Having to go to church: Should I stand?

Feathers

grindle wrote: »

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

& he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

grindle wrote: »

It's a trap that many atheists fall into (including myself on the Internet), and that quote is so true that a majority of atheists now seem to revile any atheist who tells anybody why they're an atheist, even if they've just been asked "Why are you an atheist/Why don't you believe in God?".

…

Hard to hold the tongue at the dinner table when you're being smugly patronised by people who maintain the unfathomable is, in fact, the most fathomable thing they've ever heard someone tell them to believe.

Yeah, definitely one that swings both ways — I'm happy to have a philosophical discussion with people on it, but you get some people who want to slant an argument with the tone "well you're obviously a bit dim if you believe in God" it makes the discussion pointless before you begin.

Czarcasm

ninja900 wrote: »

The FSM is nonsense, that's the point, to get people thinking about how arbitrary religious beliefs are. There is plenty of stuff in the bible more ridiculous than the FSM.

Well, not childish in general but it can be. I wouldn't use that sort of terminology to a believer if I thought it would offend them. Offending people only puts people on the defensive about their beliefs anyway and makes them closed to other ideas.

Tbh though ninja, and with all due respect, stuff like that doesn't get me thinking about my beliefs (I'm only speaking for myself), it gets me thinking "Is this a serious discussion or are we just descending into silliness?". It wouldn't offend me personally in the slightest, but it is offensive to my eardrums!

ninja900 wrote: »

So that means no 'atheists have no morals', 'there is no real love without god', 'atheists are doomed to eternal torment', 'atheists' lives are meaningless' etc. crap we so often hear. I wish other theists would copy your example!

I may be catholic, but I'm not a COMPLETE numpty, unlike my parents who were pretentiously "devout" catholics, I use inverted commas because they were as far removed from the catholic ethos as one could be, no tolerance or understanding whatsoever, but they'd still do the whole going through the motions for fear of what the neighbours might think of them. At least I TRY and live somewhat by the catholic ethos, as opposed to just sounding off about it, and for the most part I keep my beliefs to myself, while at the same time not letting them define me as a person, if that makes sense?

ninja900 wrote: »

I want to be antagonistic towards the fake, cultural catholic, fit in, be seen at mass, practices so many people hold and their passive acceptance of church control of education and health and the deeply malign influence of religion and sectarianism on our society in general.
I am extremely antagonistic towards the RCC for its many heinous abuses and continued failure to do what they instruct their followers to do - confess, repent, and make amends.

Well you won't get any argument from me there, I actually agree with you about the fake cultural catholics and passive acceptance of a system which they WANT to change, yet still will send their child to a catholic ethos school because it's convenient for them to do so, or allow themselves to be treated in a catholic ethos hospital because it's convenient for them to do so.

I wouldnt be so antagonistic towards the RCC as much as I am the hierarchy of the RCC, and the way the hierarchy facilitated such horrendous abuse. Why I separate the RCC and the hierarchy, is because it is only a small minority within the RCC hierarchy that facilitated this abuse, and not the many followers or the priests that actually do GOOD work, nor the congregation that gathers for sunday mass and so on.

ninja900 wrote: »

And of course we all know what Irish society thinks of intellectuals :rolleyes: 'that fella is getting above himself'

Ah now, I wouldn't say that, Irish society as a whole, likes to applaud it's intellectuals, look at our president- Michael D, they don't come much more intellectual than that, and there was David Norris who many consider an intellectual (although my own personal opinion is that he's a bit of a waffler!), he could've been president had it not been for those letters, and then his "I'm in, I'm out, I'm in again" antics during the election campaign.

ninja900 wrote: »

Which generation is 'this generation' ?
There are people posting here who are quite a bit older than you. There are people posting here a good bit younger than you too.

