrating on "exposing" Opus Dei, is not Scottish. It was started in the USA.
Aventinian wrote:
one 'side' blindly attacks the organisations of the other
The majority of the contributions to this thread (with the exception of that from O'Flaherty) have not displayed the primitive billy versus tim attitudes which can be found in northern Ireland and the more backward parts of Scotland. The thread is about Opus Dei. When this thread started, I did some searching, using google, and it appears that the main organisation concentrating on "exposing" Opus Dei, the Opus Dei Awareness Network http://www.odan.org/what_is_opus_dei.htm was started in the USA.by folk from a Catholic background who had taken a scunner to Opus Dei. Although ODAN now apparently has plenty of international connections, I have seen no sign of any Scottish connection. So the main opposition to Opus Dei is neither "Scottish" nor "Protestant".
calum

[quote="Aventinian"]
calum wrote:
More proof that reason and religion cannot co-exist.


It's none of your business how reasonable people are being so long as they are doing you no harm. The vast majority of religious people - who are a large majority of the population - never cause anyone any bother at all.

Are you serious? Children get religion pumped into their heads at home and in school. I did, some decades ago, and it still goes on. If people have so much 'faith', why can't they leave kids to decide when they're old enough to judge for themselves?

Sorry, religion does exist at the expense of reason.
Holebender

True enough. There is virtually no-one who decides to adhere to any given religion after any sort of in-depth thought. Religion is almost invariably a matter of family tradition with little or no place for reason.

The people I know who have actually thought about religion in a rational way are, without exception, atheists.
Aventinian

calum wrote:
Are you serious? Children get religion pumped into their heads at home and in school. I did, some decades ago, and it still goes on. If people have so much 'faith', why can't they leave kids to decide when they're old enough to judge for themselves?


Because parents feel it is incumbent on them to teach their children religion just in the same way as they teach them any facts which are known to them. That I would teach my child that, say, there are a certain number of planets in the solar system does not preclude him from questioning that later in life.
Holebender

Religion... facts??? You're aving a larf, right?

Do please tell us which of all the world's mutually exclusive religions is the factual one, and on what basis do you assert that it is so.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Religion... facts??? You're aving a larf, right?

Do please tell us which of all the world's mutually exclusive religions is the factual one, and on what basis do you assert that it is so.


I assume every religious person who holds a particular faith believes that some elements of their religion are factually accurate. On what basis they assert that is a matter for themselves.
Holebender

Oh no you don't! You don't get off that easily me bucko.

You stated that religion is taught to children just as any other fact is. You stated that religion is fact so now you can tell us which religion is the factual one and you can tell us the basis for your claim that this one religion is factual.
Rinty

I have recently become a pastafarian, a member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster, his noodly godliness.

as a result, I consider it a fact that heaven has a beer volcano.
Celyn

Rinty wrote:
...

as a result, I consider it a fact that heaven has a beer volcano.


Hmm, good idea.    But wouldn't a beer volcano mean a lot of trips to the lava-tory?

Ooh, and try to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn too, 'cos then you get pizza to go with the beer.
Holebender

Both your views are just as plausible and "factual" as those of any other religious adherents. Now, let's hear Aventinian's facts.
Alasdair

I was always under the impression that historians were agreed that certain religious characters actually did exist, whether or not they had any 'magic' or if you prefer 'divine' powers is the real question.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Oh no you don't! You don't get off that easily me bucko.

You stated that religion is taught to children just as any other fact is. You stated that religion is fact so now you can tell us which religion is the factual one and you can tell us the basis for your claim that this one religion is factual.


No, I suggested that values of faith are held as fact by religious parents, and thus it is entirely logical that they should impart them to their child in the same way as any other fact known to them.
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
calum wrote:
Are you serious? Children get religion pumped into their heads at home and in school. I did, some decades ago, and it still goes on. If people have so much 'faith', why can't they leave kids to decide when they're old enough to judge for themselves?


