"We are a Catholic country"

Celly Smunt

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I don't know any better rolemodel for living than bono, and if I seek to aspire to be more like Him, what exactly is wrong with this?

fyp

RobbieTheRobber

diddledum wrote: »

I'm sure most of us are aware of the implications of the Beatitudes and they mainly refer to the downtrodden/destitute. You can choose your own interpretation for the word meek in this instance, but the inference, no matter how you choose to spin it is that, it's really okay to be the 'little guy' as your salvation is waiting for you when you're gone from this life.

The reason I find it damaging is that it has the power to stifle the human spirit, aspirations and to some degree hold promising people back. Indeed it is seen by some as a virtue to be downtrodden and this on it's own can ultimately be your ticket to heaven.

Unlike some of the Bible and scriptures which have largely been abandoned or for whatever reason are not promoted any more, the Beatitudes are still thought in schools and preached about in Church.

Im not even a practising catholic but i think your wrong on your use of the word meek in this sentence and my reason for believing that would be of the seven virtues ie the opposite of the vices and two of them happen to be humilty and patience which funnily enough are two of the words from the definition i would assume this sentence is using for meek.

Lumen

Jakkass wrote: »

People should have the free choice to decide what they are to believe....The State has no business in determining what people believe

So, you'll support the church handing back all the schools it "owns" to the state?

I_AmThe_Walrus

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I don't know any better rolemodel for living than Jesus, and if I seek to aspire to be more like Him, what exactly is wrong with this?

Why would you have Jesus as a role-model?

A man who asked those who followed his evil circus (if he even existed) and put aside their own thinking to have unquestionable faith in something he could not prove?

Either A) He was a madman or He is a fictitious character made up by those with an agenda. Nothing about the accounts of Jesus are evident today..not even his disciples can agree on him. Surely there are far better people out there you could choose.

And society would be better off without religion. Morality doesn't come from religion, it precedes it. I want to learn about the world I live in, you're choosing to accept that you need not understand it.

philologos

Lumen wrote: »

So, you'll support the church handing back all the schools it "owns" to the state?

I support faith schools & secular schools.

I.E - Christian (RCC, CofI, Presbyterian etc.), Islamic, Jewish, Hindu and so on schools where there is appropriate demand, and secular schools.

This is the reason why I said what Educate Together are doing in Lucan in terms of expanding parental choice for secular schooling is overall a good thing.

I don't support banning faith schools. I don't believe these "determine" what people believe. People have the liberty of choice to decide what they believe for themselves on every step of the way.

Lumen

Jakkass wrote: »

I support faith schools & secular schools.

I.E - Christian (RCC, CofI, Presbyterian etc.), Islamic, Jewish, Hindu and so on schools where there is appropriate demand, and secular schools.

This is the reason why I said what Educate Together are doing in Lucan in terms of expanding parental choice for secular schooling is overall a good thing.

I don't support banning faith schools. I don't believe these "determine" what people believe. People have the liberty of choice to decide what they believe for themselves on every step of the way.

I don't support banning faith schools either, I just don't believe that they should receive taxpayer funding.

Catholicism can be taught effectively in a non-denominational/multi-faith school owned and run by the State.

The system as it exists currently is discriminatory, as I documented earlier on the thread.

philologos

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Why would you have Jesus as a role-model?

Simply, Jesus is the prime example of human behaviour. A cornerstone of ethics, and faithfulness to the Father. A man who died in my place so that I might not have to.

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

A man who asked those who followed his evil circus (if he even existed) and put aside their own thinking to have unquestionable faith in something he could not prove?

I think we're skewing up what Christians claim to believe here. Most Christians would hold, and indeed the New Testament accounts put across the view that the disciples were convinced by Jesus' ministry.

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Either A) He was a madman or He is a fictitious character made up by those with an agenda. Nothing about the accounts of Jesus are evident today..not even his disciples can agree on him. Surely there are far better people out there you could choose.

There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. As for "not even his disciples can agree on him", what exactly do you mean?

There are actually four options:
A) Jesus was a madman,
Jesus was a liar,
C) Jesus didn't exist,
D) Jesus was who He said He was.

I'm convinced by D, just as the Apostles were. That's why I believe and trust in Him.

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

And society would be better off without religion. Morality doesn't come from religion, it precedes it. I want to learn about the world I live in, you're choosing to accept that you need not understand it.

