Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, so we really going all the way down that rabbit-hole. "How do you leave a church whose doctrine is that you can never actually leave. Welcome to the Hotel Collis Vaticanus..." Sprinkle an atheist today, get those census numbers up to 100%! This isn't detaining anyone other than yourself, though.

Actually, no, as far as Catholic ecclesiology goes, you can leave the church and stop being a Catholic, and it’s very easy to do so. The thing is, in nearly all cases, the key condition that needs to be satisified is that you have to want to leave. And all those people ticking “Catholic” on the census form are not exactly manifesting the desire to leave, are they?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To not even mention this in a Christmas message is lying by omission.

You're going to have to explain how this is lying.
And you still have to explain what the stink is.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The 90% Christian stat is of secondary importance. It wouldn't make any difference if Christianity was tiny minority.

Yet, there is no mention of the Pagans on Halloween. Or the Christians on All Hallow's day for that matter.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And what would be the point in idle speculation? There is diversity of belief and practices amongst Christians. To paraphrase Jesus "In my Father's home there are many mansions".

Because your adherence to the census figure as an indication of beliefs is based on the assumption that there wasn't such a diversity.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't think there can be any grey area here. So yes, all few hundred of them have wrongly categorised themselves on that specific survey but not neccessarily the census.

So since there are conditions to being Christian, then the figure in the census cannot be accurate. And if the Bishop's survey is to believed, it is very inaccurate.
Add to this the number of Catholics who do not meet the requirements for Catholicism, which if the surveys are to be believed, number a good deal less than 85%.

So since those who put down Catholic or Christian could have mislabeled themselves and their beliefs can vary in every possible way, what can the census figure actually tell us beyond the number of people who ticked the box? What can the figure actually be used for?

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not to pick nits or anything, but on the question of whether X is a Catholic or not, the Catholic church is not a “third party”.

Well, it rather is, but let he who is without nit, cast the first comb (or some such). Not me, anyway. I was thinking in terms of the "parties" being the individual and their interlocutor (census, survey, etc). In any case, the RCC's "definition" is so unreasonable that I don't think it's detaining anyone for very long. (i.e., after BB dancing around the topic of what determines "being a Christian" for page after page, he's just resorted to it.) Who needs a "self-identification" if there are church records with "the eyes of eternity" to back them up? Not to mention that this fails the most basic test of right of freedom of association...

Well, you have a point. But your approach to this is still to find some dimension or characteristic of Catholicism that people don’t share, and use it to argue that those people aren’t Catholics.

Hang on a minute or two, there. a) The credo is not even particular to Catholicism; b) it's not something I went out of my way to "find"; and c) the RCC, and indeed just about every denomination of Christianity (give or take some non-Trinitarians depending on version, use it both liturgically and self-definitionally. If one believes one is a Christian, but doesn't believe in the creed, don't take it up with me, take it up with Nicea.

(Hint: doubting or denying the virgin birth does not, in Catholic ecclesiology mean that you cease to be a Catholic.)

I didn't say anything about "doubting". Do we have to haggle about "balance probabilities of lack of belief" vs "outright explicit denial"? If one has no belief at all in this (or in any other part of the creed) and one is a baptised Catholic, and then (as I said and you dismissed as "tendentious") what one is precisely "a Catholic apostate". The trouble is that for census purposes, this constituency is split between a) self-identified "ex-Catholic" "no religion" box-tickers, and b) sure, the church hasn't actually noticed and kicked me out, I'll tick "Catholic".

(Actually, I'm not sure the virgin birth is even an especially hard part of the creed to "finesse" or "nuance", but let's set aside "in a sense" belief caveats for the time being.)

Hmm. I’m of the view that, if someone either checks a box on the list of identifications provided, or writes an identification into the space provided, that’s self-identification, and it means something, and it probably means something significant, but if you want to know what that is you’ll have to ask them.

Sure, it's a self-identification, in the most minimal possible of senses. In asserting "it means something, probably significant", you're making exactly the sort sweeping assumption on the basis of no evidence that you accuse me of making. (For which I, well, have and have cited evidence...)

