Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

alaimacerc

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's because the indoctrination in this country is purely to get people to mindlessly label themselves as catholic.

I thought about characterising the nature of the net indoctrination in my own reply to BB, but decided not to bother. (Inevitably it'd just get a reply on the lines of "where's your evidence!? links!! statistics?! speculation!!!".) The primary effects seem to be "identifying as Catholic", "believing that being Catholic is an intrinsic part of Irishness", and "angsting over 'moral' (i.e. sexual) issues". Of course, the difficulty is factoring out what's formal indoctrination through the educational system or direct from the church, and what's "just" cultural pressure.

The RCC is not so stupid as to start pushing against the likes of gay marriage rights here in Ireland in the same way they push against it in the likes of Africa, as the nature of their power-base is very different.

I dunno, they were stupid enough to push pretty hard on "abortion legislation", despite a very clear wind of support for what the government was doing (in fact, for going considerably further).

Brown Bomber

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I like to call it Xmas :-)

I'm sure Xristos would appreciate that.

https://www.google.se/search?q=Xristos&client=firefox-a&hs=ZPh&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DRXbUrTmLMPD4gTmsYDQCg&ved=0CDsQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=664

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

Then apparently you are supposed to talk about 'X' on Xmas day, you know, just because ... :-)

Don't you mean [latex] \chi [/latex]?

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wednesday (Odin), Thursday (Thor) and Friday (Frigg) are all also named after deities.

OK, come back to me when the President delivers a Wednesday message celebrating the birth of Odin, when it has been so for generations and not mention Odin,

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think the default position is to mention Christ,

Do you also not think it is not the default position to mention Martin Luther King Jr on MLK day?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think anyone who wished me a Merry Christmas mention Christ at any rate.

Nobody who wished you a Merry CHRISTmas mentioned Christ?
Riiiiiiight....

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, actually, what did I use that as a main source for?

My mistake it was Robin, post 36, perhaps you could have a word with him for using tabloidy rags?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

His and his brothers motives are generally believed to be, at least in part, religiously fundamentalist in nature. Political motivations, of course, are also believed to have been a strong factor.

Wikipedia

You'll find we were discussing Dzokhar Tsarnaev and your claim that he was a religious fundamentalist. Please don't make me chase after you with this too.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually they don't satisfy at all, as all you have given is unverified news reports of a very small number of people who think or claim to have dealt with Tsarnaev and Atta before their attacks.

And what exactly were you expecting? Blood tests from Atta's vapourised body to get alcohol levels. That is witness testimony and would be considered evidence in court, but not for you. Typical.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, come back to me when the President delivers a Wednesday message celebrating the birth of Odin, when it has been so for generations and not mention Odin,

So, your actual case is carefully-cherrypicked "tradition". Essentially the bottom line of whatever-flavour of conservatives everywhere. Traditional Christianity didn't do us any harm (... apart from all the harm it did us, that doesn't count), carry on as before! Or some rose-tinted abstraction of "as before", more typically.

Nobody who wished you a Merry CHRISTmas mentioned Christ?
Riiiiiiight....

You can have this one way, or the other. Is or isn't the word "Christmas" itself tantamount to "mentioning Christ"? Because as it stands, you're timeslicing between the two at an alarming rate.

Wikipedia

You can have this one way or the other, either. You can do a lot, lot, lot better in providing evidence for your own waffly claims (including your metronomic meta-claims where you dismiss other people's evidence out-of-hand) than you have done to date. Or you can scoff at Wikipedia articles with 309 third-party reliable sources. The present juxtaposition, where you skim lightly over the "presenting own evidence" party, while presuming to sit in judgement over that presented by others, is more than a little lacking in credibility.

I Heart Internet

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look - there is either a bloody ethos which Catholics are expected to at least try to adhere to or there is not.

There is.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are arguing there is but it doesn't matter in the slightest if one tries to abide by it or not - sure you're still a Catholic - so what is the bloody point in having it in our schools????

