BellaBella Registered User
#376

beauf said:
I didn't say I didn't understand why devoted Catholics find insulting. That's as you'd expect.

But if most people who identify as Catholic don't go to mass, it suggests they don't find it insulting. otherwise they would attend. (What % of the RC membership would we consider devote. I would suggest its a low %)

I shouldn't have said "the only people". I should have said a lot of the people who are insulted by this are those who are not involved in religion.
I would suggest its not because they are actually insulted. Its because they want to remove those people as being identified as Catholic for the purpose of the census and this policy regarding schools, mainly.
Because that's what these thread always go back to.

It would be interesting to discuss the impact on the RC church if disconnects with the less devote, moderate part of its membership. As the clergy disappear, it will have to reply on devoted lay people to exist.
I doubt you'd be able to have the discussion on boards though. it would be derailed into something else.


In my opening post I was talking about people who practise their religion, and who find the sacraments meaningful, finding it insulting when people who don't practise rock up at the Church for a First Communion or Confirmation and then treat the whole ceremony with boredom and lack of respect.

beauf Registered User
#377

Nettle Soup said:
You mean devout right?


Yup, thx

1 person has thanked this post
beauf Registered User
#378

Nettle Soup said:
So you agree or are you being a slippery eel?


For Sure = agree.

1 person has thanked this post
beauf Registered User
#379

BellaBella said:
In my opening post I was talking about people who practise their religion, and who find the sacraments meaningful, finding it insulting when people who don't practise rock up at the Church for a First Communion or Confirmation and then treat the whole ceremony with boredom and lack of respect.


I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that part.

But after hours rarely stays on topic, and any topic that mentions RC is almost always derailed. Need to be flame proof here.

nozzferrahhtoo Registered User
#380

beauf said:
Did that. ...thats generally the purpose of quotes...
...the definition of generalization is not mine... I didn't say anything about my beliefs. Simply that not everyone will read the manual or the bible. That's human nature.


The problem here is you did not quote me saying any of the things you pretended I said. Which makes conversation difficult if I am replying to you, and you are replying to an imaginary me. A three way conversation where a version of me exists in your own head only puts everyone else at a disadvantage.

Suffice to say however my comments about individuals failing to read the book they claim to believe was in some way written or influenced by the creator of the universe is VERY different to you claiming I was talking about "most" believers in such a religion.

beauf said:
I didn't say for me. I said its not a page turner... for everyone. Since we are talking about an undefined group of individuals. Which changes on a whim. But then context and the meaning seems to be difficult for many... I do so too. Happy to agree.


So the one making generalisations about "everyone" and so forth is you then, and it never was me? I have to say I have met many people, myself included, who have a very different impression of the text than the one you are foisting on to this imaginary "everyone".

BellaBella said:
You don't see why practising Catholics, for whom the Sacraments are important, might be insulted by people to whom they are meaningless taking part and treating the whole event like a big party.


I know people for whom they are important, who invited people like me, to things like weddings and baptisms, because the whole event was like a big party. And they were more than happy to see the little kids there and enjoying themselves too. So I guess the word "might" is the most important word you used in that paragraph. Because I just have not met anyone insulted or offended in the way you describe.

The only people I have seen insulted in any way were the ones that emailed me following my collection of the Consecreated Crackers for experimental purposes. But the grounds for their concern were not all that coherent. They were comparing my possession of such crackers to their kidnapping of my children. Which was.... odd. Though if anyone in the world wants to release a kidnapped child for every cracker I release from my drawer I would be more than happy to make such a trade.

beauf Registered User
#381

I said its not for everyone...which generally taken to mean not everyone...but don't take my word as gospel.

nozzferrahhtoo Registered User
#382

Actually the way you wrote it could be read two ways. It came across as you saying that for everyone it is not a page turner. If I wrote "It smells bad.... for everyone" you would likely read that as as eveyone thinks it smells bad. So when I read "It is not a page turner.... for everyone" I read it the same way.

I mean this as no insult but is English your first language? I am having trouble parsing some of the way you construct sentences. Any information to improve my interpretations there would be useful and appreciated.