This isn't a "self-identification" people have gone out of their way to make. It's one it's legally mandated that they choose (one or the other of).

No. It just means that they’re not self-identifying on the basis of the particular beliefs, or the particular practices, that they have been asked about. But they may be identifying on the basis of other beliefs, or other practices, or on the basis of things which are neither beliefs nor practices, and if you want to know what those things are you have to ask them. And this is an essential first step that has to be taken before you can, without attracting scorn and derision to yourself and foregoing any claim to be a person whose beliefs are evidence-based, dismiss the validity or authenticity of their identification.

Acting on the evidence means acting on the evidence, not saying "oh, we don't have proof to a criminal standard, better sit on our hands until we do". We have ample evidence of lack of belief in god, the most basic of all possible criteria of belief. We have ample evidence of not going to mass, the most basic possible criteria of practice. Now, unless those are almost perfectly negatively correlated (as opposed to strongly positively correlated, as seems more likely), that's evidence that at least some of said respondents are "Catholic" (and likely the same holds true of other denominations) in neither.

Unless you're going to argue that ticking the census box is itself what's left of RCC religious practice for some people, or that "it's break me ma's heart if I ticked 'no religion'" as a form of religious belief.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no, as far as Catholic ecclesiology goes, you can leave the church and stop being a Catholic, and it’s very easy to do so.

If you're referring to the formal act of defection, a) it was at no point "very easy to do", b) it was completely retconned out of existence a few years ago, so is now completely impossible, and c) its effect was to make one in the RCC's view an "excommunicated Catholic", not a "non-Catholic". So status identical in that regard to our previously mentioned apostates, not to say heretics, abortionists, Pope-punchers, etc.

If you're thinking of something else, by all means enlighten me.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To not even mention this in a Christmas message is lying by omission.

I suppose we have enough to worry about what you do to bait and flame the actual participants of the discussion, but this seems like a spectacularly gratuitous insult to, if not outright defamation of, the First Citizen. (Maybe we can ask Micky D to log on and toss as a quick message, thereby combining the two?) How on earth is "not saying what I arbitrarily demand of him" in any conceivable sense "lying"?

I don't think there can be any grey area here. So yes, all few hundred of them have wrongly categorised themselves on that specific survey but not neccessarily the census.

Amazing. One 3% sampling-margin-of-error survey tells us reliably about where 1.8million people plonk their bums on a Sunday morning. Another similar survey somehow a) only tells us about "all few hundred", and somehow doesn't even tell us anything at all about them, in respect of The Immaculate Census. Compartmentalising much?

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have already stated that to be considered Christian then there are some rudimentary beliefs that need to be universally accepted. What I didn't accept is that the existence of doubt, sinning, non/partial-adherence to rituals and rejection of your Church's stance on social issues exclude you from being Christian - as was the argument here.

The same holds true for Islam. Believe that the Prophet was God's messenger on earth and that God wrote the Quran through Muhammed is at the absolute core for everyone who would consider themselve's Muslim.

This is grim stuff. Look, it's difficult and inexact to make "standard for inclusion" comparisons between different religions. Some are inherently more inclusive than others, others more demanding, to which add the fuzziness of what most people would mutually identify on an in-group basis. But that's cause for caution in doing so, not "licence to make up whatever baseless false-equivalence one likes". And it's not remotely comparable to say that a Christian must simply hold to "some rudimentary beliefs" (that you repeatedly decline to specify), while a Muslim must believe and scrupulously observe the entire Quran, down to whatever interpretation of any given passage you want to throw in their face.

(And I've already told you twice what a more logical and appropriate basis for comparison would be, and you've just thrown non sequiturs back in my face. So it's not like you haven't been steered in a more sensible direction. It's just that you seem very determined not to go down it.)

Therefore, it is highly hypocritical for anyone to consider a Muslim who acts contrary to the Quran as a Muslim when you want to make the point that religion is baaaaaaad!

