As atheists and agnostics are you sick of this country and it's mentality?

Xluna

I certainly am.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1129/breaking15.htm


Mr Cowen described the findings of the Murphy Report as "truly shocking and disturbing".

"It is a crushing verdict that the good name and standing of the Church as an institution was placed above the basic safety of children. Where this was facilitated by servants of the State, it was a betrayal of trust and a complete abandoning of duty", Mr Cowen said.

However, stopping short of repeating Friday's call by Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny for bishops implicated in the report to resign, the Taoiseach said it was up to the religious institutions and their members to determine the "appropriateness" of any individual to hold ecclesiastical office.

Mr Madden responded last night and questioned the Taoiseach's view.




"Clearly the undue deference shown to bishops and priests by agencies of the State, as detailed in Murphy Report, is not at all over", he concluded.

5uspect

I think no matter whatever country you go to, in situations like this, the Politicians in opposition will be calling for heads and the ones in power will be walking the tightrope between outrage and damage control.

Bougeoir

Well I think if we got that pack of idiots out of power, i.e. Fianna Fáil and the Greens, then the country may have a chance to reform. At least Enda Kenny stood up and said that right thing, that those bishops ought to resign their positions. How dare Mr. Cowen think that it's purely a "church matter"?! When their positions overlap with the education of children and caring for the sick, then it most certainly is not a church matter. I don't trust the Catholic Church. They are a corrupt, horrible and heinous organisation. Although I've never really supported Fine Gael, I do think they are that slightly bit more progressive and open-minded than FF. In the next general election, I'd like to see a Fine Gael - Labour coalition.

eoin5

The constitution really grinds my gears

Dades

I've more concern what's going to happen in the budget, tbh.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

I certainly am.

Glad to help: Directions

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

Glad to help: Directions

I always love your Christ like posts PDN.... The fact is we should'nt have to leave. We are supposed to be a secular nation,but we are only that in name. In an ideal world it would be people like you leaving to some fundamentalist nation like the bible belt states or if you decide to take your worship of the desert dogmas king of capriciousness to a higher level of intolerance against modern civilized values-Iran.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

I always love your Christ like posts PDN.... The fact is we should'nt have to leave. We are supposed to be a secular nation,but we are only that in name. In an ideal world it would be people like you leaving to some fundamentalist nation like the bible belt states or if you decide to take your worship of the desert dogmas king of capriciousness to a higher level of intolerance against modern civilized values-Iran.

So, when have I ever expressed intolerance of civilized values? You are the one who advocates censorship of stuff that disagrees with your own ideology, not me.

However, I find it revealing that your concept of an ideal world includes banishing those who disagree with you to exile somewhere else. Now, where have I heard of that kind of thing before?

Slugs

My only thoughts on the matter are where are the damn arrests. These people should be in ****ing jail!

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

So, when have I ever expressed intolerance of civilized values? You are the one who advocates censorship of stuff that disagrees with your own ideology, not me.

However, I find it revealing that your concept of an ideal world includes banishing those who disagree with you to exile somewhere else. Now, where have I heard of that kind of thing before?

The old fallacy where atheism equates to facism/communism...:rolleyes:
I advocate censoring a book which indoctrinates children that the will burn for eternity if they don't follow bizarre and incositant social teachings. A book which preaches misogyny,racism,genocide,homophobia,slavery...well you get the idea. Us atheists tend to be a liberal bunch,we love our freedom and are tolerant of others. But it seems like people with similiar mentalities such as yours would be happy if Ireland went back to the days of De Valera and the Bishops ruling the nation with an iron first,when the church were beyond criticism and reproach. Ireland may not be perfect now but I'm sure people such as yourselves still vote conservative in a social context. Just thought you'd be happier somewhere in the Bible belt region.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Glad to help: [URL="[URL]http://www.travelireland.org/irish-airports/dublin_airport.html"]Directions[/URL]

PDN wrote: »

I find it revealing that your concept of an ideal world includes banishing those who disagree with you to exile somewhere else. Now, where have I heard of that kind of thing before?

You heard it from yourself 2 posts before

He also never insinuated that these people would be "banished". But then, I guess you knew that, but understanding it correctly wouldn't of allowed you to draw another one of your laboured parallels between Atheism and Tyranny now would it.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

The old fallacy where atheism equates to facism/communism...:rolleyes:

No, I don't think atheism equates to that at all. But I do think your posts make you sound like an intolerant bigot with pronounced totalitarian tendencies.

I think there are many intelligent, civilised and fair-minded atheists. Just as there are intelligent, civilised and fair-minded Christians. Then, on both sides of the fence, you get the narrow minded stereotyping zealots.

But it seems like people with similiar mentalities such as yours would be happy if Ireland went back to the days of De Valera and the Bishops ruling the nation with an iron first,when the church were beyond criticism and reproach. Ireland may not be perfect now but I'm sure people such as yourselves still vote conservative in a social context. Just thought you'd be happier somewhere in the Bible belt region.

I don't think I've ever posted anything that would indicate anything of the kind. I am a secularist who is delighted that the Catholic Church's moral monopoly has been broken, hopefully forever.

You know nothing about how I vote (Workers' Party when I lived in the North, Labour when I lived in GB, then Green Party & Labour here in the Republic).

As for the Bible Belt, I visit several times a year, and the weather is nice, but I think it would be a pretty awful place to live. Anyway, why should I go and live somewhere else? You're the one who's saying they're fed up with Ireland, not me.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You heard it from yourself 2 posts before

No, that is a total untruth.

The guy was complaining about how fed up he is with Ireland - so I tried to offer a little gentle humor which, quite obviously, is an excuse for him to express his vitriol against a Christian.

And, as I've already said, I made no equation between atheism and tyranny. I don't think one bigoted poster is representative of atheism in general.

krudler

However, I find it revealing that your concept of an ideal world includes banishing those who disagree with you to exile somewhere else. Now, where have I heard of that kind of thing before?

The bible?

lmaopml

Xluna wrote: »

I always love your Christ like posts PDN.... The fact is we should'nt have to leave. We are supposed to be a secular nation,but we are only that in name. In an ideal world it would be people like you leaving to some fundamentalist nation like the bible belt states or if you decide to take your worship of the desert dogmas king of capriciousness to a higher level of intolerance against modern civilized values-Iran.

You seem full of contradictions imo....With very little tolerance. You have an 'ideal' worldview which excludes others......It's kinda obvious that such a situation is NOT ideal. I'd take a very strong hard look at my idealism is I were you...

Sincerely though, so people are different all over the globe.....Whoa, well that's a revelation! Big deal?? It's tolerance and an idealism based on same that will see us through...

...although, you would probably argue your worldview is 'correct'!

I would argue it's narrow, and stinks of fundamentalism and an idealogy that is verging on...

...dare I say..

a Religion.:eek: Sorry sorry, I know there are some really 'nice' agnostic / atheists who hate that 'pin'.....but if it fits to an individual - it fits!

Tolerance is my religion....and freedom and respect.

waitinforatrain

Xluna wrote: »

However, stopping short of repeating Friday's call by Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny for bishops implicated in the report to resign, the Taoiseach said it was up to the religious institutions and their members to determine the "appropriateness" of any individual to hold ecclesiastical office.

Sorry to veer OT a bit, but -- what? Surely these people can be charged with something?

Xluna

lmaopml wrote: »

You seem full of contradictions imo....With very little tolerance. You have an 'ideal' worldview which excludes others......It's kinda obvious that such a situation is NOT ideal. I'd take a very strong hard look at my idealism is I were you...

Sincerely though, so people are different all over the globe.....Whoa, well that's a revelation! Big deal?? It's tolerance and an idealism based on same that will see us through...

...although, you would probably argue your worldview is 'correct'!

I would argue it's narrow, and stinks of fundamentalism and an idealogy that is verging on...

...dare I say..

a Religion.:eek: Sorry sorry, I know there are some really 'nice' agnostic / atheists who hate that 'pin'.....but if it fits to an individual - it fits!

Tolerance is my religion....and freedom and respect.

No,I would just like to exclude those who tend to exclude those based on their religious inclinations and would have the church still being influential in state affairs. Am I intolerant of that?Yes,very much so.

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

You know nothing about how I vote (Workers' Party when I lived in the North, Labour when I lived in GB, then Green Party & Labour here in the Republic).

As for the Bible Belt, I visit several times a year, and the weather is nice, but I think it would be a pretty awful place to live. Anyway, why should I go and live somewhere else? You're the one who's saying they're fed up with Ireland, not me.

Perhaps I got a wrong interpretation of your social outlook PDN. However,when you made that (seemingly) sarcastic post in a thread which was based around a rant of the remnants of church and state back scratching it was not that unreasonable for me to come to such a conclusion.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

Perhaps I got a wrong interpretation of your social outlook PDN. However,when you made that (seemingly) sarcastic post in a thread which was based around a rant of the remnants of church and state back scratching it was not that unreasonable for me to come to such a conclusion.

It was unreasonable. I make the airport suggestion to anyone who whines about how horrible their country is. I don't care if the complaining is based on Thierry Henry's handball, church and state, or because they are upset that the recession has made them slightly less wealthy.

I guess my visits to poverty stricken parts of the world (I'm off this afternoon to rural Nigeria) gives me a low tolerance for those in the west who, because of accident of birth, live an incredibly privileged lifestyle in comparison to most of humanity, who live in an age where we have more freedoms than at any other time in history, and yet complain about how hard done by they are.

Then again, it might just be because I'm a grumpy old man.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No we're not, the catholic church has no special place in this country and hasn't since the 70's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

No, that is a total untruth.

No it isn't. You're wrong. Totally.

PDN wrote: »

The guy was complaining about how fed up he is with Ireland - so I tried to offer a little gentle humor which, quite obviously, is an excuse for him to express his vitriol against a Christian.

I agree. My issue is that you then proceeded to understand his similarly toned reply as stating that he wished to banish the religious from the country, which was completely wrong on your part and utterly despicable to knowingly do so. He, in the same sense that you offered he leave if he doesn't like it here, recommended that you should be the one leaving instead.

PDN wrote: »

I don't think one bigoted poster is representative of atheism in general.

I agree, and thankfully one bigoted Christian also isn't representative of Christianity, in general.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

achtungbarry

Xluna wrote: »

The old fallacy where atheism equates to facism/communism...:rolleyes:.

There is one huge glaring point that those who point to evil regimes that were oficially atheist when either defending their chosen religion against charges that it incites violence or simply labelling atheism as evil.

The crusades, the inquisition, the violent wiping out of native beliefs/cultures in conquered colonies, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, modern day Christian terrorism (The National Liberation Front of Tripura, KKK, Army of God, The Lambs of Christ)all carried/carriy out violent acts specifically in the name of religion.*

*not ignoring other factors of course. eg. race/politics but in all cases religion is a huge motivating and contributing factor.

Regimes that were/are officially atheist eg. Soviet Union, North Korea,China did/do not carry out acts of violence in the name of atheism. These terrible acts were/are carried out in the name of their chosen political ideology (communism, facism etc) and above all as a way of holding on to and consolidating power.

It is dishonest or maybe just uninformed to continually compare acts carried out by officially atheist regimes in the name of their ideologies and desire to cling on to power with acts carried out specifically in the name of religion.

Yes, religious groups were wrongly persecuted under these regimes but only because they represented a threat to order and provided potential opposition as they did (admirably) in the likes of Poland. In other (usually right wing) regimes like Franco's, there was no need to surpress the Catholic Church (in this case) as they proved to be willing and useful allies to the regime.

I rarely get involved in religious debates anymore (like banging head against wall) but it annoys me to see this fallacy trotted out time and time again.



As to the original point, I would love to see a new constitution with true seperation of religious and state affairs, where decisions are made not on the basis of a person's religious convictions or because of a religious institution's influence but on common sense and reason. I can't see it happening though.

I have lived in a country with a true church/state seperation and the difference in the level of social advancement was shocking if refreshing.

I will say that at least in Ireland I am free be an atheist without too much in the way of discrimination in a way that would not be possible in other countries.

Sam Vimes

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

[/quote]
Which god? Whose god? I pay homage to the great ju ju under the sea myself

robindch

PDN wrote: »

You are the one who advocates censorship of stuff that disagrees with your own ideology, not me.

Not completely true.

PDN wrote: »

I don't think one bigoted poster is representative of atheism in general.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I agree, and thankfully one bigoted Christian also isn't representative of Christianity, in general.

Folks -- calling people bigots simply because they disagree with you does nothing for the tone of the forum.

Do try to avoid it.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh right, I hadn't read the whole thing. I knew there were some references to the sky fairy in our constitution but I had no idea it was that bad. This country really is a backwards sh!thole that needs to enter the 20th century, never mind the 21st. I'm just glad that those references are for all intents and purposes ignored nowadays.

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

calling people bigots simply because they disagree with you does nothing for the tone of the forum.

Agreed. I find however that PDN only seems to get a slap on the wrist by mods here when someone uses his obtuse style of insults against him.

Anyway. On topic, I am of the opinion that the prevalent religiosity, acquiescence to the Church (by atheists and theists alike) and general apathy towards government are symptoms of a problem not a cause. There are a myriad of areas of our society and culture here in Ireland that need to be reimagined first and foremost.

A direct assault on removing Religious influence from control in this country will not work if you don't, first, examine why it is, the majority do not have a problem with this Religious control prevailing.

Mark Hamill

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps such values would be too much to expect of the OP's "more socially advanced nation" :P[/QUOTE]

They are obviously too much to expect in this country, what with state funded schools allowed to discriminate based on religion, and the current ruling government afraid to do to the church what they would have no problem doing to any other non-religious organisation investigatesd as heavily for child abuse.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

There is one huge glaring point that those who point to evil regimes that were oficially atheist when either defending their chosen religion against charges that it incites violence or simply labelling atheism as evil.

The crusades, the inquisition, the violent wiping out of native beliefs/cultures in conquered colonies, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, modern day Christian terrorism (The National Liberation Front of Tripura, KKK, Army of God, The Lambs of Christ)all carried/carriy out violent acts specifically in the name of religion.*

*not ignoring other factors of course. eg. race/politics but in all cases religion is a huge motivating and contributing factor.

Regimes that were/are officially atheist eg. Soviet Union, North Korea,China did/do not carry out acts of violence in the name of atheism. These terrible acts were/are carried out in the name of their chosen political ideology (communism, facism etc) and above all as a way of holding on to and consolidating power.

It is dishonest or maybe just uninformed to continually compare acts carried out by officially atheist regimes in the name of their ideologies and desire to cling on to power with acts carried out specifically in the name of religion.

Yes, religious groups were wrongly persecuted under these regimes but only because they represented a threat to order and provided potential opposition as they did (admirably) in the likes of Poland. In other (usually right wing) regimes like Franco's, there was no need to surpress the Catholic Church (in this case) as they proved to be willing and useful allies to the regime.

I rarely get involved in religious debates anymore (like banging head against wall) but it annoys me to see this fallacy trotted out time and time again.



As to the original point, I would love to see a new constitution with true seperation of religious and state affairs, where decisions are made not on the basis of a person's religious convictions or because of a religious institution's influence but on common sense and reason. I can't see it happening though.

I have lived in a country with a true church/state seperation and the difference in the level of social advancement was shocking if refreshing.

I will say that at least in Ireland I am free be an atheist without too much in the way of discrimination in a way that would not be possible in other countries.

Actually the huge glaring point is that no-one in this thread had pointed to such regimes at all. It was just a typical diversionary tactic. I pointed out the intolerance evident in the postings of one individual and they tried to evade it with the "You're just saying that because I'm atheist" crap.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Not completely true.

So, moderating a forum on boards.ie in compliance with the Charter in order to meet the needs of the regular posters (as requested by the Admins) is now equivalent to advocating censorship in society as a whole? I think that's what is known as 'jumping the shark'.

Folks -- calling people bigots simply because they disagree with you does nothing for the tone of the forum.

Do try to avoid it.

I assure you that I have not called anyone a bigot simply because they disagree with me. I have called someone a bigot because they advocate censoring stuff they don't like on ideological grounds (dishonestly pretending that it is on moral grounds) and because they would like to see those of us who fail to share their ideology banished to another part of the world.

In contrast, I point anyone to the airport who moans about how hard done by they are in getting to live in a wealthy western democracy. I don't care whether they are scientologists, atheists, baptists, agnostics or muslims.

However, I apologise if I have lowered the high tone of this forum.

Mark Hamill

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

A direct assault on removing Religious influence from control in this country will not work if you don't, first, examine why it is, the majority do not have a problem with this Religious control prevailing.

I believe its because of the odd balance between church power and the generic relgious beliefs of the masses. The church has little enough direct power in most peoples minds (nothing compared to the dominating tyranny of 60 or more years ago) while most people who call themselves "catholic" in the census, would barely be even be a basic christian. The problem with this is that the current power of the church has no baring on most peoples lives because most people arent effected by the few cases where the church can flex its muscles, most notably in the school system, (because most people get their kids babtised for the day out, rather than the religious meaning, they arent effect by the discriminatory admissions policy in most schools, that most wouldn't even know about).
Things like the ryan report are battling the lazy-mindedness of the current pick-and-choose type catholics there are nowadys (they dont have to worry about the church telling them to do anything, while the generic idea of a god is a nice safety blanket against having to actually think about their existence) by forcing people to actually examine the role of the church in their everyday lifes. I fear it is still an uphill struggle.

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Actually the huge glaring point is that no-one in this thread had pointed to such regimes at all.

Fair point where this thread is concerned but it does seem to be one of your favourite topics. You do like bringing up the old "atheist" regimes thing quite a lot. I guess I'll just have to wait till you bring it up again

I think it may even be called PDN's law at this stage :pac:

As far as this thread is concerned point taken.

PDN wrote: »

It was just a typical diversionary tactic. I pointed out the intolerance evident in the postings of one individual and they tried to evade it with the "You're just saying that because I'm atheist" crap.

Why so aggresive? Is it really neccessary to be so aggressive to get your point across. I probably agree with you on more points than either of us would like to admit (your voting patterns for example) but that confrontational style puts me and others off.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

However, I apologise if I have lowered the high tone of this forum.

That's 10 Hail Mary's right there, young man.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

Why so aggresive? Is it really neccessary to be so aggressive to get your point across. I probably agree with you on more points than either of us like to admit (your voting patterns for example) but that confrontational style puts me and others off.

Probably the main reason for my 'aggression' is that I'm still pissed off by Arsenal losing so badly yesterday.

Sam Vimes

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

An I sincerely hope that it is and remains to be ignored for exactly the same reasons that I hope the contents of the qu'ran and dianetics are ignored. They all derive their authority from beings for whose existence there is no proof. I don't think the primitive scrawlings of ancient Israelites have much place in 21st century Ireland

krudler

I assure you that I have not called anyone a bigot simply because they disagree with me. I have called someone a bigot because they advocate censoring stuff they don't like on ideological grounds

Which you do quite frequently in your modding

asdasd

We are supposed to be a secular nation,

No we're not.

In an ideal world it would be people like you leaving to some fundamentalist nation like the bible belt states

and

I have lived in a country with a true church/state seperation and the difference in the level of social advancement was shocking if refreshing.

That would be the bible belt States then? Which are constitutionally secular, as read by the Supreme court anyway. ( although I think the US clause is based on disestablishment, not scularism).

That said. The US. The Bible belts. Great place for secular public schools.

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Probably the main reason for my 'aggression' is that I'm still pissed off by Arsenal losing so badly yesterday.

Well I guess that is fair. Football can have that effect.

I should know, I have a French wife. Imagine the craic in our place after "that" goal. This close to divorce I tell you.....:D

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

So, moderating a forum on boards.ie in compliance with the Charter in order to meet the needs of the regular posters (as requested by the Admins) is now equivalent to advocating censorship in society as a whole? I think that's what is known as 'jumping the shark'.

I would call it an accurate description. The censorship you employ on your forum is equivilent to the censorship you and yours (try) to employ in society in that in both cases the purpose of the censorship is not to protect the masses from potentially damaging material, but to protect your own ideals and opinions from the tough, but legitimate, questions.

PDN wrote: »

I assure you that I have not called anyone a bigot simply because they disagree with me. I have called someone a bigot because they advocate censoring stuff they don't like on ideological grounds (dishonestly pretending that it is on moral grounds) and because they would like to see those of us who fail to share their ideology banished to another part of the world.

Did I miss something? Where did the OP say they wanted to censor something?

PDN wrote: »

In contrast, I point anyone to the airport who moans about how hard done by they are in getting to live in a wealthy western democracy. I don't care whether they are scientologists, atheists, baptists, agnostics or muslims.

Why? Is this democracy perfect? Should people not always strive to improve things, no matter what they already have? Pointing out the crap that happens in this country isn't an implication that its the worst thing that has ever happened ever just like me complaining about my sore foot isn't me trying to say its the worst injury to happen to anyone ever. Such reasoning, "quit complaining, there are worse off than you" is generally used by the people the complaining is being done about and serves no purpose besides to try and remove the blame from their shoulders.

achtungbarry

asdasd wrote: »

That would be the bible belt States then? Which are constitutionally secular, as read by the Supreme court anyway. ( although I think the US clause is based on disestablishment, not scularism).

I think the bold print sums it up. Officially secular but in reality.... no not really.

It was France by the way.

I did find the religion/state seperation refreshing however I do think the banning of religious symbols was going a bit too far.

I am all for keeping religion out of state affairs but I have no problem with somebody wearing a cross or scarf at school as long as it is their choice.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

Well I guess that is fair. Football can have that effect.

I should know, I have a French wife. Imagine the craic in our place after "that" goal. This close to divorce I tell you.....:D

Can an atheist still call that goal a main de dieu incident?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

I pointed out the intolerance evident in the postings of one individual and they tried to evade it with the "You're just saying that because I'm atheist" crap.

What is the OP intollerant of?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I would call it an accurate description. The censorship you employ on your forum is equivilent to the censorship you and yours (try) to employ in society in that in both cases the purpose of the censorship is not to protect the masses from potentially damaging material, but to protect your own ideals and opinions from the tough, but legitimate, questions.

Normally we avoid discussing the moderating of one forum in another forum, but on this occasion it was started by an A&A mod so I will respond.

First off, I have never tried to employ censorship in society. So that is your first lie.

Secondly, I've yet to see you come up with any tough but legitimate questions.

Thirdly, the Christianity forum is, at the request of the boards.ie Admins, a place where Christians can discuss issues without continual interruption from those who simply want to pick fights. You just get upset because a moderator actually enforces the Charter rather than letting you spread whatever crap you want round the place.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So, moderating a forum on boards.ie in compliance with the Charter in order to meet the needs of the regular posters (as requested by the Admins) is now equivalent to advocating censorship in society as a whole?

Changing a forum's charter to prohibit the expression of harmless ideas is not only advocating censorship, but actively implementing it.

However, this is a discussion that's probably best kept in Help Desk or somewhere similar.

PDN wrote: »

However, I apologise if I have lowered the high tone of this forum.

Apology accepted and your ten Hail Mary's are herewith reduced to zero.

Now folks, back on topic, please!

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Changing a forum's charter to prohibit the expression of harmless ideas is not only advocating censorship, but actively implementing it.Apology accepted.

You're saying that it was me who changed the Charter?

asdasd

I think the bold print sums it up. Officially secular but in reality.... no not really.

I meant that the Supreme court read too much into the disestablishment clause.

The US is a legally secular society. Try and get a publically funded Christian school, or even host a religious event in a public space, or put up anything religious on pulic grounds - like a cross, and you are in trouble.

In fact most Irish atheists who are demanding that we "modernise" are basing their ideas on the US, we are influenced by the Anglo speaking world and most of the rest of it has the Quenn as head of State and church.

( Case in point the idea that the French go "too far" with the banning of religious symbols and scarfs in school. Seems reasonable enough interpretation of secularism to me).

Anyway what all this proves is that legal secularims tells you nothing about how actually religious a society is, in fact imposing strict De Jure secularism probably inflames religious passions.

That's the law of unintended consequences right there.

krudler

Thirdly, the Christianity forum is, at the request of the boards.ie Admins, a place where Christians can discuss issues without continual interruption from those who simply want to pick fights. You just get upset because a moderator actually enforces the Charter rather than letting you spread whatever crap you want round the place.

People get upset because you're free to spout whatever religious arguments you want in here, but anyone who questions or criticises anything in the christianity forum gets their posts deleted, and pobably infracted or banned, "believe or gtfo" being the theme, which is a very christian way of looking at things when you think about it