Because parents feel it is incumbent on them to teach their children religion just in the same way as they teach them any facts which are known to them. That I would teach my child that, say, there are a certain number of planets in the solar system does not preclude him from questioning that later in life.

Aventinian wrote:
I suggested that values of faith are held as fact by religious parents, and thus it is entirely logical that they should impart them to their child in the same way as any other fact known to them.

You "suggested" no such thing. You stated that parents teach their children religion in the same way as they teach them any facts. It is your statement that religion is fact, not that religious parents hold religion as fact.

Tell us, Aventinian, which of the world's mutually exclusive religions is the factual one, and what are your grounds for saying so?
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
You "suggested" no such thing. You stated that parents teach their children religion in the same way as they teach them any facts. It is your statement that religion is fact, not that religious parents hold religion as fact.


No I most certainly did not, and there's no reason why I would. I am not a parent, it is irrelevant what I consider to be factual in this regard.

What a parent believes to be factual - whether they be Christian or Infidel; Jew or Gentile; Established or Dissenter - they will quite properly impart to their children as fact.

To do what you seem to want me to do would be to violate the very basis of liberalism: to tell people that my perception in these matters is inherently superior to their own, and to use that to silence them and prevent them from freely imparting information. If that is your view then fine, I think it's a lot of rot frankly, but it is certainly not mine.

Quote:
Tell us, Aventinian, which of the world's mutually exclusive religions is the factual one, and what are your grounds for saying so?


My individual religious beliefs and the foundations I base them on are entirely my own business and not something that I seek to share with others.
calum

[quote="Aventinian"]
Holebender wrote:
You "suggested" no such thing. You stated that parents teach their children religion in the same way as they teach them any facts. It is your statement that religion is fact, not that religious parents hold religion as fact.


No I most certainly did not, and there's no reason why I would. I am not a parent, it is irrelevant what I consider to be factual in this regard.

What a parent believes to be factual - whether they be Christian or Infidel; Jew or Gentile; Established or Dissenter - they will quite properly impart to their children as fact.

To do what you seem to want me to do would be to violate the very basis of liberalism: to tell people that my perception in these matters is inherently superior to their own, and to use that to silence them and prevent them from freely imparting information. If that is your view then fine, I think it's a lot of rot frankly, but it is certainly not mine.

Quote:
Tell us, Aventinian, which of the world's mutually exclusive religions is the factual one, and what are your grounds for saying so?


My individual religious beliefs and the foundations I base them on are entirely my own business and not something that I


Unfortunately, parents brainwashing their kids is only part of the problem. With state schools and RC schools still teaching the bible as fact to greater or lesser degree, children are being taught boolshitt. Religious observance is still the law at a time when the new Curriculum for Excellence is bringing in more debate and philosophy into schools. RME should be taught and discussed but not one unproveable world view.
calum

Interestingly, if one goes back a wee bit here. Aventinian responded to one of my posts as such:

"More proof that reason and religion cannot co-exist."


Ave. said - It's none of your business how reasonable people are being so long as they are doing you no harm. The vast majority of religious people - who are a large majority of the population - never cause anyone any bother at all.

I wonder where in that wee sentence i objected to what other people do in their private lives? I support peoples freedom to believe in whatever. I don't support it receiving state funding and education though. It should be kept for home and church. We don't teach druidism in schools or bother about 'offending' those who worship at Calanais or stonehenge, though these beleifs are native to these lands, older than the Abhramic religions and are just as plausible in terms of evidence.

Would any sane person want our courts or hospitals to operate without need for evidence and base all decisions on 'faith'?
O'Flaherty

Many years ago a Catholic of Irish descent made a speech about Scotland's Shame, which of course resulted in a furious reaction. Later he was asked about why he did it and he replied he knew precisely how his objectors would react. Interestingly enough this individual has never worked in Scotland since. But he knew this would be the outcome.

Just as I knew what the reactions to my post would be.