Given the utter failure of logic involved in your comparison, it's breathtakingly obboxious to be throwing out characterisations such as "highly hypocritical". (I should probably at this point be sparing myself and everyone else most of these replies to your posts, and just be moving straight to the "report" button, frankly.)

alaimacerc

Jernal wrote: »

Nobody is denouncing the self identification. Almost nobody anyway. This thread has gone on way too long and is going around in circles. The point was that self identities aren't always an accurate reflection of supposed attitudes born by the perception of those identities. That's been the point. Pere, your post was nice but most likely unnecessary. There's been strands of discussions going this way and that. This thread has consisted of people focusing on little quotes of those strands here and there, and the deviation is inevitable. The original intentions and understandings are lost. Not sure if this should remain open but will leave it another while.

I fear your conclusions here my be largely correct. (Well, your decision anyway, of course, so Correct By Mod Magisterium, naturally!) There are some interesting remaining nuances to this, but they're starting to get drowned out by "loop back to reiterate previous point doggedly regardless of any intervening discussion" and "deflect with highly dubious off-topic comparisons". (Pointing no elbows at one poster in particular in both cases.) I'd like to think that without those it might have been more productive, but somewhat suspect that perversely, might be largely what's keeping it going at this point.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

If you're referring to the formal act of defection, a) it was at no point "very easy to do", b) it was completely retconned out of existence a few years ago, so is now completely impossible, and c) its effect was to make one in the RCC's view an "excommunicated Catholic", not a "non-Catholic". So status identical in that regard to our previously mentioned apostates, not to say heretics, abortionists, Pope-punchers, etc.

If you're thinking of something else, by all means enlighten me.

The "formal act of defection" is a bit of a red herring in this regard. It only existed for a few years, it was as you say cumbersome and they did away with it precisely because most people who had left the church couldn't be bothered to go through with it and therefore canonically were being counted as members of the church when in reality they weren't, which was causing all kinds of problems.

No, I'm talking about basic Catholic ecclesiology. In a nutshell, the church is constituted by baptism and eucharist. A Catholic is a baptised Christian who is in eucharistic communion with the Catholic church. “Communion” is a relationship and, as all Facebook users know, relationships are not a simple binary; they can be more or less healthy; they can be “complicated”. However the one thing that all relationships have is that two parties have to participate; if one party definitively says “I’m out of this” then there is no relationship, however much the other party may continue to carve love-hearts around the name of the beloved on his or her pencilcase.

Consequently, to leave the Catholic church, all you have to do is to say is “right, that’s it, I can’t take any more, I’m out of here”, and mean it. Saying this to yourself is sufficient although, obviously, if you want anyone to know that you’re not a Catholic any more you’re going to have to say it to at least one other person.

You can also do it by actions which are fundamentally incompatible with any degree of communion between you and the Catholic church. The most obvious of these is, e.g. having yourself baptised into another church, though obviously that’s not an action which is open (in good conscience, at any rate) to someone who is leaving because of atheism.

As far as canon law goes, the Catholic church (a) generally avoids trying to make any determination over whether you have severed all communion unless they need to, for their own purposes, and (b) generally proceeds on the basis that, once there is any degree of communion then communion is presumed to persist until it is shown to have ended. As a result formal determinations by the Catholic church that someone has left are comparatively rare. But that doesn’t mean that they consider that everyone about whom such a determination has not been made is, for that reason, a Catholic; they do not consider that. The view that you’re a Catholic until the church accepts that you’re not a Catholic has never formed any part of Catholic ecclesiology.

As far as the people who tick “Catholic” on the census form go, if all we know of them is that they have done so then we clearly don’t know that they have expressed a desire to sever all connection between themselves and the church; in fact, they have expressed the opposite desire.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not like that at all. The BNP stand for closing the borders and so on, it's members support them BECAUSE of this. The Catholic Church does not stand for child abuse and to conflate normal, everyday Catholics with child abusers is incredibly underhanded (and off-topic).

It's akin to saying every Briton who pays a TV license supports child abuse because of the Saville cover up.