I personally believe if more people genuinely put God first that society would be a better place.

ejmaztec

I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »

Of course it says more about me than you.

I believe that every person has the right to live which is in direct opposition to what is stated in Islam. Tell the families of those who lost their lives in the WTC if justice was seen? Without religion there would be less hate, ridicule, oppression, class, poverty, racism, tribal attitudes, homophobia and ignorance.

I want a free society. Society is not free with religion.

Tell the people where they came from, that there is no heaven, that everyone is equal and has rights, that there is no hell and that those who, during history chose to benefit mankind were truly wonderful people not sent from heaven.

I think you just want a soap-box.

philologos

Lumen wrote: »

I don't support banning faith schools either, I just don't believe that they should receive taxpayer funding.

I think they should, and that's probably the difference.

Lumen wrote: »

Catholicism can be taught effectively in a non-denominational/multi-faith school owned and run by the State.

I'm sure it can. Children can't experience Catholicism in a secular school though. Just as children cannot experience Islam, Judaism, and other forms of Christianity. The point of a faith school is to allow children to experience a particular faith and to allow people to decide for themselves based on that experience at a later date.

Lumen wrote: »

The system as it exists currently is discriminatory, as I documented earlier on the thread.

In what way?

I can agree in some respects:
1) Baptism certificates should not be required to enter a faith school.
2) Preference should not be given to anyone of any particular faith.

Other than these 2, I don't see any issue with faith schools overall.

Boxoffrogs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Im not even a practising catholic but i think your wrong on your use of the word meek in this sentence and my reason for believing that would be of the seven virtues ie the opposite of the vices and two of them happen to be humilty and patience which funnily enough are two of the words from the definition i would assume this sentence is using for meek.

You're free to take your own interpretation, however, you have chosen the most flattering one, there are many negative connotations, however, no matter what way you interpret this one word, it does not alter the central theme.

Meek:
- Quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive
I used to call her Miss Mouse because she was so meek and mild
-the meek compliance of our politicians

The only line I find in any way edifying (like I might do in any kind of story telling) is: Blessed are the Peacemakers.

philologos

diddledum - This is the reason why you have the liberty:
1) Not to go to any church.
2) To send your child to one of the 5 Educate Together schools in the Lucan / Adamstown area. (one of the best serviced areas in the entire country)

I_AmThe_Walrus

Jakkass wrote: »

Simply, Jesus is the prime example of human behaviour. A cornerstone of ethics, and faithfulness to the Father. A man who died in my place so that I might not have to.

A man who died for our sins, resurrected and can now be eaten in the form of a cracker? Moreover, I wouldn't call Jesus a prime example of human behaviour for the simple fact that I don't believe in magic.

I think we're skewing up what Christians claim to believe here. Most Christians would hold, and indeed the New Testament accounts put across the view that the disciples were convinced by Jesus' ministry.

I'm sure they were convinced. That doesn't put light on the fact they were manipulated.

There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. As for "not even his disciples can agree on him", what exactly do you mean?

There are actually four options:
A) Jesus was a madman,
Jesus was a liar,
C) Jesus didn't exist,
D) Jesus was who He said He was.

I'm convinced by D, just as the Apostles were. That's why I believe and trust in Him.

The gospels are a mass mess of contradiction. There is no historical account of a population count around the time of Jesus' birth although the prophecy says the messiah would be born in Nazareth which coincidentally is where Jesus was born although he was given life (if he existed) within a weeks journey of the city. :rolleyes:

I personally believe if more people genuinely put God first that society would be a better place.

I disagree. Religion teaches us that those who do not believe in God must be killed. Is this what you believe in and if it is, then I shudder to think of putting "hope" and "Earth" in the same sentence.

See bold.

Lumen

Jakkass wrote: »

Children can't experience Catholicism in a secular school though. Just as children cannot experience Islam, Judaism, and other forms of Christianity. The point of a faith school is to allow children to experience a particular faith and to allow people to decide for themselves based on that experience at a later date.

This is simply not true. Have you any experience of secular education? I was educated in a secular school. My religious education lessons covered a variety of faiths. The teacher was "stealth Jewish". I studied hard and then chose agnosticism then later atheism, but I was free to choose and had my parents been religious I would probably be so too.

Jakkass wrote: »

1) Baptism certificates should not be required to enter a faith school.
2) Preference should not be given to anyone of any particular faith.