"What do you mean by that?", asked dear old Rinty.

Precisely.

PS... thank God nobody on this forum employs me.
William_Cleland

I suspect the above post is a windup and that the username is highly likely to be a sockpuppet. I very much doubt that anyone is actually demented enough to completely overlook awkward little details like the fact that James MacMillan first worked outside Scotland as far back as the 1980s because there isn't exactly a huge job market for composers in a Scottish context. When that is taken together with the flame bait in the signature line, the intent appears to be to have the thread completely degenerate in a manner that will deflect attention away from some of the concerns raised about the influence of Opus Dei earlier in the thread, which is an awkward subject for the SNP right now given their candidate in the upcoming by-election is an OD member. Odds on it was posted by one of the SNP activists on here and given the over the top nature of the contents, probably by someone who isn't even from a Roman Catholic background.
Rinty

Actually O'Flaherty, I know Jimmy MacMillan, live round the corner from his parents.  I didnt know he was 'of irish descent' though, we do have Scottish catholics you know Smile

The actual speech asnt about sectariansim as such.  It was more of a lament that we saw many things in our culture through our 'culturally protestant' eyes, cynical of the flashy or demonstrative, seeing things like that as being Catholic.  The book which followed the reaction to his speech at the Edinburgh Festival was called Scotlands shame.  The book came about by way of an apology from Tom Devine who had joined in the criticism of the speech before actually hearing/reading it then realised that the criticisms didnt match what he had actually said.

the actual speech that caused the contoversy was plain, obvious and thought provoking, not out of context in the other debates in this forum about us being 'culturally protestant'.

An example of the ridiculousreaction to the speech was the Herald who took his questions about why we didnt have 'mardi-gras' type celebrations as a call for "catholic street marches".

William is right re MacMillans work, he doesnt work in places like Vienna and London because of Scottish bigotry, he works there because that is where the work is.

I remember him moving from the Catholic school in Cumnock to the ND one.  This was a choice based on the music department of those schools and not a political statement.  Likewise his work is based on what is best for his work, and not on political statements about his country or religion.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
Actually O'Flaherty, I know Jimmy MacMillan, live round the corner from his parents.  I didnt know he was 'of irish descent' though
I thought that "Irish descent" claim sounded dubious. MacMillan is an old Scottish name. There was a lad at our local school called MacMillan, just a year older than me. His family were protestant.
Rinty wrote:
It was more of a lament that we saw many things in our culture through our 'culturally protestant' eyes, cynical of the flashy or demonstrative, seeing things like that as being Catholic.
Growing up in the north east of Scotland, I never even heard of the Orange Lodge until I was a teenager. When I did learn about these folk who paraded through the streets in Glasgow and places like that with very colourful banners of their heroes, my immediate reaction was that it all sounded rather Irish, and VERY Catholic.
Rinty wrote:
The book which followed the reaction to his speech at the Edinburgh Festival was called Scotlands shame.
My wife bought it as a present for me when it came out. She has just told me it is out of print and selling for around seventy quid on Amazon. So, if my wife doesn't object to me selling a present she bought me.......
Rinty

Quote:
I thought that "Irish descent" claim sounded dubious. MacMillan is an old Scottish name. There was a lad at our local school called MacMillan, just a year older than me. His family were protestant.


He might be of Irish Catholic descent, I'm not sure, but what I meant that it wasnt obvious from where I am sitting.  I think his mother is a Finn (possibly, if not she is related to them), who are quite a large catholic family in Cumnock, not particularly Irish and if they were, it was a long time ago as they have been here long enough for the streets that were named after family members to have been, gone and demolished.

In general, the Catholic populaton in Ayrshire differs from that of Glasgow and Lanarkshire and is less Irish, and those who are of Irish descent came to Scotland earlier than other parts of the country.  Also, most Catholic families around here will also be linked in some ways to families who are ulster-scots.