Well I'm 36 and when I was younger, as I stated, I didn't come across too many atheists, there were a few, but now there are many more I am exposed to, simply I suppose by virtue of the fact that for the last 15 years there has been story after story of catholic abuse scandals and many people are turning against the catholic church in their droves and seeing atheism as a way to make a point of voicing their disgust at the catholic church. It almost comes across like it's the "cool thing to do" nowadays, whereas before, atheists were simply atheists because they didn't believe in a deity and there really wasn't any more to it. There wasn't the same hostility towards a belief in a deity as there is nowadays.

ninja900 wrote: »

So what. People have their own reasons for holding the views they do about religion whether positive or negative. Having a negative view of religion is not about being childish, or rebellious, or a 'pseudo-intellectual'. There is something very smug and judgemental about the term 'pseudo-intellectual' or 'faux intellectual' anyway.

You're right, having a negative view of religion isn't about any of those things, and I would be fine with that if a person wanted to have a mature discussion on the subject, but as Dades mentioned earlier, there are atheists, and then there are the anti-theists, who DO come off as smug, faux-intellectuals, and are incredibly judgemental of those who believe in a deity.

To bring the discussion back on point- I'm not saying my beliefs are right or wrong, but they are what's right for ME, as an atheists lack of belief is for them, and what needs to come from BOTH sides is understanding and tolerance, and not just sky fairy this, spaceship that, or burning in hell and heathens, etc, and actually learning to respect each other as people, so that even if you cannot respect their beliefs, you can still hold yourself back from making a mockery of them and purposely going out of your way to do what you feel is showing them the fallacy of their ways.

If you don't believe in a deity, then a few meaningless gestures in a building is all it is, you don't have to respect the religion, but you could at least rein it in for forty minutes and do some pilates and show some respect for the other people there, the same way as you would expect people to show you respect at any occasion you might hold (nobody likes the drunk uncle that makes a show if himself at birthdays, etc!).

Hotblack Desiato

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Tbh though ninja, and with all due respect, stuff like that doesn't get me thinking about my beliefs (I'm only speaking for myself), it gets me thinking "Is this a serious discussion or are we just descending into silliness?". It wouldn't offend me personally in the slightest, but it is offensive to my eardrums!

It wouldn't work on actual believers. It might have an effect on the cultural catholics. Our 'outreach mission' :pac: is to the large numbers of cultural catholics, pavlov's dogs with no real faith but a reflexive tradition. The RCC may officially count them but c'mon, they're not likely to turn up at your parish fundraiser are they?

I may be catholic, but I'm not a COMPLETE numpty, unlike my parents who were pretentiously "devout" catholics, I use inverted commas because they were as far removed from the catholic ethos as one could be, no tolerance or understanding whatsoever, but they'd still do the whole going through the motions for fear of what the neighbours might think of them. At least I TRY and live somewhat by the catholic ethos, as opposed to just sounding off about it, and for the most part I keep my beliefs to myself, while at the same time not letting them define me as a person, if that makes sense?

I doubt you'll find any objections to that from anybody here. We want a society where those who choose to believe can do so and those who do not can choose not to and the state will not discriminate on the basis of faith or lack thereof. That is what secularism means, it is not the banning of religion, or forcing atheist views on the children of religious parents. Our child of atheist parents is currently getting the opposite though (school imposed religion) and we have no real choice.

Well you won't get any argument from me there, I actually agree with you about the fake cultural catholics and passive acceptance of a system which they WANT to change, yet still will send their child to a catholic ethos school because it's convenient for them to do so, or allow themselves to be treated in a catholic ethos hospital because it's convenient for them to do so.

It's not a 'convenient' choice, it's a lack of choice. The RCC controls 93% of primary schools. Even if you believe that the census figures are accurate, they're only 84% RCC.

I wouldnt be so antagonistic towards the RCC as much as I am the hierarchy of the RCC, and the way the hierarchy facilitated such horrendous abuse. Why I separate the RCC and the hierarchy, is because it is only a small minority within the RCC hierarchy that facilitated this abuse, and not the many followers or the priests that actually do GOOD work, nor the congregation that gathers for sunday mass and so on.

I wish I could share your faith in the RCC hierarchy. I cannot. There are too many cover-ups and excuses, and ultimately it matters not a jot as they're only puppets of Rome.

Ah now, I wouldn't say that, Irish society as a whole, likes to applaud it's intellectuals, look at our president- Michael D, they don't come much more intellectual than that, and there was David Norris who many consider an intellectual (although my own personal opinion is that he's a bit of a waffler!), he could've been president had it not been for those letters, and then his "I'm in, I'm out, I'm in again" antics during the election campaign.