It does matter in the slightest. It just doesn't mean that failure to abide by that ethos gets you kicked out of the club and beaten with a sock full of door knobs.

The point of having a catholic ethos in schools is that people want it.

I Heart Internet

alaimacerc wrote: »

The key word is the indefinite article. "Our school has a Catholic ethos." Not, "our school has the Catholic ethos." Our school has what we're referring to as an ethos (because it's satisfyingly pompous and conveniently vague), and we're characterising it as "Catholic", which covers almost anything on the spectrum of denominational conformance. That and finding out what they teach, how they teach it, and what degree of theocratic meddling in the lives of their students actually occurs, might actually tell you something.

Your two points here a contradictory.

The catholic ethos is wishy-washy and vague.....yet there is untold amounts of theocratic meddling going on in our schools. OK

I Heart Internet

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's because the indoctrination in this country is purely to get people to mindlessly label themselves as catholic. The RCC is not so stupid as to start pushing against the likes of gay marriage rights here in Ireland in the same way they push against it in the likes of Africa, as the nature of their power-base is very different. The fact that so many people will label themselves as catholic despite actively not doing or believing quite a lot specifically prescribed in the doctrine proves that they are quite effective at indoctrinating at this level, not to mention happy to do so.

Wow. How fiendishly clever of the RCC to only try to push beliefs on people they already hold in the first place. According to you, they're not stupid enough to try to convince Irish people of things they don't already agree with, huh? That's some world class indoctrination right there.

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Your two points here a contradictory.

The catholic ethos is wishy-washy and vague.....yet there is untold amounts of theocratic meddling going on in our schools. OK

Your summary is inapt, and indeed inept. But whoever said that theocratic meddling wouldn't be "vague"? If religion were subject to rigorous thought, if wouldn't be religion. In the sciences, if you come across a contradiction, you throw out your theory, and start over. In the humanities, you acknowledge a little temporary local difficulty. In religion, you smile broad, spread your hands beneficently, and say "it's an ineffable mystery!"

shruikan2553

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There is.



It does matter in the slightest. It just doesn't mean that failure to abide by that ethos gets you kicked out of the club and beaten with a sock full of door knobs.

The point of having a catholic ethos in schools is that people want it.

Who wants it? Christians? I thought we cant claim that they are all against gay marriage and divorce but we can claim they want this mysterious ethos that nobody can explain?

Mark Hamill

alaimacerc wrote: »

Of course, the difficulty is factoring out what's formal indoctrination through the educational system or direct from the church, and what's "just" cultural pressure.

The cultural pressure around now ultimately comes from the indoctrination through the education system that was around over the last 150 years or so, so its much of a muchness really.

alaimacerc

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The cultural pressure around now ultimately comes from the indoctrination through the education system that was around over the last 150 years or so, so its much of a muchness really.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case. I think much of it is tied up in a whole bundle of cultural associations that'll have to be unpicked over time. Whether that'll largely be in the form of a "soft landing" with the self-reported rates of Catholicism going down gently, or it being "hollowed out" with 80+% claiming that "affiliation" for the next generation or so, but that becoming completely hollowed out of any correlation with actual Catholic belief.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, come back to me when the President delivers a Wednesday message celebrating the birth of Odin, when it has been so for generations and not mention Odin,

But thats our point. Even though the name of somethign might be religious in nature, it doesn't mean the celebrating or even the recognising of it must be.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you also not think it is not the default position to mention Martin Luther King Jr on MLK day?

A different day, celebrating a man who lived in the last century, and that didn't appropriate an already existing pagan festival to persuade pagans to change religion, so not really an apt comparison at all.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nobody who wished you a Merry CHRISTmas mentioned Christ?
Riiiiiiight....

If simply saying the word "christmas" automatically means you are mentioning Christ, wouldn't that mean that Higgins mentioned Christ in his christmas speech when he said the word "christmas"?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My mistake it was Robin, post 36, perhaps you could have a word with him for using tabloidy rags?