And aren't you a Burqa-banner? So are the BNP. Fancy that.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/bnp-say-ban-burqa-now-video

You completely missed the example I was making,

First off, I'd ask you to formally retract and remove your comment saying that I am BNP,

Now back to my post, the catholic church is like a club but even more so like a political party, it has massive amounts of power, huge amounts of money and far too much say in the running of numerous country's throughout our planet.

By saying you are a catholic you are linking yourself to this club/party, no different to saying you are a member of the BNP, FG, Labour, Greens etc.

It doesn't matter if you don't support the party policy's but if you say you are a member of the partys you increase their power and you support their policy's by simply being a member,

We've seen people can decide to not support a political party policy by no longer saying they are members and we've even see TD's resign from partys for not agreeing with party policy's. We've also seen political party's silence TD's just like the Vatican has done with priests.

Now when it comes to the catholic church it doesn't matter if they say they are against child sex abuse cover-ups and refusal to release records, people are still giving the church power by remaining a member of the religion. Nothing however is stopping them from saying they are no longer catholic but instead they are christian.

Again, its like saying you disagree with different views of the BNP or any party but yet you continue to say you are a member of that particular party and you continue to give money to it (collection box), attend its (masses) rallys etc. Any political party and the church are just so much a like.

The church is a dictatorship so your membership of it will never enable you to vote for change, to think it will is disillusion.....you'd likely actually have more hope of changing the policy's of the BNP, FG, Greens by remaining a member.

swampgas

Given that the census is mostly about counting things, for example populations, age profiles, etc., and given that "religion" now seems to be so subjective that it's simply a matter of opinion, it doesn't really seem to fit into the census any more, at least not like it might have in the past.

Moving away from the census and thinking of self-identification, maybe a better way of figuring out someone's religion would be to ask "who speaks for you on matters of religious dogma and morality, if anyone?"

If you say the church hierarchy can speak for you, e.g the Pope or Bishops, or the local PP, then that reflects a very different position to someone who might tick Catholic in the census but who makes up their own mind on moral issues, and who might be prepared to take an ethical position completely contrary to that of the hierarchy.

Remember that during the Abortion hearings in the Dáil recently all the major religions were given a chance to speak to the committee. Implicit in that was the assumption that these clergy had some form of mandate from their flocks to speak on their behalf.

However from the opinion polls we have seen, and from the commonly observed behaviour of many "Catholics", it is very clear to me at least that the RCC hierarchy really doesn't have any such mandate at all.

All of this, of course, should have been irrelevant, as in a secular republic the church leaders should never have been invited to the Dáil to discuss civil legislation: it was a massive breach of separation of church and state.

I Heart Internet

swampgas wrote: »

All of this, of course, should have been irrelevant, as in a secular republic the church leaders should never have been invited to the Dáil to discuss civil legislation: it was a massive breach of separation of church and state.

There's a lot of truth in what you say there and the relevance of the "religion" question in the census should always be scrutinised. I think we could live without it.

But I dissagree entirely with your final paragraph above.

A secular democracy does not mean that religious people or organisations (churches) cannot be involved in civil society.

The strength and diversity of civil society is a bellwether for the strength of a democracy. Civil society includes everyone from animal rights groups, anti-pylon protestors, trade unions, churches, artist co-operatives, etc, etc, etc.

Suggesting that one element of civil society should not have the right to influence civil legislation is absolutely wrong and can only lead to a weakening of democracy.

But, alas, it's a view shared by quite a number of people who think "seperation of church and state" demands such retrograde steps.

swampgas

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There's a lot of truth in what you say there and the relevance of the "religion" question in the census should always be scrutinised. I think we could live without it.

But I dissagree entirely with your final paragraph above.

A secular democracy does not mean that religious people or organisations (churches) cannot be involved in civil society.

The strength and diversity of civil society is a bellwether for the strength of a democracy. Civil society includes everyone from animal rights groups, anti-pylon protestors, trade unions, churches, artist co-operatives, etc, etc, etc.

Suggesting that one element of civil society should not have the right to influence civil legislation is absolutely wrong and can only lead to a weakening of democracy.

