Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Born Inheritances.
Options
-
25-10-2014 2:16am#1It's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants and not allow them any process to formally leave it and then claim them back after death, even if they despised it in life.
Actually it's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants or children, full stop.
Mod Note: This is a spin off thread from a thread about funeral rites. Original thread is here.Life ain't always empty.
9
Comments
-
Still, that's the way the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act is written. What can you do?Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants and not allow them any process to formally leave it and then claim them back after death, even if they despised it in life.
Actually it's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants or children, full stop.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Still, that's the way the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act is written. What can you do?
What are you referring to? The 1956 Act does not contain the words religion, or christian, or catholic, or church...Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Neither does your post to which I am replying.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »What are you referring to? The 1956 Act does not contain the words religion, or christian, or catholic, or church...
The 1956 Act confers Irish citizenship on infants, and provides (in most circumstances) no process whereby they can later renounce it.
I'm making the point that religious identity is not the only identity that we inherit, rather than freely choose.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26383
Peregrinus wrote: »It confers Irish citizenship on infants, and provides (in most circumstances) no process whereby they can later renounce it.
I'm making the point that religious identity is not the only identity that we inherit, rather than freely choose.
Pointless post is pointless,0 -
In terms of the thread topic, I think no more pointless than Hotblack's post to which it was a reply. Whether the OP gets a church funeral or not does not depend on whether, as an infant, he was baptised but on whether, as a corpse, he is the subject of a request for a church funeral from his next-of-kin.Pointless post is pointless,0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Neither does your post to which I am replying.
The 1956 Act confers Irish citizenship on infants, and provides (in most circumstances) no process whereby they can later renounce it.
I'm making the point that religious identity is not the only identity that we inherit, rather than freely choose.
You're not. You're trying to be clever in a typically condescending clerical way pilgrim. Cult was the word used.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »In terms of the thread topic, I think no more pointless than Hotblack's post to which it was a reply. Whether the OP gets a church funeral or not does not depend on whether, as an infant, he was baptised but on whether, as a corpse, he is the subject of a request for a church funeral from his next-of-kin.
Pointless? Yes, it was not making a point but asking for clarification of your (incorrect, irrelevant, and obtuse) one. But thanks I'm sure for being grating just for the sake of trying to look clever.
https://www.dfa.ie/passports-citizenship/citizenship/how-do-i-renounce-my-citizenship/
You're welcome.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Touched a nerve there, apparently.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Touched a nerve there, apparently.
Seems I might have, yeah. Sorry.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants and not allow them any process to formally leave it and then claim them back after death, even if they despised it in life.
Actually it's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants or children, full stop.
try telling that to jehovah witness scum...0 -
Fwiw, I thought Pere's argument about citizenship was quite good. Cults can be many things and in many ways people can draw parallels to Irish identity and being a member of a cult. The Irish are expected to behave in certain ways after all, play GAA, drink alcohol, be Catholic, to mention just a few stereotypes. We didn't get to not choose to be Irish and the expectations that places on us.
Anyhu,Peregrinus wrote: »Touched a nerve there, apparently.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Seems I might have, yeah. Sorry.Cantremember wrote: »Cult was the word. Reminder.Stella Virgo wrote: »[/B]
try telling that to jehovah witness scum...
Mod:
Less of this please folks, especially that last one.
It should be possible to have a disagreement without getting snipey. Unless, of course you're professional snipers.0 -
(Actually, the JW's don't practice or recognise infant baptism.)Stella Virgo wrote: »[/B]
try telling that to jehovah witness scum...0 -
Whether someone describes a particular identity as a "cult" or not probably tells us more about the person doing the describing than it does about the identity. If I felt there was any value in the exercise, it wouldn't be difficult to characterise at least some versions of Irishness as a cult. But I don't think there's any value in it.Fwiw, I thought Pere's argument about citizenship was quite good. Cults can be many things and in many ways people can draw parallels to Irish identity and being a member of a cult. The Irish are expected to behave in certain ways after all, play GAA, drink alcohol, be Catholic, to mention just a few stereotypes. We didn't get to not choose to be Irish and the expectations that places on us.