The Irish connections in my family go way back, the Monaghans have been here since the 1790s and are mainly protestant, my father and his younger brothers converted with their mum after their father died, so his religion is a choice and not a cultural or ethnic thing.
Holebender

Seventy Quid? Really? I've got a copy of Tom Devine's book too... maybe a visit to weebay is in order!
Stevie

O'Flaherty, you're certainly being a wee bit paranoid.

I think you might be winding us up here but maybe not...

Nobody here is picking on Catholicism.

If you're defending OD as a typical representation of Catholicism then that's an exageration.

Before the Da Vinci code, nobody'd really heard of OD.

Scotland is not anti-catholic even if some elements of biggotry (which seem to be dying albeit slowly) still exist.

However, let's not pretend the catholic church is squeaky clean either.
landg

O'Flaherty wrote:
Many years ago a Catholic of Irish descent made a speech about Scotland's Shame, which of course resulted in a furious reaction. Later he was asked about why he did it and he replied he knew precisely how his objectors would react. Interestingly enough this individual has never worked in Scotland since. But he knew this would be the outcome.

Just as I knew what the reactions to my post would be.

"What do you mean by that?", asked dear old Rinty.

Precisely.

PS... thank God nobody on this forum employs me.




your a very funny person. watch out, watch out there's a masonicorangeproddydog bigot hiding under your bed.woooooooo.
safe to say this is a green brigade troll.
landg

james mcmillan is a numptie by the way, a paranoid bigot of the worst kind.
have you read some of his opressed ranting's. he is good at music, not thinking.
calum

I bet MacMillan has better English than you Landg.

Are Orangies so anti-Catholic because the RCC is so homophobic?
Dave Coull

calum wrote:
Are Orangies so anti-Catholic because the RCC is so homophobic?
You are basing that supposition on William of Orange being a homosexual Dutch dwarf. But, while accepting that he was, it could just as easily be that Orangies are anti-Catholic because the RCC is size-ist against short people. Or it might be that Orangies see the RCC as anti-Netherlanders. Anyway, how can you say of the RCC, an institution which has, historically and to this day, provided such huge numbers of gay men with a career and a life choice as priests, that it is homophobic?
Aventinian

calum wrote:
Are Orangies so anti-Catholic because the RCC is so homophobic?


Haha. I wonder if the Rangers support will start flying the UK 'Pride flag' (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_pride.gif) at Ibrox any time soon.

Dave Coull wrote:
calum wrote:
Are Orangies so anti-Catholic because the RCC is so homophobic?
You are basing that supposition on William of Orange being a homosexual Dutch dwarf. But, while accepting that he was, it could just as easily be that Orangies are anti-Catholic because the RCC is size-ist against short people. Or it might be that Orangies see the RCC as anti-Netherlanders. Anyway, how can you say of the RCC, an institution which has, historically and to this day, provided such huge numbers of gay men with a career and a life choice as priests, that it is homophobic?


Is calling people 'dwarves' PC these days? For my part, I knew old King Billy was a bit of a short-arse, but I didn't realise he was approaching the level where people would start branding him a fully-fledged midget.
William_Cleland

calum wrote:
Are Orangies so anti-Catholic because the RCC is so homophobic?


Act your age not your shoe size.
Rinty

MacMillans problem is often the eagerness of the media in this country to ignore what he actually says because they are looking for a 'bigotry' story.

I dont agree with much of what he says but I dont think you can say he is a numptie or paranoid, that is a cop-out from people who dont want to address issues.

Of course it isnt just him, people find it difficult to face this problem head on because it is locked in sectarianism, the Catholics,, the aurhorities, the football teams, the OO, all go on the defensive against any kind of criticism.

There are many intertwining problems that lead to out country, or at least parts of it, being blighted by division and ignorance.

Perhaps the 'anniversary' of the reformation will be a good time to look at it?  Catholics, in general, dont look at the positive and progressive aspects of the Protestant Revolution.
Nautilus

Why don't you all spear him about his policies and see if there are any fascist or right wing tendencies. I doubt if the SNP would have selected him if there was a trace of that left in him.