The whole point of a democracy is that we elect representatives to enact legislation on our behalf. The church leaders were not elected by the general population. They should not interfere in the democratic process, because they have no mandate to do so.

If they want to advocate that their own members follow a certain path - for example, Catholic clergy can tell Catholics they shouldn't have abortions, or get divorced, or use contraceptives, or whatever, that's fine, but they should not interfere in the formation of legislation that affects everyone.

I really can't see why religious people want state law to reflect their own religious morality, which is effectively wanting to impose their religion on everyone else.

Penn

I Heart Internet wrote: »

swampgas wrote: »

All of this, of course, should have been irrelevant, as in a secular republic the church leaders should never have been invited to the Dáil to discuss civil legislation: it was a massive breach of separation of church and state.

There's a lot of truth in what you say there and the relevance of the "religion" question in the census should always be scrutinised. I think we could live without it.

But I dissagree entirely with your final paragraph above.

A secular democracy does not mean that religious people or organisations (churches) cannot be involved in civil society.

The strength and diversity of civil society is a bellwether for the strength of a democracy. Civil society includes everyone from animal rights groups, anti-pylon protestors, trade unions, churches, artist co-operatives, etc, etc, etc.

Suggesting that one element of civil society should not have the right to influence civil legislation is absolutely wrong and can only lead to a weakening of democracy.

While I agree in principle, each group should be brought in to give their opinions on civil legislation in matters to which the civil legislation is relevant to them. If the civil legislation concerns religion, church leaders can and should be part of the consultation process, as should animal rights groups for legislation concerning animal rights, pylon protesters for legislation concerning pylons etc.

Church leaders should not be brought in to discuss legislation for matters which does not concern them (same-sex marriage, abortion, adoption etc). If they are brought in on topics which don't concern them, that is granting them special privilege which by your own standards I assume you would agree that granting any group special privilege is absolutely wrong and can only lead to a weakening of democracy, in the same way that denying any group the same treatment is equally wrong.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A secular democracy does not mean that religious people or organisations (churches) cannot be involved in civil society.

We have people that have experienced drug abuse so they can talk with experience about drugs, we have people who have seen the impact of pylons so they can talk about it, people that have experienced the impacts of drink and smoking so they can talk about it.

But with the catholic church we have Bishops and priests who don't and can't have sex yet they try and push the government on such important issues as, contraception, abortion etc.

Bishops and priests are effectively freaks and weirdo's as they ignore one of the most natural normal urges of our species and thousands of other species on our planet....to have sex, they also ignore another important urge within our species which is to form a loving bond with another human.

They are in no place to lecture anyone on such important life changing issues, they haven't even lived their lives to begin with.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you state this specific rule which says that if you are pro-abortion then you are no longer Catholic?

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Where did I say they were 'no longer a Catholic'?

I said they were not following the rules of the organisation they claim to believe speaks for God.

Do you dispute this?

Given that it is now nearly impossible to officially remove oneself from the clutches of the RCC - as you well know - I suspect that was a deliberately loaded question.

Edit to add - Voting for Abortion can be considered as 'Formal cooperation in an abortion [which] constitutes a grave offense.'

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

He's probably the better for it, too. Have you really the whole thing? Or just the WND exercise in quotemining?

I've read the whole thing, though how you can conclude that somebody can be better off by knowing less about what they are making claims about is anyone's guess.

alaimacerc wrote: »

So by "never", you mean "repeatedly, as part of a self-conscious plan."

Clearly you haven't read it either. He didn't pray. Like I said his prayer, which he planned to do only during the attacks, would have been a single occurence, so where you've got "repeatedly" from I have no idea as means of assisting him to complete his "mission".

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's quite fanciful. The closest thing to "doubt" I'm aware of him expressing is:

That's not "somewhere between atheist and agnostic". That's someplace in and around "an utter fanatic caveating less than perfect metaphysical certitude." His "manifesto" is positively littered with references to god (even accounting for the majority of them being complaints about Islam, and no few of the remainder being about the evils of society having rejected god).