The real point is, though, that we are social animals - very social animals, in fact - and most of our identities, secular and religious alike, are largely embodied in our relationships. And of course nobody grows up with no relationships. Identity is a cultural inheritance which we may later modify or reject, but we never start as autonomous adults with a blank slate. Catholicism is not unique in this regard; it is in fact typical. Yes, there's no formal process for abandoning a Catholic identity but, hey, there's no formal process for abandoning an atheist, sceptical, rationalist or socialist identity either. Having to go through a formal process to acheive something is normally seen as a barrier to acheiving that thing, so I am unimpressed by those who complain about the fact that no formal process is required to abandon Catholicism.0 -
Fwiw, I thought Pere's argument about citizenship was quite good. Cults can be many things and in many ways people can draw parallels to Irish identity and being a member of a cult. The Irish are expected to behave in certain ways after all, play GAA, drink alcohol, be Catholic, to mention just a few stereotypes. We didn't get to not choose to be Irish and the expectations that places on us.
Anyhu,
Mod:
Less of this please folks, especially that last one.
It should be possible to have a disagreement without getting snipey. Unless, of course you're professional snipers.
It's worrying when people can't see through such a facile conflation. A cult is not a state. Being a member of a cult is not equivalent to being a citizen. The oldest trick in the book of theology is to establish some equivalence and smuggle in the whole kit and kaboodle of fairy tale guff.. " you're a citizen so really there's no difference to being in a cult that believes a supernatural being required his own son to be killed as an atonement offering to himself so that he wouldn't be cross with humanity with its sins against him from the very first sin." And how do we know all this? Because some Middle eastern gentlemen 3000 to 2000 years ago told us and we must be guided them. If you want to know about citizenship you will find in laws passed: you can read them and you can campaign to amend of repeal them. Try that with Pilgrim and the various gods of the cults.0 -
As I say, those who describe a particular movement as a “cult” usually reveal more about themselves by doing so than they do about the movement.
There’s an obvious contradiction in claiming, in the one breath, that Catholicism is a “cult” and that it confers membership on everyone who has ever been baptised, regardless of their current beliefs, practices or attitudes to Catholicism. A cult is a relatively small group of people who submit themselves to excessive control by an authoritarian leader and, usually, who isolate themselves from wider society. A movement which claims to include millions of people who have had nothing to do with it for many years may be many bad things, but it’s not a cult.
Any suggestion that religious identity is fundamentally different from national identity because religion is inherently a “cult” must be greeted with derision. Religion, nationality, ethnicity and the like are all largely or entirely cultural constructs. Their respective identities have a great deal in common, and frequently overlap. I’m hardly the first to notice this, or to point it out. Yes, national citizenship is enshrined in laws, but if you ask people to back up the claim that Catholicism claims everyone who has ever been baptised, you’ll find them citing church laws, decrees, etc. Is that terribly different?
As I say, I think I’ve touched a nerve here. There has been strong reaction to my suggestion that the assignment of cultural identities to children and the absence of formal procedures for renouncing them as adults are both pretty standard, but nobody has actually attempted a coherent argument. Instead we just get people throwing around terms like “cult” that, as suggested above, don’t do much to support the claim, and denouncing me and my comments as pointless, condescending, grating, clever - all in all, a lot more heat than light.
Hence the feeling that I’ve touched a nerve. I’m not quite sure why people are so sensitive about this particular A&A dogma being questioned (the regulars on this board aspire to welcome scepticism, after all) but perhaps if the discussion continues the reason will emerge.
But, I must concede, the whole question is off topic to the thread, which is about how the OP can persuade his family not to arrange a religious funeral for him when he dies. So if the mods would prefer that the discussion not continue at this point, as a devout member of the Boardie cult I will manifest a faithful submission of intellect and will to their sacred decree.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »As I say, those who describe a particular movement as a “cult” usually reveal more about themselves by doing so than they do about the movement.