But now that we have mostly cleaned up what I have NOT said, we can certainly go back to what WAS said any time you wish to?

beauf Registered User
#383

Its a combination of the mobile/touch site and the auto text on my phone. The phone changes words after I type them and then if I don't notice, the touch site doesn't allow me to correct them. I generally edit out the multi quote as its just ridiculous, but sometimes it saves it mid edit and I can't correct it. Hence miss spellings etc. If I'm on the laptop its generally better.

Though I think the main issue is context. You are expecting your comments to be taken in context of your previous comments. But they can't always be read together as the thread has moved on, both figuratively and physically depending on how the user device splits the pages of the thread. You seem to want to revisit old posts. Whereas I'd just move on to the last post. If someone goes back to something that was said earlier its jarring and you have to go back and read what the context was at that time.

beauf Registered User
#384

These threads (RC religion) are always a train wreck as there are rarely anyone who is of moderate opinion. They are almost always hard left or right. I bet if you checked everyone who thanks a post on these threads you'd find the same polar opposite view points.

Which is interesting because that might be why the census and peoples expectations don't match. The moderate middle which are probably the vast majority aren't in the debate.

nozzferrahhtoo Registered User
#385

beauf said:
Its a combination of the mobile/touch site


Thank you. It is good to know you are suffering from that. I will attempt to read your posts closer to see if I can spot things that perhaps parse more sensibly if I take that into account.

beauf said:
Though I think the main issue is context. You are expecting your comments to be taken in context of your previous comments. But they can't always be read together as the thread has moved on


Well in fairness the first thing you misrepresented from me was in the very first post you replied to. So "The thread moved on" is not really an excuse there.

But I think now that you know I did not, and never have, claimed anything about "most" like you suggested.... it might be worth going back on a few of the points? Up to you. Go back to post #322 and read it again without this error. Or if you do not want to, thank you for your time thus far, I think we are done here.

beauf Registered User
#386

...you make hay where you find it...

Hotblack Desiato Registered User
#387

Bob_Marley said:
You seem to think the solution is to confiscate and hijack Catholic schools, instead of getting off your arse and applying for funding, and putting in the graft like everyone else.


And when the Dept of Education will not sanction an additional school in that area, what then?

There's nothing wrong with a lot of different types of schools in one area, diversity


Religious segregation is the opposite of diversity. It promotes a suffocating exclusionist monoculture within each type of school.

I expect local schools to reflect the local population in fair proportion


I expect state funded schools to deliver the state curriculum, no more and no less.

2 people have thanked this post
Bob_Marley Registered User
#388

Hotblack Desiato said:
And when the Dept of Education will not sanction an additional school in that area, what then?


Why would they not sanction one in an area where there is a genuine demand for places in it ? and if they are not they should instead of you letting them away with it, because it suits your hate fest of Catholics. What would you complain about then ?

Hotblack Desiato said:

Religious segregation is the opposite of diversity. It promotes a suffocating exclusionist monoculture within each type of school.


I expect state funded schools to deliver the state curriculum, no more and no less.

Having a diverse choice of schools is not segregation, and instead of one huge faceless impersonal state monoschool in each area, it gives people choice. And if you think it's a good idea to rely on and trust the state to educate your child, more fool you given the quality of other state services, it will be a lot less than more.

Hotblack Desiato Registered User
#389

Bob_Marley said:
Why would they not sanction one in an area where there is a genuine demand for places in it ?


Are you not following the news? The Dept of Education clearly see their role as promoting catholic education above all. The handful of schools which have been divested are being hamstrung by the Dept, and are only being allowed to enrol half a class per year when the demand far exceeds this. The Dept says that this is to prevent a drop-off at the existing catholic schools. So much for parental choice!

because it suits your hate fest of Catholics. What would you complain about then ?


You have no sensible argument so you resort to personal attack. The usual AH god botherer M.O.

Having a diverse choice of schools is not segregation


It is when the religious schools discriminate in enrolment on religious lines, and indoctrinate during the school day.

And if you think it's a good idea to rely on and trust the state to educate your child, more fool you given the quality of other state services, it will be a lot less than more.


Far better than having a bunch of unrepentant child abusers running them, tbh.

Do you think all universities should be church run as well, or is there something special about primary and secondary education which necessitates that they cannot be secular?

5 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!