And what part is a violent programme of terror to establish a state that enforces a monocultural Christian Europe, to forcibly "reform" the Christian churches into a united, incredibly reactionary and regressive one in the "in this sign conquer" mould would be "secular"?

There is absolutely no point in discussing this with you when you very clearly haven't read the manifesto and don't know what you are talking about.


It's exactly as I said. Breivik didn't believe in God, was a secularist and described himself as a cultural-Christian.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think there's some serious psychological (or at least, rhetorical) projection going on when you accuse other people of applying a "double standard". You're going an implausibly long way to claim these people don't pass a lubriciously stringent test for inclusion, while refusing to accept any at all for the "religious right to identify" types.

If they hadn't been willing to kill and (supposedly) to die for their cause, they'd already have by far "distinguished" themselves from the "without practice and without belief" types. And if homicidal matyr-complexes weren't themselves "credentials" in the Abrahamic religions, the last couple of thousands years might have been a whole lot different. (Well, to an extent. I'm sure Dharmic and atheist bloodthirstiness could have picked up at least some of the burden...)

Breivik's cause wasn't religious, it was political. I am not the one with double-standard here. I am not rejecting the Jahar Tsarnaev, Atta etc self-identification as Muslims. Nor am I rejecting the Christian identification of Catholics based on them not being like as obedient to their Church as the albino from The Da Vinci Code

swampgas

Penncil Dick wrote: »

While I agree in principle, each group should be brought in to give their opinions on civil legislation in matters to which the civil legislation is relevant to them. If the civil legislation concerns religion, church leaders can and should be part of the consultation process, as should animal rights groups for legislation concerning animal rights, pylon protesters for legislation concerning pylons etc.

Church leaders should not be brought in to discuss legislation for matters which does not concern them (same-sex marriage, abortion, adoption etc). If they are brought in on topics which don't concern them, that is granting them special privilege which by your own standards I assume you would agree that granting any group special privilege is absolutely wrong and can only lead to a weakening of democracy, in the same way that denying any group the same treatment is equally wrong.

I think that's an important distinction. As I Heart Internet correctly points out, it would be excessive to completely block a church group making representations in matters that affect them directly, simply because they are religious.

However for issues such as abortion, divorce or contraception the church should not have any special position to influence policy.

There is another point as well, which is that the RCC in Ireland seem to be loathe to actually use religious arguments when fighting against laws relating to homosexuality, divorce, contraception or abortion. Instead they try to make "Natural Law" type arguments, implying that their arguments are not really religious at all. This to me is perverse and disengenuous, either they are a religious organisation, and willing to argue from their religious convictions, or they are not. If they simply want to make general arguments about the damage to society that they think (for example) divorce might cause, then they can get into the queue along with everyone else. If they want to make arguments against (say) divorce because it's against their religion, then they should be up front about it, and then they should accept that their religious position has no bearing on civil law, as it applies only to those people who wish to impose Catholic morality upon themselves.

weisses

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Edit to add - Voting for Abortion can be considered as 'Formal cooperation in an abortion [which] constitutes a grave offense.'

There is an nuance in that as well

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

sticky situation nonetheless

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

{...}
As should be clear to you you no more excluded for the Catholic Church for having an abortion anymore than you lose Irish citizenship when you are incarcerated by the state for criminal offenses.

I think this may be a poor example as many of the benefits of being an Irish citizen are stripped from you when you are incarcerated. You would also be described as a criminal rather than a civilian. There are no such qualifiers in the Catholic system.

AerynSun

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Voting for Abortion can be considered as 'Formal cooperation in an abortion [which] constitutes a grave offense.'

What about people who are not voting for abortion, but are voting for freedom of choice instead?

I Heart Internet

swampgas wrote: »

The whole point of a democracy is that we elect representatives to enact legislation on our behalf. The church leaders were not elected by the general population. They should not interfere in the democratic process, because they have no mandate to do so.

You say interfere, I say participate in. Everyone and every organisation is free to participate in democracy. Does Atheists Ireland not speak to Govt about matters? More power to them.