There’s an obvious contradiction in claiming, in the one breath, that Catholicism is a “cult” and that it confers membership on everyone who has ever been baptised, regardless of their current beliefs, practices or attitudes to Catholicism. A cult is a relatively small group of people who submit themselves to excessive control by an authoritarian leader and, usually, who isolate themselves from wider society. A movement which claims to include millions of people who have had nothing to do with it for many years may be many bad things, but it’s not a cult.
Any suggestion that religious identity is fundamentally different from national identity because religion is inherently a “cult” must be greeted with derision. Religion, nationality, ethnicity and the like are all largely or entirely cultural constructs. Their respective identities have a great deal in common, and frequently overlap. I’m hardly the first to notice this, or to point it out. Yes, national citizenship is enshrined in laws, but if you ask people to back up the claim that Catholicism claims everyone who has ever been baptised, you’ll find them citing church laws, decrees, etc. Is that terribly different?
As I say, I think I’ve touched a nerve here. There has been strong reaction to my suggestion that the assignment of cultural identities to children and the absence of formal procedures for renouncing them as adults are both pretty standard, but nobody has actually attempted a coherent argument. Instead we just get people throwing around terms like “cult” that, as suggested above, don’t do much to support the claim, and denouncing me and my comments as pointless, condescending, grating, clever - all in all, a lot more heat than light.
Hence the feeling that I’ve touched a nerve. I’m not quite sure why people are so sensitive about this particular A&A dogma being questioned (the regulars on this board aspire to welcome scepticism, after all) but perhaps if the discussion continues the reason will emerge.
But, I must concede, the whole question is off topic to the thread, which is about how the OP can persuade his family not to arrange a religious funeral for him when he dies. So if the mods would prefer that the discussion not continue at this point, as a devout member of the Boardie cult I will manifest a faithful submission of intellect and will to their sacred decree.
Typical balderdash.
Spurious self serving definitions and long winded nonsense to cover a few basic facts: a citizen is not a member of a cult. Oxford Englsh dictionary: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular object,
I note your definition is not present. Hardly surprising.
Your usual tactic of long winded contributions which say very little but serve the purpose of obscuring a topic is noted. The attempt to drag in ridiculous religious terminology into boards is likewise typical: dogma there isn't, rules there may well be.
The difference again Pilgrim is that citizenship is a matter of law whereas your religion is one of revelation: a dude told someone that "god" told him such and such. Is that simple enough?0 -
Cantremember wrote: »A cult is not a state. Being a member of a cult is not equivalent to being a citizen. .
Where did anyone say it was? You mistook an analogy for an equivocation. If someone was talking about volcanoes and another person used a geyser to illustrate a point he wanted to make about volcanoes, after all they both erupt, would you suddenly assume a geyser spouts lava? That's effectively what you did here.
He used a mode of comparison to show how inheriting citizenship has many similarities to inheriting religious identity. That doesn't mean they're both one and the same.0 -
Where did anyone say it was? You mistook an analogy for an equivocation. If someone was talking about volcanoes and another person used a geyser to illustrate a point he wanted to make about volcanoes, after all they both erupt, would you suddenly assume a geyser spouts lava? That's effectively what you did here.
He used a mode of comparison to show how inheriting citizenship has many similarities to inheriting religious identity. That doesn't mean they're both one and the same.
I mistook nothing. Analogy is an equivocation. Geddit? Specially useful to religious types who really don't want to talk about their beliefs that God the father impregnated a virgin with God the son through the action of God the spirit so that God the son could be offered as a sacrifice to God the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity particularly the sin of Adam called original sin and when God the son ...etc etc. citizenship is defined by laws open to rational scrutiny. Revelation isn't. Geddit?0 -
My definition is present in the OED; it’s definition 2.b. Yours is definition 2.a (and is noted as being used “chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts”). Since definition 2.b. is pejorative and definition 2.a is not, and since Hotblack wasn’t talking about history, archaelogy or anthropology, I think definition 2.b is likely to be the one intended by Hotblack.Cantremember wrote: »Typical balderdash.
Spurious self serving definitions and long winded nonsense to cover a few basic facts: a citizen is not a member of a cult. Oxford Englsh dictionary: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular object,
I note your definition is not present. Hardly surprising.
As I say, plenty of vituperation here, but not much coherent argument. What you say here is indeed “simple”, but I’m afraid not in a good way. You fail to make any connection whatsoever between your expostulations and the subject under discussion, which is how cultural identities are formed and in particular how children’s cultural identities are formed. And your refusal or inability either to drop the discussion or to address the topic tends to reinforce my feeling that, yes, I’ve touched a nerve.Cantremember wrote: »Your usual tactic of long winded contributions which say very little but serve the purpose of obscuring a topic is noted. The attempt to drag in ridiculous religious terminology into boards is likewise typical: dogma there isn't, rules there may well be.
The difference again Pilgrim is that citizenship is a matter of law whereas your religion is one of revelation: a dude told someone that "god" told him such and such. Is that simple enough?0 -
Advertisement
-
This. My challenge is to Hotblack's position that constructing religious identity in infants is immoral. My point is that we routinely assign (a) citizenship, and (b) a wide variety of culturally-constructed identities to children - including atheism, secularism, etc, and this isn't generally viewed as immoral, or denounced by Hotblack or other boardies. I'm expecting somebody to make the case that constructing religious identity is immoral, but other identities, not so. All I'm getting so far is that assigning citizenship is not immoral because law. That's not much of a case, since it's trivial that laws can have immoral effects or outcomes. Plus, as a case, it's only defence of the assignment of citizenship. Even if we assume without proof or argument that the assignment of citizenship is morally justified , where does that leave other identities? And how does it prove that the construction of religious identity, or any identity, is immoral?He used a mode of comparison to show how inheriting citizenship has many similarities to inheriting religious identity. That doesn't mean they're both one and the same.
I'm sure there's a serious discussion to be had about this. So far, all I'm getting is abuse for having the temerity to raise the issue.0 -
The assigning of citizenship to children was for their protection. Not to do so would leave the states ability to protect the child in a legally precarious position.
If the child has parents, they can act to notify the state that the child is not in fact Irish and they are a, b, or c. When the child is older, they too can act in this way should another citizenship be open to them. Being Irish does nothing as a multicultural society other than entitle the child to the protection of the state where or if required.
That said, what any of this has to do with a person's wishes for the treatment of their remains is beyond me.0 -
Funnily enough, religion has an analogous position; inducting infants into the religion via baptism etc to protect them from eternal damnation / purgatory.The assigning of citizenship to children was for their protection. Not to do so would leave the states ability to protect the child in a legally precarious position.
Both are done with a childs best interests in mind, just slightly different (though not mutually exclusive) points of view.0 -
Funnily enough, religion has an analogous position; inducting infants into the religion via baptism etc to protect them from eternal damnation / purgatory.
Both are done with a childs best interests in mind, just slightly different (though not mutually exclusive) points of view.
Oddly enough any catholic baptism I have been to in the last few years was claimed by the parents to be due to parental pressure, the day out or because it was the done thing. Baptism in a truly catholic sense requires no day out, no register just water and someone who can recite a few lines. It's a splash of water, I must start a business to undercut my local churches business if this is all people want. A christening on the other hand is the act of indoctrination in which as far as the church is concerned, there is no way out unlike citizenship.
Anyway, what have the last few posts to do with the OP and can anyone tell me of it happening that someone's wishes for their treatment post mortem has differed from their requested treatment in this country?0 -
Well, I think you could quibble with this. Historically, is citizenship something assigned for our benefit, or for the king’s benefit? Does citizenship confer rights, or impose obligations?The assigning of citizenship to children was for their protection. Not to do so would leave the states ability to protect the child in a legally precarious position.
The real answer, of course, is both. Citizenship is a relationship between the individual and the state/the community; it’s a two-way thing. And, whether we intend it for the child’s benefit or not, you can question how we are morally justified in engaging a child in a relationship which it cannot understand, never mind consent to.
So? That’s just assigning citizenship B rather than citizenship A to the child. Why would that be any more defensible?If the child has parents, they can act to notify the state that the child is not in fact Irish and they are a, b, or c.
Well, Irish citizenship isn’t definitive of all forms of citizenship, and yet we assign them all in infancy. In Ireland, “loyalty to the state and fidelity to the nation” are fundamental duties of all citizens; this is the basis for a treason charge which, admittedly, most of us will probably never face, but non-citizens will definitely never face. But other forms of citizenship can be more onerous. A US citizen who lives outside the US and is required by US law to pay US tax on his worldwide income, and who is required by US law to register for the draft, might not accept that his citizenship does nothing but entitle him to protection. As an Australian citizen, I get fined if I don’t turn up to vote in elections; I am obliged to vote even if I am unable to form a preference as between the candidates, or face criminal penalties. In many countries citizens are required to perform military or other service, sometimes for periods of years. Etc, etc. And in many cases people are not free to avoid these obligations by renouncing their citizenship. It’s undeniable that citizenship can be a great deal more onerous than being regarded as a member by a church in which you have no interest.When the child is older, they too can act in this way should another citizenship be open to them. Being Irish does nothing as a multicultural society other than entitle the child to the protection of the state where or if required.
Oh, I concede that it’s completely off-topic for the thread.That said, what any of this has to do with a person's wishes for the treatment of their remains is beyond me.0 -
Nitpick: I have to point out that this isn't true. As far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being Catholic.. . . A christening on the other hand is the act of indoctrination in which as far as the church is concerned, there is no way out unlike citizenship.
Whereas there are many countries whose citizenship cannot be renounced at all, or whose citizenship can only be renounced by people who meet particular conditions which many or most citizens cannot meet. (Ireland is in the latter group.) Irish citizenship, and indeed most citizenships, are in truth much "stickier" than Catholic church membership.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Nitpick: I have to point out that this isn't true. As far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being Catholic.
Whereas there are many countries whose citizenship cannot be renounced at all, or whose citizenship can only be renounced by people who meet particular conditions which many or most citizens cannot meet. (Ireland is in the latter group.) Irish citizenship, and indeed most citizenships, are in truth much "stickier" than Catholic church membership.
Indeed, indeed. I note the ambiguity of "as far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being catholic". Excommunication, of course. But as anyone who has followed the thread knows the point was that having had membership of a cult imposed by parents shortly after or at birth, that the RCC had blocked a means for the individual to formally renounce that membership in recent years. Personally I regard it as silly that any group would try to keep people as members if they choose to stop believing in the group beliefs of (insert god the father impregnating etc., original sin etc etc). But the point is again the arrogance of the claim: like it or not pilgrim, the arrogance of any group making such a claim is what rankles with people. Really, pouring water over a child's head and reading out a formula that the child is now cleansed from original sin is beyond belief. Well, for most people.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »My definition is present in the OED; it’s definition 2.b. Yours is definition 2.a (and is noted as being used “chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts”). Since definition 2.b. is pejorative and definition 2.a is not, and since Hotblack wasn’t talking about history, archaelogy or anthropology, I think definition 2.b is likely to be the one intended by Hotblack.
As I say, plenty of vituperation here, but not much coherent argument. What you say here is indeed “simple”, but I’m afraid not in a good way. You fail to make any connection whatsoever between your expostulations and the subject under discussion, which is how cultural identities are formed and in particular how children’s cultural identities are formed. And your refusal or inability either to drop the discussion or to address the topic tends to reinforce my feeling that, yes, I’ve touched a nerve.
As usual, you refuse to face the point. The second definition in my OED is "a person or thing that is fashionable". What you attempted to do, and continue to do, is the usual theological method of looking to broaden out an issue and hope to move the discussion to a different area. Being baptised into a cult is fundamentally and essentially different from citizenship and your attempt to claim that the similarities are what are important is a refusal to face the essential religiously claimed realities of baptism: it is a cleansing of original sin incurred by adam and made possible by the atoning death of god the son who was born of a virgin etc etc. You are, by my guess, a trained theologian and probably with a smattering of canon law. The point that has to be faced about baptism, Pilgrim (you will understand that the Latin is just a gloss that we can dispense with now) is that it is a supernaturalist rite. Citizenship isn't. And I have made that point to you repeatedly. You can write books about the similarities between cats and dogs, between mars and earth, between baptism and joining the golf club but they are beside the point. They're interesting to a certain cast of mind and give an opportunity to show a type of cleverness but they don't get to the nub of baptism. You are after all, pilgrim, someone who believes.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Nitpick: I have to point out that this isn't true. As far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being Catholic.