The SNP is a left of centre party - the only one left in the UK.
calum

William_Cleland wrote:
calum wrote:
Are Orangies so anti-Catholic because the RCC is so homophobic?


Act your age not your shoe size.


Ho-hum! Don't be so ageist William. Er... you aren't the King himself, are you?

Yeah, maybe the Orangies are against dwarfs. Either way, i look forward to a few Pride flags at the next Ibrox singalong.
calum

Seriously though, it's funny how religious bigots of all varieties sound so alike?
magister ludi

calum wrote:
Seriously though, it's funny how religious bigots of all varieties sound so alike?


I blame it all on the "digital age", Calum, ....they all think in binary......me, not me, me, not me.......me.......not me.......duh
William_Cleland

calum wrote:
Yeah, maybe the Orangies are against dwarfs. Either way, i look forward to a few Pride flags at the next Ibrox singalong.


More immature drivel.
calum

Touchy touchy wee man! Try getting hold of a Richard Dawkins book.
William_Cleland

Do mummy and daddy know that you are using their computer?
calum

William_Cleland wrote:
Do mummy and daddy know that you are using their computer?


Does God know what you're up to?
William_Cleland

What's ironic about this is that I am an atheist (who has actually posted a Richard Dawkins youtube clip to this forum in the not too distant past, for what it's worth) well over 6 feet tall and a heterosexual but this immature individual obviously thinks he is winding me up with this patter because he can only deal with me as some kind of crude stereotype. The way he links individuals and groups he dislikes with homosexuality is indicative of an emotional age of about 13 or 14. There is an undercurrent of homophobia on this board at times that would not normally be tolerated on a political forum in a western country in 2009.  The problem with Scottish society is that values like tolerance and bigotry are not understood in terms of how people deal with those they disagree with but are instead viewed in tribal terms as being inherently associated with certain groups of people so as long as the targets are chosen carefully the worst kind of bile can still be spewed with nobody in positions of authority batting an eyelid.
calum

Willie, dinnae be a dour bstrd. I would've thought it obvious that my ironic humour was aimed at religious extremists, such as the many Rangers fans who sing the praises of the homo/bisexual King Billy. I'm sorry that your sense of humour is not developed enough to appreciate this irony, but that's all it was.

I really don't care about your height or sexuality.
William_Cleland

There is nothing funny about homophobia. People have their lives ruined and sometimes even get killed because of it. There is no evidence that William of Orange was a homosexual. It is all based on the smears and innuendo that were par for the course in dynastic politics surrounding the British throne in the late 17th and early to mid 18th centuries. That flowed in both directions. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" originally meant something very different from its later usage in novels by Sir Walter Scott. In the context of the early 21st century it is completely inappropriate to use allegations of homosexuality to wind people up regardless of who the target of the abuse is. It's unfortunate that it wasn't one of the moderators who has pointed that out in this thread. The silence from that quarter has been truly deafening.
Dave Coull