I Heart Internet

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Church leaders should not be brought in to discuss legislation for matters which does not concern them (same-sex marriage, abortion, adoption etc). If they are brought in on topics which don't concern them, that is granting them special privilege which by your own standards I assume you would agree that granting any group special privilege is absolutely wrong and can only lead to a weakening of democracy, in the same way that denying any group the same treatment is equally wrong.

They would say that those issues concern them. Who are you to say differently? Does the IFA get a say on hunting? Maybe. Does SIPTU get a say on social welfare? Maybe. Does the GAA get a say in health promotion policy? Maybe. Do petrol station operators get a say in public transport? Maybe.....

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Bishops and priests are effectively freaks and weirdo's as they ignore one of the most natural normal urges of our species and thousands of other species on our planet....to have sex, they also ignore another important urge within our species which is to form a loving bond with another human.

That's just petty name calling.

Cabaal wrote: »

They are in no place to lecture anyone on such important life changing issues, they haven't even lived their lives to begin with.

Says you.

Do all virgins not get a say in public policy or just priests?

I Heart Internet

swampgas wrote: »

I think that's an important distinction. As I Heart Internet correctly points out, it would be excessive to completely block a church group making representations in matters that affect them directly, simply because they are religious.

However for issues such as abortion, divorce or contraception the church should not have any special position to influence policy. .

As I've said above, even if you accept the argument that others can tell a person or organisation what is of interest to them or affecting them (which I don't), who gets to decide what's relevant?

Can the churches only be involved in debates around - heights of church spires, viscosity of holy water or import/export of priests vestments? Surely its up to organisation themselves to decide what they are interested in.

I would suggest that pretty much every person and every organisation could reasonably claim to have an interest in eg abortion.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You say interfere, I say participate in. Everyone and every organisation is free to participate in democracy. Does Atheists Ireland not speak to Govt about matters? More power to them.

Atheists don't allow a fairytale book to dictate their views,
Atheists also didn't try to blackmail TD's into voting the way they wanted, the RCC did as we've already discussed in depth.

Any group that tries to blackmail TD's should be f*cked out on their ear

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You say interfere, I say participate in. Everyone and every organisation is free to participate in democracy. Does Atheists Ireland not speak to Govt about matters? More power to them.

I think the difference is that AI is a lobbying group. They don't get invited to advise the government on policy. Which is how it should be. If the RCC wants something change they should have to lobby just like AI.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Do all virgins not get a say in public policy or just priests?

Outside of Bishops and Priests there ain't too many 30, 40, 50 and 60 year old Virgins in lobby groups, even those that follow a religion that says no sex before marriage have the option of sex so it can still impact on them.

Priests and Bishops repress normality, they can't have sex end of unless they step down from their positions or decide to show two fingers to the Vatican and have abit on the side.

I Heart Internet

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think the difference is that AI is a lobbying group. They don't get invited to advise the government on policy. Which is how it should be. If the RCC wants something change they should have to lobby just like AI.

They do. They lobby all the time. Just like countless other organisations.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Outside of Bishops and Priests there ain't too many 30, 40, 50 and 60 year old Virgins in government, even those that follow a religion that says no sex before marriage have the option of sex.

Priests and Bishops repress normality,

That's a very, very close minded attitude. The RCC is (justifiably, often) criticised for its negative labelling of homosexual people as "disordered" but you're totally cool with saying that people, who happen to live their sexual life different from how you would, are freaks and weirdos and "repressing normality".

Really closed-minded.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Atheists don't allow a fairytale book to dictate their views,

That you respect one persons motivations over another (or even understand them) is not a good basis for running a democracy. Everyone's entitled to their views. Whether you like it or not.

Cabaal wrote: »

Atheists also didn't try to blackmail TD's into voting the way they wanted, the RCC did as we've already discussed in depth.

Any group that tries to blackmail TD's should be f*cked out on their ear

Everyone encourages TDs to vote as they would like. Votes are their currency and everyone is free to "blackmail" a TD with the promise of their vote.