Not to the point where their corpse is refused a catholic funeral, which is really all that we want.
I never expected the 'c' word to give rise to all this, but there is a very easy remedy - all the RCC has to do is reinstate Count Me Out and guarantee to respect the expressed wishes of those who go through the process of defection.
Refusing to do so is entirely unreasonable and is very cult-like.Whereas there are many countries whose citizenship cannot be renounced at all, or whose citizenship can only be renounced by people who meet particular conditions which many or most citizens cannot meet. (Ireland is in the latter group.) Irish citizenship, and indeed most citizenships, are in truth much "stickier" than Catholic church membership.
Any citizen who truly wishes to renounce his or her Irish citizenship can very easily do so. The conditions attached are to prevent people becoming stateless. Being stateless is a bad thing to the extent that the UN exhorts its member states to prevent it as far as possible.
You know what, maybe it's that the RCC regards being 'churchless' as something terrible - they seem quite willing to prevent members of other religions receiving catholic rites. As usual though the only position with regard to belief which gets no respect whatsoever is non-belief.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Advertisement
-
How is that ambiguous? Seriously? Can it have more than one meaning?Cantremember wrote: »Indeed, indeed. I note the ambiguity of "as far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being catholic".
Actually no. Excommunication does not mean you are no longer a Catholic. Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed on Catholics, but they remain Catholics - just Catholics who are for the time being subject to the penalty of excommunication. The penalty has a variety of effects in canon law, but exclusion from the church is not one of them.Cantremember wrote: »Excommunication, of course.
No, no, no. It works like this:Cantremember wrote: »But as anyone who has followed the thread knows the point was that having had membership of a cult imposed by parents shortly after or at birth, that the RCC had blocked a means for the individual to formally renounce that membership in recent years.
- In general, there is no process, formula, ceremony or the like you have to go through to leave the Catholic church. This is a bit of a disappointment to people who feel the need for bell, book and candle to mark their departure, but there you are; they must bear it as best they can. They cannot reasonably impose their psychological needs on others.
- For a time, there was a process you had to go through if you wanted your departure to be recognised for certain purposes to do with Catholic marriage rules - the idea was to have clarity in the application of the marriage rules. (For all other purposes, there was no requirement to go through this or any other process in order for your departure to be recognised.) This gratified those who felt the need for bell, book, candle, etc; they thought of this as “the route” by which you could leave the church. But, in fact, it never was.
- Most people who leave, leave because they have lost interest, and they are not motivated to go through any processes, and didn’t in fact go through them. The (perhaps foreseeable) result was that the great bulk of people who opted out were treated for certain purposes of Catholic marriage law as still being Catholics. Recognising that this was producing unrealistic results - the operation of the marriage rules was clear, but it bore less and less relationship to the facts on the ground - they dropped the requirement to go through a process to have your leaving recognised.
- This freaked out the bell, book and candle crowd, who believed - and in some cases apparently still believe - that if no formal process was required to leave, then they couldn’t leave. In the real world, most people recognise that requiring people to go through a formal process to achieve something is an impediment, and dropping that requirement is liberalisation.
If only somebody would make such a claim, and then your outrage would have a real-world target!Cantremember wrote: »Personally I regard it as silly that any group would try to keep people as members if they choose to stop believing in the group beliefs of (insert god the father impregnating etc., original sin etc etc). But the point is again the arrogance of the claim: like it or not pilgrim, the arrogance of any group making such a claim is what rankles with people.
And the good news is, they don’t have to believe it.Cantremember wrote: »Really, pouring water over a child's head and reading out a formula that the child is now cleansed from original sin is beyond belief. Well, for most people.0
Advertisement