He quoted an Irish Central article because it quoted a Irish Times poll (presumably because the Irish Times poll is in their archive behind a pay wall), and it was one of 4 references quoted in that post. Are we also going to have go through what the phrase "main source" means too?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wikipedia

You'll find we were discussing Dzokhar Tsarnaev and your claim that he was a religious fundamentalist. Please don't make me chase after you with this too.

Yes, wikipedia. That page has the evidence for him being religiously fundamentalist and how that factored into his motives. Do you not understand how to use wikipedia or something?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And what exactly were you expecting? Blood tests from Atta's vapourised body to get alcohol levels. That is witness testimony and would be considered evidence in court, but not for you. Typical.

You really think any of those articles would be admissible in court BB? One is an article about a gambling ship manager whose employees claim to have seen the men on board. Another is an article about an escort driver who claims some of the girls he drove met with the men? Do you really think these people didn't get paid for their "stories".

Even besides that, you have ignored the point I made originally:
Even accepting these claims are accurate, muslims believe that even though they will punished for their sins, that punishment will be only temporary and they will get into heaven regardless. These men may also have believed that the reward for their attacks would eliminate the punishment for their previous actions.

Mark Hamill

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Wow. How fiendishly clever of the RCC to only try to push beliefs on people they already hold in the first place. According to you, they're not stupid enough to try to convince Irish people of things they don't already agree with, huh? That's some world class indoctrination right there.

No, according to me they are (and I quote myself here) "not so stupid as to start pushing against the likes of gay marriage rights here in Ireland in the same way they push against it in the likes of Africa, as the nature of their power-base is very different"
The RCC will try to convince people here to vote against the likes of gay marriage and abortion, but instead of simply saying "this is catholic law, you don't have a choice", they will use nonsense emotive arguments, badly performed studies and outright lies to fight these issues, almost going out of their way to avoid using religious arguments at all. For example:
In Ireland, the church argues against gay marriage because in terms of children's rights, the effect on society and institution of marriage (ie little or no direct reference to their own doctrine).
In Uganda, the Pope bless the woman who wrote the law they tried to bring in that would make homosexual acts punishable by death.

Wait, so Christmas has one solid immutable definition that is more true than all other definitions?
But Christianity and Catholicism can mean whatever people want it to mean?

Mark Hamill

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not sure that's entirely the case. I think much of it is tied up in a whole bundle of cultural associations that'll have to be unpicked over time. Whether that'll largely be in the form of a "soft landing" with the self-reported rates of Catholicism going down gently, or it being "hollowed out" with 80+% claiming that "affiliation" for the next generation or so, but that becoming completely hollowed out of any correlation with actual Catholic belief.

But those cultural associations did not appear before the church got its grubby little mitts on the schools. I've spoken to many people about changing catholic control of schools and the responses usually are along the lines of either:
"the government didn't want to pay for the schools when they were set up, so we wouldn't have them if not for the church stepping in to do so" (something not just historically wrong but also moronically stupid, considering which government was in power at the time)
or
"kids learn some good stuff from church teachings in school like the difference between right and wrong" (and that doozy was from an atheist).

Notions that people have that catholicism is integral to Irishness (and Irish history) and that you absolutely need some sort of religion to know how to be good, come from indoctrination given in schools.

brimal

I spent this Christmas in Tel Aviv.

I went to 3 different Christmas parties hosted by different groups of friends, I'm guessing about 95% of the people there were Jewish (the people hosting the parties were definitely Jewish)

Presents were exchanged, Christmas trees erected, Santa costumes, etc. -- every year a large amount of young people in Tel Aviv celebrate 'Christmas', even though they all believe Jesus was just some crazy Jew.

Just like back home, Christmas is becoming more of a secular holiday, where people can get together at the end of the year and spend some time together and have fun, without even thinking of the religious side of it.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The point of having a catholic ethos in schools is that people want it.

No doubt on account of the church's rock-solid record of childcare in this country.

weisses

alaimacerc wrote: »

Oh, good grief. Over a thousand messages later, and you just loop back to the same repeatedly rebutted tabloid subhead. Census "apologists" segue straight from "the census is completely grand as it is; of course, you wouldn't want to read any political imperatives directly from it"... to reading political imperatives from it.

Yeah the Irish time polls are leading now when it comes to facts regarding surveys

Keep on going ....

weisses

robindch wrote: »

No doubt on account of the church's rock-solid record of childcare in this country.

If you could get away from the "mickey mouse" view regarding child care and include Europe you might find plenty shocking examples of abuse of children in childcare where the church has no role

cheap point scoring tbh

Corkfeen

weisses wrote: »

If you could get away from the "mickey mouse" view regarding child care and include Europe you might find plenty shocking examples of abuse of children in childcare where the church has no role

cheap point scoring tbh

I think most are perfectly aware of the various abuses that occur however the church hold themselves in a position of moral authority but decided to cover up the entire affair to protect their reputation instead of reporting it to the relevant authorities.

One also can't assume based on a person marking Catholic that they wish for their child to be taught in a Catholic ethos school. One can be in favour of secular education and be religious at the same time.

Gordon

weisses wrote: »

you might find plenty shocking examples of abuse of children in childcare where the church has no role

True, obviously the Catholic church people have been right dicks wrt child abuse, but that's not to say that there are other dicks in the world. But that's fairly obvious, and not really within the topic of the thread I would have thought. But yes, other people are dicks, just like the horrific dicks that have been horrific dicks in the Catholic church.

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

True, obviously the Catholic church people have been right dicks wrt child abuse, but that's not to say that there are other dicks in the world. But that's fairly obvious, and not really within the topic of the thread I would have thought. But yes, other people are dicks, just like the horrific dicks that have been horrific dicks in the Catholic church.

How is any abuse at all within the topic of the thread?

Seems to me to be simple mud-slinging.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's because the indoctrination in this country is purely to get people to mindlessly label themselves as catholic. The RCC is not so stupid as to start pushing against the likes of gay marriage rights here in Ireland in the same way they push against it in the likes of Africa, as the nature of their power-base is very different. The fact that so many people will label themselves as catholic despite actively not doing or believing quite a lot specifically prescribed in the doctrine proves that they are quite effective at indoctrinating at this level, not to mention happy to do so.

What I heart internet said. This is ridiculous. Your "proof" of this so-called indoctrination is it's own ineffectiveness.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But thats our point. Even though the name of somethign might be religious in nature, it doesn't mean the celebrating or even the recognising of it must be.

Which is fine, except Christ is already part of Christmas. You, I and whomever else are free to reject this on a personal level. The problem is that Higgins wasn't speaking on any personal level but as the President of a state which is overwhelmingly CHRISTian in a CHRISTmas message. He has to go out his way to remove something which is already there by definition.

That is my opinion on the matter. If you want to discuss the Christmas address further I would suggest you use the thread for it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A different day, celebrating a man who lived in the last century, and that didn't appropriate an already existing pagan festival to persuade pagans to change religion, so not really an apt comparison at all.

Could you just answer the question please? Would you find it strange if a MLK address on MLK day didn't make any reference to MLK Jr?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

He quoted an Irish Central article because it quoted a Irish Times poll (presumably because the Irish Times poll is in their archive behind a pay wall), and it was one of 4 references quoted in that post. Are we also going to have go through what the phrase "main source" means too?

And here we go again...

Do you have a problem with "tabloidy rags" as sources? If no double-standard exists why haven't we heard a peep from you about the "tabloidy rag", the irishcentral.com being used as source?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, wikipedia. That page has the evidence for him being religiously fundamentalist and how that factored into his motives. Do you not understand how to use wikipedia or something?

As I am sure you are well aware using Wikipedia is a cop-out. If you are prepared to support your claim link to the actual sources and copy and paste the relevant sections....Y'know.......Like I did for you........

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You really think any of those articles would be admissible in court BB? One is an article about a gambling ship manager whose employees claim to have seen the men on board. Another is an article about an escort driver who claims some of the girls he drove met with the men? Do you really think these people didn't get paid for their "stories".

FFs. I said witness testimony is admissable in court, not the articles. So we are back into the realm of conspiracy theories wild speculation to explain away evidence that doesn't suit our argument then?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even besides that, you have ignored the point I made originally:
Even accepting these claims are accurate, muslims believe that even though they will punished for their sins, that punishment will be only temporary and they will get into heaven regardless. These men may also have believed that the reward for their attacks would eliminate the punishment for their previous actions.

Oh, "may have"? That changes everything.

So if you believe you can be forgiven for your sins, y'know the way Christians do, then sinning, for example, doesn't make you not Christian/Muslim etc?

Isn't this the opposite to what been saying all along? You said that people who self-identify as Catholic and don't go to mass (sin) aren't Catholic.

Could you make up your mind please?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Both of these things are addressed in the post you quoted.

Actually your waffle didn't address anything.

You made the claim that I had said that "Ireland is a Christian country". Luckily, everything I've said is documented and easily accessible to you. All you have to do is "search this thread" for "Christian Country" then look for the occasion where I have said it and then quote me on it.

So there are 3 possibilities here:
1- You search the thread, find an instance of where I said it. I do the decent thing and apologise and move on.
2- You search the thread, realise your error. Withdraw your claim and do the decent thing and apologise.
3- You search the thread, realise your error. Fail to do the decent and honourable thing and try to weasel your way out of it.

So what is it to be?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I heart internet said. This is ridiculous. Your "proof" of this so-called indoctrination is it's own ineffectiveness.

And I responded to his post here.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually your waffle didn't address anything.

You made the claim that I had said that "Ireland is a Christian country". Luckily, everything I've said is documented and easily accessible to you. All you have to do is "search this thread" for "Christian Country" then look for the occasion where I have said it and then quote me on it.

So there are 3 possibilities here:
1- You search the thread, find an instance of where I said it. I do the decent thing and apologise and move on.
2- You search the thread, realise your error. Withdraw your claim and do the decent thing and apologise.
3- You search the thread, realise your error. Fail to do the decent and honourable thing and try to weasel your way out of it.

So what is it to be?

Or possibility 4: you are (ironically) sticking to literal strict definitions and exact wording while ignoring the point I made as well as the other points I made.

If you don't think Ireland is a christian country, why do you think that the president should be obliged to mention Christians? Why get upset that he didn't?
I think this is because you are operating under the false belief that Ireland is a Christian country. If this was not the case, you would have answered the questions and addressed the point I made.

Brown Bomber

brimal wrote: »

I spent this Christmas in Tel Aviv.

I went to 3 different Christmas parties hosted by different groups of friends, I'm guessing about 95% of the people there were Jewish (the people hosting the parties were definitely Jewish)

Presents were exchanged, Christmas trees erected, Santa costumes, etc. -- every year a large amount of young people in Tel Aviv celebrate 'Christmas', even though they all believe Jesus was just some crazy Jew.

Just like back home, Christmas is becoming more of a secular holiday, where people can get together at the end of the year and spend some time together and have fun, without even thinking of the religious side of it.

Let's be honest "Jews" by Mark Hamill and friends strict definition have much stronger opinions of Jesus and his mother than simply "some crazy Jew".

See here: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html

Consistently applied you didn't attend any "Jewish" Christmas parties because any Jew attending a Christmas party instantly becomes dejudaised.

In fact, according to Mark and friend there is no such thing as a cultural Jew at all.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Or possibility 4: you are (ironically) sticking to literal strict definitions and exact wording while ignoring the point I made as well as the other points I made.

If you don't think Ireland is a christian country, why do you think that the president should be obliged to mention Christians? Why get upset that he didn't?
I think this is because you are operating under the false belief that Ireland is a Christian country. If this was not the case, you would have answered the questions and addressed the point I made.

I don't really care what you think. Either support your claim about me with reference or withdraw it, as Robin demanded of another user in a similar situation . It's not that complicated..