Other than these 2, I don't see any issue with faith schools overall.

Those may appear to be reasonable concessions, but:

(a) Baptism certificates are required as documentary proof of RC status.
(b) Preference is given to catholics, legally so as far as I can tell.
(c) I do not want my children educated in faith schools, I want them educated in secular schools where faith is taught. I do not see how this fails to meet the demands of faithful parents, unless their faith is so fragile that only complete immersion in doctrine is required to make the faith "stick" to their children. Oh, wait...

philologos

I could go sufficiently off topic on that I_AmThe_Walrus (PM me if you want to discuss it further). You're making quite a few assumptions about what I believe as well.

The thread is about the church - state relationship in Ireland.

Wolfe Tone

My religious education lessons covered a variety of faiths.

In second level schools they do. Mine did, despite my teacher being a priest! haha

aDeener

DB10 wrote: »

The majority are Catholics.

Why don't you watch TV3 news instead of just crying for the sake of it?

The whole country doesn't revolve around you and your "needs". Or "wants" is probably a better way of putting it.

how could you propose that as a solution? - TV3!!! :eek:

philologos

Lumen wrote: »

This is simply not true. Have you any experience of secular education? I was educated in a secular school. My religious education lessons covered a variety of faiths. The teacher was "stealth Jewish". I studied hard and then chose agnosticism then later atheism, but I was free to choose and had my parents been religious I would probably be so too.

If you studied the State curriculum, yes you would have learned about certain faiths. The point of faith schools isn't to just learn about a faith, it is to experience a faith as well. There is a difference between learning about Christianity, and experiencing Christianity.

Lumen wrote: »

Those may appear to be reasonable concessions, but:

(a) Baptism certificates are required as documentary proof of RC status.
(b) Preference is given to catholics, legally so as far as I can tell.
(c) I do not want my children educated in faith schools, I want them educated in secular schools where faith is taught. I do not see how this fails to meet the demands of faithful parents, unless their faith is so fragile that only complete immersion in doctrine is required to make the faith "stick" to their children. Oh, wait...

Read my posts again. I believe that these are all things that need to be changed.

A) They shouldn't be required.
No preference should be given.
C) You can apply to bring your children to a secular school instead.

Boxoffrogs

Jakkass wrote: »

diddledum - This is the reason why you have the liberty:
1) Not to go to any church.
2) To send your child to one of the 5 Educate Together schools in the Lucan / Adamstown area. (one of the best serviced areas in the entire country)

Indeed Jakkass, I am lucky in that regard and thankful that I can.

Up until last year however, my son attended a Catholic primary, it simply would not have been possible for him to travel to the Educate together school and being in sixth class and it being confirmation year, he spent a great deal of time not learning anything, so it's simply not true that the indoctrination of some comes at no cost to others.

I have respect for the rights of Catholics or any other faith to practice their religion in their own time, however it should not impinge on the rights of those who have no faith.

I also do not understand the absolute need to include it as part of the school curriculum. Do people not have enough faith in their children's faith, I mean is it that shaky that it needs to be reinforced at every given opportunity?

I_AmThe_Walrus

aDeener wrote: »

how could you propose that as a solution? - TV3!!! :eek:

I would prescribe a good dose of reality.

philologos

diddledum wrote: »

Up until last year however, my son attended a Catholic primary, it simply would not have been possible for him to travel to the Educate together school and being in sixth class and it being confirmation year, he spent a great deal of time not learning anything, so it's simply not true that the indoctrination of some comes at no cost to others.

Did you live in Lucan or Adamstown during this time?

diddledum wrote: »

I have respect for the rights of Catholics or any other faith to practice their religion in their own time, however it should not impinge on the rights of those who have no faith.

If there are secular alternatives, they aren't impinging on your rights. If the aren't the State needs to work on providing more.

diddledum wrote: »

I also do not understand the absolute need to include it as part of the school curriculum. Do people not have enough faith in their children's faith, I mean is it that shaky that it needs to be reinforced at every given opportunity?

Faith has to be developed. I agree that parents could teach their faith at home, indeed if I ever have children that's what I'd want to do. I think the option should be open to them to bring them to a faith school also.

Donkey Oaty

Back to the original question, it's the "We" in "We are a Catholic country" that gives me the creeps. There's an underlying assumption of religious unity there that "Ireland is a Catholic country" doesn't seem to have.

Or is that just me?

Lumen

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a difference between learning about Christianity, and experiencing Christianity.

I do not understand the distinction, perhaps because I am an atheist. Can you elaborate?

Jakkass wrote: »

Read my posts again. I believe that these are all things that need to be changed.

Ah, OK. Missed that.

Jakkass wrote: »

You can apply to bring your children to a secular school instead.

In principle you can, but when 95% of the schools are owned by the Church it isn't very easy. And making things hard for people is a tool of discrimination, e.g. literacy tests to prevent illiterate black people from voting prior to the US civil rights movement.

philologos

Lumen wrote: »

In principle you can, but when 95% of the schools are owned by the Church it isn't very easy. And making things hard for people is a tool of discrimination, e.g. literacy tests to prevent illiterate black people from voting prior to the US civil rights movement.

It appears that you have missed much more from my posts. I believe that more secular schools need to be provided by the State. I think 92% of schools under the RCC is too much.

Please, please do not make assumptions, it makes it all the more difficult! :pac:

Celly Smunt

"To unite the whole people of Ireland, to abolish the memory of all past dissentions, and to substitute the common name of Irishman, in the place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic, and Dissenter,these were my means."--wolfe tone


End Thread.

Boxoffrogs

Jakkass wrote: »

Did you live in Lucan or Adamstown during this time?

I've never lived in Adamstown although my son will be attending school there soon

Jakkass wrote: »

If there are secular alternatives, they aren't impinging on your rights. If the aren't the State needs to work on providing more.

If faith was removed from schools, we would all be on a level playing field, what could be better than that? Catering for people of all faiths/no faith is getting in very messy territory, not to talk of segregation which is hardly a good thing. And as a country, we simply could not afford to cater for everyone so there would always be some level of discrimination.

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith has to be developed. I agree that parents could teach their faith at home, indeed if I ever have children that's what I'd want to do. I think the option should be open to them to bring them to a faith school also.

But why? Why is that so precious to some people? If you take faith out of schools, how are Catholic children going to be any less Catholic? No matter how you dress it up, as it currently stands, it is just a form of segregation.

everyday taxi

sasser wrote: »

Another discussion about religion on Ray Darcy, and some fool texted in saying “We are a Catholic country”. I have heard this a lot recently and it drives me INSANE. We are not a Catholic country, we are a REPUBLIC. A country doesn’t have a religion anyway, but we are a REPUBLIC!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

How come then probably 90-95 pc of us get baptised, married, and have a church mass when we die?

philologos

diddledum wrote: »

I've never lived in Adamstown although my son will be attending school there soon

Did you live in Lucan? - If so, there were plenty of ET schools around surely?

diddledum wrote: »

If faith was removed from schools, we would all be on a level playing field, what could be better than that? Catering for people of all faiths/no faith is getting in very messy territory, not to talk of segregation which is hardly a good thing. And as a country, we simply could not afford to cater for everyone so there would always be some level of discrimination.

A level playing field could also be provided by allowing all faiths to set up schools where there is demand. I don't see what is so problematic about this.

diddledum wrote: »

But why? Why is that so precious to some people? If you take faith out of schools, how are Catholic children going to be any less Catholic? No matter how you dress it up, as it currently stands, it is just a form of segregation.

It's not about making anyone less Catholic or any other faith, it's about allowing children to learn and experience Catholicism or any other faith while in school.

On a personal level, I would have no problem with bringing any children to a secular school. Indeed, there are some advantages to knowing what exactly your children are being taught about God.

Having said that I went to two Anglican (CofI) schools, one at primary, and another at secondary, and I can't say it was harmful, and indeed I received a good education.

I do believe that people should be allowed the choice to bring their child to a faith school though.

KeithAFC

mickos wrote: »

Quiet a few

Its amazing how protestants are minority.

Min

Countries are often referred to by what is the majority religion/faith.
It is no big deal, they could have texted in Christian country, the word 'Catholic' seems to offend some, usually the people who have no religion. Like on the Mooney show today, it was people of other faiths who didn't have a problem with the Angelus, it was the people who had an issue with religion that had the problem.
I'm sure it is similar in this topic, I have not read it all, due to time constraints....work.

sasser

everyday taxi wrote: »

How come then probably 90-95 pc of us get baptised, married, and have a church mass when we die?

Great a latecomer to the thread who obviously hasn't read through it and is making up their own stats?