Should religion be recognised by the state?

Tar.Aldarion

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Pure speculation on your part, fancy backing up your claims.

While 85% of the population may not be practicing catholic using the last census we find that 88% identify themselves as catholic as of 2002. Or have been identified as catholic by those who fill out the form to be more precise.

http://www.eirestat.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=2361

This will almost certainly be lower in the upcoming census but not so much that we are not dealing with a very large majority.

I will be very interested in the results of ths census in the religion section.
How long does it tak for the results to be tabulated?

As for that huge catholic majority, at the age of 19, I know of just one friend who calls himself a catholic and his view are so far from catholic views, it is laughable. I haven't come accross many people that believe in it,
do you think this is a standard accross the country or just with poeple I know?
I think there will be much fewer catholics as the older generation die out.

My parents filled out the last census so I'm sure I'm marked down as Catholic. I'm sure this happened to a lot of people.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Aziraphale wrote:

Note the word 'if.'

I did. In that sentence the word "if" implies "should" due to the statistic you added at the end. You'll surely agree what I originally quoted most certainly implied you thought it was true\were making a false statement

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s probably not a bad approach to ignore private apostasy from their perspective as a lot of apostates ‘repent’ when the social respectability that their faith affords becomes useful to them.

Um yes, and they can claim to represent x% of the people even though half of their flock want and have nothing to do with them.

The Corinthian wrote:

After all, there are a lot of angry young people who will swear blind that they want to leave their faith

Anger isn't the only reason to want to leave a faith.
Maybe lack of faith?

The Corinthian wrote:

only to get married a few years later in a church / mosque / temple of that same faith.
Naturally, when they do that we’ll often hear the claim that it was done ‘just to keep the parents happy’ :rolleyes:

While I kind of agree with the :rolleyes: (and got married in a registry office myself), try to look at it from their point of view.
Why would a RC/athiest not get married in a church?
Whats the harm?
It allows them to have the traditional white wedding and to keep the parents' reputation intact in the parish (:rolleyes: again).

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Um yes, and they can claim to represent x% of the people even though half of their flock want and have nothing to do with them.

Except as you’ve already admitted, that’s not entirely true as they will quite often have something to do with them. They’ll get married through them, baptise their kids through them and so on. This is because, like it or not, religions do represent demographic groups because they’re often as much part of the ethnic identity as anything supernatural.

Anger isn't the only reason to want to leave a faith.
Maybe lack of faith?

Realistically no. Lack of faith tends to be a reason to lapse from predication, not to actively reject that faith. Actively seeking to leave is more about making a statement of rejecting that other faith, not that you’ve simply lost faith in it. This can be because you’ve found anther faith to take its place or, as is often the case in the West, you’ve got some anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind.

While I kind of agree with the :rolleyes: (and got married in a registry office myself), try to look at it from their point of view.
Why would a RC/athiest not get married in a church?
Whats the harm?
It allows them to have the traditional white wedding and to keep the parents' reputation intact in the parish (:rolleyes: again).

Oh, I don’t think there is any harm in people who are de facto of no faith doing that. That’s their business. However if they make a song and dance about rejecting that faith and then do that it’s called hypocrisy. And there’s no shortage of those about I’ve observed over the years.

Hobart

The Corinthian wrote:

Even then, unless you are publicly apostate, most religions will ‘turn a blind eye’ in the hope that you will come be saved (or simply come to your senses) on a later date. Islam and Christianity will typically work this way, also because they are salvitic in nature, while Judaism, which is not salvitic, will simply argue, “you’re born a Jew so call yourself what you like, but we’re still going to see you as one”. However, excommunication (or equivalent) does exist in all three. I have no idea how other faiths work.

I know that this is slightly OT, but. Does what you say TC actually mean that the Rabbi's (or whomever the religious head(s) of Judaism are), actually believe that we are all Jews? i.e. “you’re born a Jew so call yourself what you like, but we’re still going to see you as one” or is that to oversimplify it?

Secondly how does one become a jew, if one is not already a jew?

Tar.Aldarion

Hobart wrote:

I know that this is slightly OT, but. Does what you say TC actually mean that the Rabbi's (or whomever the religious head(s) of Judaism are), actually believe that we are all Jews? i.e. “you’re born a Jew so call yourself what you like, but we’re still going to see you as one” or is that to oversimplify it?

I believe it means that...
If you are born into a jewish family and become agnostic then you will still be jewesh in their books and you can still be saved!

Secondly how does one become a jew, if one is not already a jew?

I think you have to go through a lot of study and prove yourself.

Hobart

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I believe it means that...
If you are born into a jewish family and become agnostic then you will still be jewesh in their books and you can still be saved!


I think you have to go through a lot of study and prove yourself.

Cheer's, so basically it's "Juadism, a religon for the non-ignorant."

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

Except as you’ve already admitted, that’s not entirely true as they will quite often have something to do with them. They’ll get married through them, baptise their kids through them and so on.

True for many but an increasing number of people are either getting married in registry offices or not at all. They(we) are also having children and not baptising them. And yet we're still counted in the numbers the RC leaders claim to represent.

The Corinthian wrote:

you’ve got some anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind.

... or because you'd like to have the option to send your children to a non-denominational state school. The church retains it's stranglehold on the education system, in part at least, through being able to say 'we represent 85% of the country'.

The Corinthian wrote:

However if they make a song and dance about rejecting that faith and then do that it’s called hypocrisy.

Couldn't agree more.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

True for many but an increasing number of people are either getting married in registry offices or not at all. They(we) are also having children and not baptising them. And yet we're still counted in the numbers the RC leaders claim to represent.

That there is such an increasing number I don’t dispute. However, you should not confuse that with the numbers who are classified as non-practicing. They don’t believe in the rituals or take part in them, but they still put themselves down as Roman Catholic when asked in a census. That’s where those numbers come from.

... or because you'd like to have the option to send your children to a non-denominational state school. The church retains it's stranglehold on the education system, in part at least, through being able to say 'we represent 85% of the country'.

Cue ‘anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind’ rant...

rsynnott

Sleepy wrote:

Care to correct me so TC? It was my understanding that Catholic canon put it that unless you were following the laws of the church you were living outside a 'state of grace' in which condition you were destined for hell unless you received the sacrament of confession. Am I confusing the idea of not going to heaven with not being a Catholic?

You are strictly speaking still a catholic, albeit a naughty catholic, assuming you believe the tenets of the faith.

Crucifix

rsynnott wrote:

You are strictly speaking still a catholic, albeit a naughty catholic, assuming you believe the tenets of the faith.

So if you don't believe in Transubstantiation, can you still be considered a catholic?

rsynnott

Crucifix wrote:

So if you don't believe in Transubstantiation, can you still be considered a catholic?

I'd think that not doing so, or at least telling people you don't, counts as apostasy. (That said, apostasy doesn't actually exclude you from being catholic.)

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

Cue ‘anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind’ rant...

*me throws Corinthian dirty look and hides axe behind my back.

JustAnother

Sleepy wrote:

If a commercial venture wants to provide those generations with their traditions, I'm not one for stopping them, it is not however, the role of the state broadcaster to provide this service. Why do you consider a believe in secular governance to be an insecurity?

Perhaps he feels you're making a mountain out of a molehill?

After all, religious believers could make a very strong case that they're being denied free speech by your approach.

Again, it's about the principal. Can you honestly tell me that a child not making their communion/confirmation in an Irish primary school won't end up being teased / ridiculed by the other children? My flatmate is a primary teacher who usually takes the first communion class and this is becoming a major issue for her.

I'm a bit skeptical about claims regarding this issue - I used to argue it was the case, but I've realised that I didn't even have anecdotal evidence.

I agree that the census results will be interesting alright. However, I can't agree about the significance of the wording of the Irish Constitution. This is the document on which our entire state is built!

JustAnother

Sleepy wrote:

Of course, us Irish resent the English too much to even consider the notion that our own beliefs mirror theirs and so cling to the title of 'Catholic' simply because it means 'We're not like them'.

Do you have any evidence for this or is it just speculation? My late father practiced his faith not because it meant 'not being English' but because he believed in it. I don't follow in his footsteps: I'm an atheist.

But lets look at things: we have divorce in this country, most Irish 'Catholics' don't believe in transubstantiation, believe they can interpret the bible as they see fit, that homosexuals aren't inherently evil, that priests should be allowed marry, that eating meat on Fridays won't damn their 'eternal soul' etc. etc. etc.

So, lets be honest, the majority of this country aren't Catholic. They might want to be (I can't imagine why) but they're not.

I'll grant you the bible interpretation and that people aren't as homophobic as the Church and that eating meat is considered OK. I'm not sure about the percentages on transubstatiation and the issue of priests marrying.

JustAnother

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Yes, see

"The state should recognise religion if a large majority of the population follow it. (85% at least.)"

Or were you referencing Wicca?

Wiccans are polytheists aren't they?
It could be argued that the reference in the preamble to the Constitution discriminates against them.

JustAnother

The Corinthian wrote:

Traditionally apostasy is the means by which people leave a faith, although as it tends to be for another, so I don’t know where Atheism (which is arguably a faith in itself) would stand - in short, you get ‘off the books’ when you are put on another set of books.

I don't think there is a literal 'set of books' for most religions, so this is moot. As for atheism being a religion, isn't that like calling bald a hair colour?;)

The Corinthian

JustAnother wrote:

I don't think there is a literal 'set of books' for most religions, so this is moot.

Actually there are literal 'sets of books' in many religions. For example, in Christianity baptisms were and are recorded and are even often used in cases of historical and heraldic research.

As for atheism being a religion, isn't that like calling bald a hair colour?;)

I never suggested it was a religion, I suggested it could be seen as a faith. And given humanity’s well documented predisposition towards explaining the universe in terms of the supernatural, one could argue that the opposite is akin to a faith in it’s opposition to this.

Tar.Aldarion

Atheism could be seen as a faith but much more accurately it is not.
It is not the belief in something, it is just a lack of belief in something much as you can't define my lack of belief in unicorns as a faith.
Just because a lot of humans have believed in god's over the millenia does not change this.

JustAnother

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually there are literal 'sets of books' in many religions. For example, in Christianity baptisms were and are recorded and are even often used in cases of historical and heraldic research.

My interpretation was a list of books of active members of the faith - more than just baptisms. I didn't have to make any declaration to become an atheist - my baptismal certificate just wasn't relevant.

I never suggested it was a religion, I suggested it could be seen as a faith. And given humanity’s well documented predisposition towards explaining the universe in terms of the supernatural, one could argue that the opposite is akin to a faith in it’s opposition to this.

Rephrase what I said with "faith" in place of "religion".

The Corinthian

JustAnother wrote:

My interpretation was a list of books of active members of the faith - more than just baptisms. I didn't have to make any declaration to become an atheist - my baptismal certificate just wasn't relevant.

That might be your interpretation but it’s not the one that is popularly accepted. People do get put ‘on the books’ on such occasions and most remain there throughout life, often for no better reason than habit and/or tradition. Just because you don’t personally accept that does not make you any less ‘on the books’.

Rephrase what I said with "faith" in place of "religion".

And re-read my response.

Sleepy

JustAnother wrote:

Perhaps he feels you're making a mountain out of a molehill?

That's a fair analysis if the imposition of one section of society's religion upon all citizens isn't a big deal to a particular individual. In the case in point it's not a huge deal to me tbh, but it irks me enough to be interested in hearing others' opinions on it.

After all, religious believers could make a very strong case that they're being denied free speech by your approach.

I honestly don't see how. I don't recognise the church as a body with a right to take part in governance in any way shape or form. That's not to say that (as much as I'd disagree with it) I'd ever refuse someone's right to base their politics on their religious beliefs.

I'm a bit skeptical about claims regarding this issue - I used to argue it was the case, but I've realised that I didn't even have anecdotal evidence.

Well, if you'll take it second hand, I've heard my housemate complain of it happening in her class.

JustAnother wrote:

Do you have any evidence for this or is it just speculation? My late father practiced his faith not because it meant 'not being English' but because he believed in it. I don't follow in his footsteps: I'm an atheist.

It's an opinion that I think would be interesting to examine further. Anecdotaly, most 'Catholics' I know disagree with such swathes of the teachings of their religion that their belief system could more accurately be considered to be that of the Anglican church. I believe it is the demonisation of Protestantism in this country (not entirely unjustified historically speaking) that has stopped some of these people from switching churches.

I'll grant you the bible interpretation and that people aren't as homophobic as the Church and that eating meat is considered OK. I'm not sure about the percentages on transubstatiation and the issue of priests marrying.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Catholic church has never granted it's followers the right to form their own opinions on such matters. A 'Good Catholic' is supposed to take his opinion from his priest. This was one of the key theological aspects of Catholicism that lead to the Reformation.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Atheism could be seen as a faith but much more accurately it is not.
It is not the belief in something, it is just a lack of belief in something much as you can't define my lack of belief in unicorns as a faith.
Just because a lot of humans have believed in god's over the millenia does not change this.

As an agnostic, I would consider Atheism to be a faith. It's a definite belief that there no a God. This is taking a premise as fact based on faith in one's own logical reasoning. While I'm inclined to agree that there almost certainly isn't a God, the fact that it's impossible to prove such a negative means I can't completely rule it out.

Tar.Aldarion

Sleepy wrote:

As an agnostic, I would consider Atheism to be a faith. It's a definite belief that there no a God. This is taking a premise as fact based on faith in one's own logical reasoning. While I'm inclined to agree that there almost certainly isn't a God, the fact that it's impossible to prove such a negative means I can't completely rule it out.

As an agnostic, I would not consider Atheism a faith.
There is no need to disprove something that is not proven.
Atheism isn't teh belief there is no god. It is the lack of belief in a God, there is no evidence.
One is not defined by what they do not believe in. I have no belief in dragons. This is not faith. It is a lack of there being proof.
God is just a concept created by man to me.
I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

I would go along these lines somewhat...http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faith.htm

seamus

To pull it back a little, I would prefer that any consitution contained two articles (worded similarly):

1. The state recognises a person's right to choose a religion.

2. The state will protect, by all practicable means, a person's right to practice religion without fear of physical attack or other offences which would hinder the person's ability to practice that religion.

Nothing more, regardless of the number of practicing people.

Sleepy

Assuming the phrase 'by all practicable means' allows for the state to rule things such as Female Genital Mutilation, Unnecessary Circumcision, Animal Sacrifice, etc. to being illegal regardless of religious beliefs I'd agree with that Seamus.

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote:

Assuming the phrase 'by all practicable means' allows for the state to rule things such as Female Genital Mutilation, Unnecessary Circumcision, Animal Sacrifice, etc. to being illegal regardless of religious beliefs

why?
So long as its only carried out on adults who so choose, and the animals are sacrificed without unneccessary suffering.
Torturing of children like this (or any other way) isn't on of course. Same applies to piercing a baby's ears.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Assuming the phrase 'by all practicable means' allows for the state to rule things such as Female Genital Mutilation, Unnecessary Circumcision, Animal Sacrifice, etc. to being illegal regardless of religious beliefs I'd agree with that Seamus.

You solve that by putting "so long as this practice does not infringe on any law or civil right guarranteed by this constitution"

Personally I think its a good idea, if the consititution treats all religions as equal then it would be illegal for the state to favor one over the other and the state would be forced to seperate from religion like it does in the USA

Sleepy

Pretty much what I was thinking of Wicknight.

It's curious (and personally I find it somewhat scary), however, that the USA who have such seperation of church and state enshrined in their constitution are arguably one of the countries where religion holds the most sway in their governance (through the power of the religious right in terms of lobbying power etc.)

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Pretty much what I was thinking of Wicknight.

It's curious (and personally I find it somewhat scary), however, that the USA who have such seperation of church and state enshrined in their constitution are arguably one of the countries where religion holds the most sway in their governance (through the power of the religious right in terms of lobbying power etc.)

The way I look at it is that the US would be so much worse off if they didn't have the protection in the constitution

Bottle_of_Smoke

JustAnother wrote:

Wiccans are polytheists aren't they?
It could be argued that the reference in the preamble to the Constitution discriminates against them.

That was a joke. He was clearly talking about Catholiscm but then sort of changed his argument.

I could have easily used Buddhas, Hindus etc