Both MichaelD and Norris have been ridiculed for being intellectuals.

Well I'm 36 and when I was younger, as I stated, I didn't come across too many atheists, there were a few, but now there are many more I am exposed to, simply I suppose by virtue of the fact that for the last 15 years there has been story after story of catholic abuse scandals and many people are turning against the catholic church in their droves and seeing atheism as a way to make a point of voicing their disgust at the catholic church. It almost comes across like it's the "cool thing to do" nowadays, whereas before, atheists were simply atheists because they didn't believe in a deity and there really wasn't any more to it. There wasn't the same hostility towards a belief in a deity as there is nowadays.

Walking away from the RCC is what many people have done in response to that, but they don't declare themselves as atheists. That's a bigger step for a lot of people, going against what they were brought up in and what family members believe. It was for me, I passively rejected the RCC for many years before I decisively made the break with it and all religion.

You're right, having a negative view of religion isn't about any of those things, and I would be fine with that if a person wanted to have a mature discussion on the subject, but as Dades mentioned earlier, there are atheists, and then there are the anti-theists, who DO come off as smug, faux-intellectuals, and are incredibly judgemental of those who believe in a deity.

How does one define a faux-intellectual?

To bring the discussion back on point- I'm not saying my beliefs are right or wrong, but they are what's right for ME, as an atheists lack of belief is for them, and what needs to come from BOTH sides is understanding and tolerance, and not just sky fairy this, spaceship that, or burning in hell and heathens, etc, and actually learning to respect each other as people, so that even if you cannot respect their beliefs, you can still hold yourself back from making a mockery of them and purposely going out of your way to do what you feel is showing them the fallacy of their ways.

If you don't believe in a deity, then a few meaningless gestures in a building is all it is, you don't have to respect the religion, but you could at least rein it in for forty minutes and do some pilates and show some respect for the other people there, the same way as you would expect people to show you respect at any occasion you might hold (nobody likes the drunk uncle that makes a show if himself at birthdays, etc!).

Well I think most posters here are agreed on that. If you attend then, if not taking part, be respectful. If you have a problem with attending then don't.

robindch

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Does transubstantiation not say that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of christ?

Dades wrote: »

If not - what exactly is the change that happens?

All of this goes back to Aristotelian metaphysics in which things are believed to consist of two basic components. The first is the "substance" of the object which is the essential component which makes the thing belong to the class of things to which it belongs. The second is the "accidents" of the object which are the components which do not make the thing belong to the class of objects to which it belongs.

For example, the "substance" of a chair might be the legs and seat, while the "accidents" might be the design on the seat, the back and whatever else.

In christian theology, the "substance" of the mass-biscuit before transubstantiation is the essential nature of bread which derives from (but isn't) yeast, flour, water etc. While the accidents of the mass-biscuit is its breadiness, crunchiness, dampness, taste etc. Upon being transubstantiated, the "substance" of the mass-biscuit is held to change into physical meat (of Jesus), while the "accidents" remain the same. That's why the mass-biscuit looks the same before as after -- the irrelevant "accidents" that define its physical form and function are unchanged, while its "true" and essential nature as a piece of mass-biscuit have changed from "breadiness" to "Jesusiness". Can't explain this more simply than this.

But as with something else recently, this really is the most atrocious nonsense and I wouldn't expect more than one in five hundred Irish catholics could explain it, and even fewer believe it.

OisinS94

No one should force anyone to do anything. You went to the anniversary mass.... which was enough in my opinion. If you do not follow the religion then you shouldn't have to stand whenever they stand or kneel whenever they kneel.

It's like a bloody cult having everyone stand at the same time, or sit whenever everyone else sits.

Tipsygypsy

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

I have no problem attending Catholic ceremonies when required, weddings, funerals etc. Am happy to stand, sit, shake hands but I do not say the prayer and I do not kneel. I've never once had anyone comment about this, theres loads of people in any mass Ive ever been to who stay seated for the kneeling bits and the communion, its not at all unusual and Im sure its for a variety of differant reasons. I guess most people know that Im not Catholic but see that I like to pay my respects to the dead or wish-well for newlyweds. Others might know that I've had some back trouble, maybe they put it down to that. I would imagine most actual catholics are too busy doing their own praying/kneeling to pay any notice to what Im doing. I sit respectfully and do listen to the priest, I actually find masses very interesting, generally am reassured by the end as to why Im not Catholic.

When it comes to religious ceremony I think people must be allowed do as much or as little as they choose (while being respectful - If you are going to behave in a negative way at all then you should stay away). I would never judge anyone for their chosen level of participaiton in religion/cerremony. Its a personal issue.

To someone who would judge me for not kneeling I would say, I mean no disrespect, but its not my thing, if someone has a problem with that it is exactly that, their problem.

Ive never been asked to be a godparent, I feel it wouldbe hypocritical of me to accept if I did since the ceremony requires you to commit to helping to bring the child up as a catholic and to teach them about god. You promise to denounce Satan etc, you swear this 'before god'. I have been asked to be legal guardian in the event of a childs parents death, the child has other godparents though. I dont know if her parents ever considered asking me to be Godmother. I would have had to have declined, but Im hugely involved in other ways, ways that dont compromise my own personal beliefs or lack there-of.

Czarcasm

ninja900 wrote: »

I doubt you'll find any objections to that from anybody here. We want a society where those who choose to believe can do so and those who do not can choose not to and the state will not discriminate on the basis of faith or lack thereof. That is what secularism means, it is not the banning of religion, or forcing atheist views on the children of religious parents. Our child of atheist parents is currently getting the opposite though (school imposed religion) and we have no real choice.



It's not a 'convenient' choice, it's a lack of choice. The RCC controls 93% of primary schools. Even if you believe that the census figures are accurate, they're only 84% RCC.

This is what I don't get, atheists claim that there are many a la carte catholics in ireland today, but yet the highlighted parts above are a la carte atheists. One ALWAYS has a choice, and if you choose to raise your children as atheists, then you shouldn't be putting them in a school with a catholic ethos if it's what goes against your principles. I understand that atheists want religion done away with in schools, but if the state was to secularize education, it would cost them ridiculous money, and we all know with the current state of the economy, the state is not in a position to purchase the buildings from the church, and can barely manage the capitation grant (I'm actually on the board of management for my son's primary school, and we have to do fundraising every year for repairs, etc that are not covered by grants!).

But there IS a choice, called Educate Together schools, one just fifty yards up the road from me in fact, whereas the catholic primary school my son attends is actually two miles away! My position is that if atheists want to send their child to a school with no religious ethos, I can see how it might present difficulties, but it's not impossible!

As for the census figures, they wouldn't really surprise me tbh, as there are many eastern european and african immigrants who are catholics, and would send their child to a catholic school. By that same token, in my son's school there are multi-denominational students who are not forced to sit in on religion classes or irish. I know from my own experience when I was in secondary school (a christian brothers school), that there was a Jehovah Witness in my class who never had to sit in on religion or irish, but he was taught all other subjects the same as the rest of us.

It just happens that atheism is a relatively new concept for most people, so unfortunately the lack of understanding surrounding a lack of belief in a deity, is a more difficult concept for most people than just a belief in another deity, so as bad as it sounds- atheism is not taken seriously, and is seen (albeit mistakenly!) as a cop-out.

ninja900 wrote: »

Both MichaelD and Norris have been ridiculed for being intellectuals.

Well that was always going to be subjective, but they were just two that came off the top of my head as being in positions of importance in Irish society who weren't actually thought of getting ahead of themselves. I could've mentioned Patrick Pearse, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, but they're related to the arts and they're all dead, and I couldn't think of any scientifically related intellectuals that would've been relevant tbh, though I'm sure there are many (I could've made more of an effort in fairness, as google throws up a few-

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0711/breaking2.html)

ninja900 wrote: »

Walking away from the RCC is what many people have done in response to that, but they don't declare themselves as atheists. That's a bigger step for a lot of people, going against what they were brought up in and what family members believe. It was for me, I passively rejected the RCC for many years before I decisively made the break with it and all religion.

This paragraph tbh confuses me, because you mention how it's a bigger step for people to make a break from all religion, and then you mention how you have decisively made the break yourself, but really you haven't when you are still sending your child to a religious school after having them baptized into the catholic church. Tbh I CAN actually understand why you would do this, but then you cannot criticise those in the census who have ticked the catholic box, when you perpetuate what you see as the myth. Does that make sense? And then if your child becomes interested in GAA or the scouts, those organisations too are pretty much entrenched with the catholic church and it's ethos, so even outside the educational system, you'll find it hard to avoid the catholic entrenchment in irish society in particular for atheism to get any traction.

ninja900 wrote: »

How does one define a faux-intellectual?

Well that's easy- someone who tries to pass themselves off as being more intelligent than they actually are. I mean, to give you an example-

To an ape, I'm probably Charles Darwin, but to Stephen Hawking, I'm probably an ape, on the intellectual level scale.

Hotblack Desiato

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Czarcasm wrote: »

One ALWAYS has a choice, and if you choose to raise your children as atheists, then you shouldn't be putting them in a school with a catholic ethos if it's what goes against your principles. ... But there IS a choice, called Educate Together schools, one just fifty yards up the road from me in fact

That would be great if I lived where you do, and could get a place. Atheists are automatically bottom of the list at any religious school, and ET go purely by application date so atheist kids born at the wrong time of year can have a hard time getting into any school at all unless there's a surplus of places in their area.
ET make up less than 2% of primary schools, IIRC.

I can see how it might present difficulties, but it's not impossible!

It is impossible for us. There is no ET school within several miles of me (miles through Dublin traffic isn't the same as miles elsewhere) and the existing ET schools are oversubscribed anyway. Just to put a cherry on the top, my wife can't drive at the moment for medical reasons, and I couldn't collect my child from school due to work, even if I did think that keeping a child confined in a car for literally hours every day was a good idea.

This paragraph tbh confuses me, because you mention how it's a bigger step for people to make a break from all religion, and then you mention how you have decisively made the break yourself,

No, I meant they can drift away from RCC practices by just not attending mass, not going to confession, etc. but they can do this without really questioning whether they believe in the existence of a god or not.
There's a big difference between a lapsed Catholic and a former Catholic who is now an atheist.

but really you haven't when you are still sending your child to a religious school after having them baptized into the catholic church.

Two incorrect assumptions there
- my children are not baptised into any religion (incidentally if I've been inconsistent on saying child or children, only one is old enough for school yet)
- the religious school in question is not an RCC one.

And then if your child becomes interested in GAA or the scouts, those organisations too are pretty much entrenched with the catholic church and it's ethos, so even outside the educational system, you'll find it hard to avoid the catholic entrenchment in irish society in particular for atheism to get any traction.

The GAA or any other sporting body would be bang out of order if they pushed religion on kids. I find that a frankly ridiculous thing to suggest.
Scouting organisations used to be divided along religious lines, I believe some still are, but Scouting Ireland is not.

Well that's easy- someone who tries to pass themselves off as being more intelligent than they actually are.

How you do know how intelligent they are?
TBH it sounds like good old fashioned begrudgery, not just an Irish trait either - the Japanese have a good saying, 'the nail that stands proud gets hammered down.'

Czarcasm

The stuff you posted that I just cut out from the quote ninja was a bit personal so I just said I couldn't really comment on it as I didn't have anything to say really and that'd be getting too personal, so I'll just comment on the two bits down the end-

ninja900 wrote: »

The GAA or any other sporting body would be bang out of order if they pushed religion on kids. I find that a frankly ridiculous thing to suggest.
Scouting organisations used to be divided along religious lines, I believe some still are, but Scouting Ireland is not.

The only reason I mention the GAA and the Scouts in this thread is because I was taking the broader view but still trying to stay within the context of the thread, which for me was how atheism could be accomodated within a religious environment.

The GAA still does indeed, well, in the club I and my son are members of anyway, have a religious ethos to it, and I'm not talking a club in the árse end of rural Ireland, I actually live in the heart of the city! They'll usually say a prayer before a match (same again, multi-denominational players do not have to be included).

The Scouts aswel, they say prayers at their meetings and then they'll have a priest at the investiture next week. I'm not too sure though how multi-denominational it is tbh.

ninja900 wrote: »

How you do know how intelligent they are?
TBH it sounds like good old fashioned begrudgery, not just an Irish trait either - the Japanese have a good saying, 'the nail that stands proud gets hammered down.'

I wouldn't begrudge anyone more intelligent than I am, and even reading through this forum there are many posters who I am blown away by the level and depth of their knowledge and how well read they are and how they can articulate themselves so eloquently. I actually admire and aspire to be more like those people in how I can express myself tbh, so begrudery? There are no chips on my shoulders I can assure you, but I do know what you're talking about alright!

Hotblack Desiato

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The stuff you posted that I just cut out from the quote ninja was a bit personal so I just said I couldn't really comment on it as I didn't have anything to say really and that'd be getting too personal, so I'll just comment on the two bits down the end-

It's not just my particular situation, it's the situation of many if not most atheists with kids, or people who just don't agree with religious indoctrination in school.
Few people live close to an ET school, because there are so few of them.
The only real way to address this problem, and treat everyone equally wherever they live, is to make secular education the norm. ET teach religions in the school after hours for those who want it.

They'll usually say a prayer before a match (same again, multi-denominational players do not have to be included).

They should cut that out tbh.
The Dail still starts business with a prayer, as do Credit Union AGMs.. ffs

The Scouts aswel, they say prayers at their meetings and then they'll have a priest at the investiture next week. I'm not too sure though how multi-denominational it is tbh.

Do Scouting Ireland as opposed to any other body, do that?

I wouldn't begrudge anyone more intelligent than I am, and even reading through this forum there are many posters who I am blown away by the level and depth of their knowledge and how well read they are and how they can articulate themselves so eloquently. I actually admire and aspire to be more like those people in how I can express myself tbh, so begrudery? There are no chips on my shoulders I can assure you, but I do know what you're talking about alright!

OK so when you call someone a faux-intellectual do you have any rational basis for doing so, or is it perhaps because you don't like them or what they are saying.

Czarcasm

ninja900 wrote: »

It's not just my particular situation, it's the situation of many if not most atheists with kids, or people who just don't agree with religious indoctrination in school.
Few people live close to an ET school, because there are so few of them.
The only real way to address this problem, and treat everyone equally wherever they live, is to make secular education the norm. ET teach religions in the school after hours for those who want it.

They should cut that out tbh.
The Dail still starts business with a prayer, as do Credit Union AGMs.. ffs

The only time I think this will be achieved though ninja is when atheism gets more recognition, and I can't see that happening within our generation, as catholicism is far too ingrained in Irish society, but could it happen in the next generation, our children's generation? Possibly, though far more likely in our grandchildren's generation.

ninja900 wrote: »

Do Scouting Ireland as opposed to any other body, do that?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, as I thought there was only one scouting body tbh? I don't know about other lodges and what not or how they handle the whole religious element.

ninja900 wrote: »

OK so when you call someone a faux-intellectual do you have any rational basis for doing so, or is it perhaps because you don't like them or what they are saying.

I don't know how rational you'll think this is, but for me a faux intellectual is somebody who are completely opposed to any criticism of their opinion as if theirs is the be all and end all, their opinion is infallible and beyond argument and really the way they come across as if you should just accept their opinion and shut up, if you get me? The way they come across really, arrogant as such. I have no problem with someone having an opinion who are qualified to hold that opinion, such as stephen hawking talking about physics, but what I'm talking about is your average johnny know-it-all who thinks their opinion is the only one that matters and they will get very defensive and aggressive about it.

Dades

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Czarcasm wrote: »

This is what I don't get, atheists claim that there are many a la carte catholics in ireland today, but yet the highlighted parts above are a la carte atheists. One ALWAYS has a choice, and if you choose to raise your children as atheists, then you shouldn't be putting them in a school with a catholic ethos if it's what goes against your principles.

Spoken like someone whose religion holds all the cards.

My local school is so oversubscribed there is no chance in hell my daughter would get a place next year if she wasn't baptised (my wife is RC, btw). The nearest ET is a couple of miles away against the traffic, and all her friends will be going to the local school. This "choice" you envisage is a nonsense for a lot of hard-working, time-poor families.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I understand that atheists want religion done away with in schools

No they don't. Atheists lack belief in gods. Non-Catholics just want the option to go to their local taxpayer-funded school without having to put their kids through a false supernatural ceremony to get them in. And many of us would like their kids to be educated about ALL religions rather than about only one as fact.

I'm now party to dragging this thread off topic but I couldn't help myself.

Czarcasm

Dades wrote: »

Spoken like someone whose religion holds all the cards.

My local school is so oversubscribed there is no chance in hell my daughter would get a place next year if she wasn't baptised (my wife is RC, btw). The nearest ET is a couple of miles away against the traffic, and all her friends will be going to the local school. This "choice" you envisage is a nonsense for a lot of hard-working, time-poor families.

Well just where I was coming from with that Dades was that well, to use your expression- catholics didn't always hold all the cards in Ireland, we used have hedge schools. They're not practical nowadays obviously, but if anti-theists do not want their children educated in a catholic school, then they should set up their own schools, like the way hedge schools were set up back then.

Dades wrote: »

No they don't. Atheists lack belief in gods. Non-Catholics just want the option to go to their local taxpayer-funded school without having to put their kids through a false supernatural ceremony to get them in. And many of us would like their kids to be educated about ALL religions rather than about only one as fact.

I'm now party to dragging this thread off topic but I couldn't help myself.

I'm not so sure about having to have the kids go through a false supernatural ceremony to get them in, actually applies any more tbh, otherwise you wouldn't have multi-denominations in a catholic ethos school. I think it more goes on catchment area now but I will admit I'm not overly familiar with the enrty criteria for individual schools.

I think if you were to try though and educate children in ALL religions (how many different faiths are there? thousands?), it could take time away from other subjects like maths, languages, etc. It's a hard one to call as some people want no religion in schools, some people want all religions to be taught in schools. My own personal view on it is that it wouldn't bother me to send my child to a secular school, as I would teach him my faith at home myself (my wife is a lapsed catholic!). If he was interested in learning about other religions then, I'd leave that up to himself. Actually now I think of it- one of my friends a few years ago, I don't know were his parents atheist, but he was never baptised, but he went through the catholic school system and had at 17 decided to convert to the bahai faith!

Anyway, I hadn't meant to drag this thread so far off topic, but I appreciate you having left it open for discussion!

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

From what I can tell most believers don't feel disrespected by having guests in their churches. Some regard it as an opportunity to share about the Gospel with others.

...yiz have been warned.

Dades

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well just where I was coming from with that Dades was that well, to use your expression- catholics didn't always hold all the cards in Ireland, we used have hedge schools. They're not practical nowadays obviously, but if anti-theists do not want their children educated in a catholic school, then they should set up their own schools, like the way hedge schools were set up back then.

Can my salary stop funding the catholic schools then? Great.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not so sure about having to have the kids go through a false supernatural ceremony to get them in, actually applies any more tbh, otherwise you wouldn't have multi-denominations in a catholic ethos school. I think it more goes on catchment area now but I will admit I'm not overly familiar with the enrty criteria for individual schools.

I am very familiar with the system and let me reassure you this is absolutely the case for many, many parents. Most Catholics simply do not want to believe this. It's easier for them to believe that there are other options for everyone than to agree that is simply not right that 90+% of schools can reject children because they aren't baptised.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think if you were to try though and educate children in ALL religions (how many different faiths are there? thousands?), it could take time away from other subjects like maths, languages, etc. It's a hard one to call as some people want no religion in schools, some people want all religions to be taught in schools. My own personal view on it is that it wouldn't bother me to send my child to a secular school, as I would teach him my faith at home myself (my wife is a lapsed catholic!). If he was interested in learning about other religions then, I'd leave that up to himself. Actually now I think of it- one of my friends a few years ago, I don't know were his parents atheist, but he was never baptised, but he went through the catholic school system and had at 17 decided to convert to the bahai faith!

Theres always value in teaching kids about other cultures and religions. They don't need the hours given over to it now, with preparation for sacraments, etc, but an hour a week to make them aware of what the world is made up of.

I'm glad you're of the attitude that you'd be happy to take the religious education role at home. If only others didn't insist it was done in school because they've no interest in doing it themselves.

Czarcasm

Dades wrote: »

Can my salary stop funding the catholic schools then? Great.

In all fairness though there's plenty I don't agree with my taxes being spent on, but I couldn't just arbitrarily decide what they will and won't be spent on. The idea of the census was so that government and local authorities could decide where to spend our taxes in the future, and as I mentioned earlier, it's hard enough even for catholic schools to get funding, let alone a non-denominational school. I'm not saying it's right, not by a long shot, as I personally myself believe that a catholic ethos school should be fully funded by catholics, ie- the church! So I'm actually with you on that one, that the state should withdraw funding from catholic schools and instead direct more funds towards secular schools that are not backed by any organised religion and let those religions fund the schools they have a vested interest in. The only thing is, I can't see either the church or the state buying into that notion!

Dades wrote: »

I am very familiar with the system and let me reassure you this is absolutely the case for many, many parents. Most Catholics simply do not want to believe this. It's easier for them to believe that there are other options for everyone than to agree that is simply not right that 90+% of schools can reject children because they aren't baptised.

I don't think it's that catholics don't want to believe it, I think it's just something that many people aren't aware of tbh. I certainly wasn't, but then I wouldn't be as it wasn't difficult for me to enrol my child in a catholic school obviously, but I imagine there are many lapsed and traditional catholics that are unaware of it too. I for one again certainly don't agree that any child should be denied an education based on their beliefs, or in the case of atheism- a lack thereof. I would certainly agree that it's not right. I would be of the opinion that the child should be allowed to be enrolled in the school, but that their beliefs, or lack thereof, the parents should make the school aware and then the child should be accomodated accordingly. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best one could hope for in the current setup. The fact that this has been brought up now will certainly have me question the school principal at the next board of management meeting as to whether this is an entry requirement for the school my son is enrolled in.

Dades wrote: »

Theres always value in teaching kids about other cultures and religions. They don't need the hours given over to it now, with preparation for sacraments, etc, but an hour a week to make them aware of what the world is made up of.

I'll be honest Dades I get it hard enough to encourage my son's academic and social development, let alone his spiritual development! I certainly would encourage my child to broaden their perspective of the world and to always be learning, the internet is a fantastic tool for this, as is reading books and so on, but he's too young yet to be taking him abroad to experience other cultures and expect him to understand the experience. Hell even I myself find it hard to wrap my head around other cultures sometimes, and the truth is, I cannot teach him what I don't know myself, so some of his learning he has to do for himself, as I have done.

Dades wrote: »

I'm glad you're of the attitude that you'd be happy to take the religious education role at home. If only others didn't insist it was done in school because they've no interest in doing it themselves.

I can only speak for myself but I see myself as merely a guiding influence on my child. I don't WANT the school to do all the work, and even the "stay safe" program, as much as I myself am a catholic, I was worried that learning the program in school from what I thought would be a catholic perspective would give my child unrealistic representations of real-world experiences, which is why at first I was apprehensive about my child taking part in the program and why I initially thought I would not let him participate in the program and that I would handle his learning about sexuality and so forth. I investigated what the program covered and satisfied myself that it would give him a realistic view of sexuality for his stage of mental development, so he learns at the moment about "stranger danger" and so on. I know obviously it's going to be harder when he gets into secondary school and many of the ethics concepts he'll be introduced to will conflict with the his religious concepts, as it did for me when we were discussing topics like abortion and homosexuality in religion class 20 years ago (there wasn't anything like "abortion is bad, homosexuality is bad, m'kay!" nonsense), but there was nothing about condoms, STI's, etc, things we SHOULD have known about, things which I regret weren't taught, because it left me personally anyway, very naive, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof! I'm a firm believer in a compromise between faith and science, and that the two CAN co-exist within the one space- a person's faith being their own personal and moral compass so to speak, but science being the actual facts of the world around them.