William_Cleland wrote:
There is nothing funny about homophobia.
There is nothing funny about loads of things that folk do in fact make jokes about. For instance, there is nothing funny about the Holocaust against the Jews carried out in the concentration camps of Europe during the Nazi era. Yet my Jewish "ex", a New Yorker whose ancestors came from a small town on the borders of Poland and Belarus (and of course their relatives who stayed behind perished in the Holocaust) actually wrote a musical comedy about this very subject. It was never performed. I'm not sure it ever COULD be performed. She showed the script to me, she even played me some of the songs (she is a highly accomplished pianist). When I read that script, while I recognised the sheer exuberance and inventiveness that went into it, I was really shocked. Her view was that we had to be ready to laugh at ANYTHING. Me, I was rather glad this work she had put so much effort into would probably never be performed.
William_Cleland wrote:
There is no evidence that William of Orange was a homosexual.
Okay, I confess I am no expert on this particular topic.
William_Cleland wrote:
It is all based on the smears and innuendo that were par for the course in dynastic politics surrounding the British throne in the late 17th and early to mid 18th centuries. That flowed in both directions. "Bonnie Prince Charlie" originally meant something very different
That well-known Rangers supporter Rikki Fulton, as well as doing the Rev. I.M. Jolly (sadly, much missed) used to do an act in which he appeared as Bonnie Prince Charlie, wearing a kilt and a VERY  frilly shirt, with an extremely long, curly wig. Somebody would announce him as "His Royal Highness Prince Charlie", and Rikki would look offended, stroke his long curls, and say "That's  BONNY  Prince Charlie tae you".
William_Cleland wrote:
In the context of the early 21st century it is completely inappropriate to use allegations of homosexuality to wind people up regardless of who the target of the abuse is. It's unfortunate that it wasn't one of the moderators who has pointed that out in this thread. The silence from that quarter has been truly deafening.
The moderators on this Our Scotland forum tend to be fairly hands-off most of the time. Oh, they can and will eventually step in if somebody persistently indulges in posts that are nothing but personal abuse against another member of this list, but so far as long dead historical characters are concerned, it seems they are pretty much fair game.
calum

So, William, are we in agreement? That homophobia is bad? Whether from Presbyterians or Catholics or any of the other 57 varieties of Abrahamic religion?

I still find it funny that the OO who claim to be against 'anti-christ' idolatry march under banners of a king who many historians do consider to have been homosexual.

Hey, but there's bigots for ye.
Dave Coull

calum wrote:
I still find it funny that the OO who claim to be against 'anti-christ' idolatry march under banners of a king who many historians do consider to have been homosexual.
The idolatry has nothing to do with whether William of Orange was homosexual or not. From a protestant point of view, the idolatry is in parading behind icons or images which glorify somebody who, like all the rest of us, was a mere sinner.
landg

calum wrote:
So, William, are we in agreement? That homophobia is bad? Whether from Presbyterians or Catholics or any of the other 57 varieties of Abrahamic religion?

I still find it funny that the OO who claim to be against 'anti-christ' idolatry march under banners of a king who many historians do consider to have been homosexual.

Hey, but there's bigots for ye.


the OO and the catholic church are right wing bigotted organisations. not sure why they don't get on.
William_Cleland

calum wrote:
Hey, but there's bigots for ye.


We are not in agreement. I find it pathetic that you have yet to retract your scurrilous allegations about William of Orange or apologise for the way you used them to try to wind people up. Bigotry is based on the vehemence with which a person holds their opinions and how they deal with those they disagree with. Your behaviour in this thread has clearly left a lot to be desired from that standpoint. The failure of the moderators to intervene means that I am no longer willing to use this forum as it clearly isn't being run as a forum for an intelligent exchange of ideas about Scottish politics in which people show respect for the opinions of those they disagree with. Instead it is a motley assortment of cranks and sockpuppets for the most part with a high percentage of aggressive territorial posts, which are a collosal waste of time and effort given almost nobody is reading.
calum

scurrilous allegations about William of Orange???

Sorry, you come across as another OO bigot. If you are, then i'm really sorry for wasting time debating with you.

Whilst as an atheist, i may not agree with the beliefs of ordinary Christians of any sect - they have that freedom.  I do think though that the extremists of the OO and Opus Dei who would repress the freedom of others are scum. Such hatred belongs in the past, as does homophobia.
Rinty

William has done nothing in this thread to deserve tags such as bigot or homophobic.  The reverse is true and he makes the point well.  

It is a failure by some forum members to address issues of bigotry in any other context than a tribal one.  

I hate the sort of homophobia that says William of Orange was gay.  His sexuality is irrelevant and only someone who is homophobic would think it relevant.  It is on a par with "we hate Jimmy Hill he's a poof" that some idiotic football fans used to sing.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics