Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

In many jurisdictions, "separation of church and state" is needed as a pragmatic matter just to facilitate different religious groups "rubbing along". In this one, the risk is more along the lines of "avoiding the state being run as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state". Spinning effective separation as "retrograde" seems to essentially argue for, if it was good enough for John Charles McQuaid, it's good enough for me. After all, it wasn't his signature on any of the legislation that was enacted by religious "bloc vote" on his say-so, right? "Separation" merely requires that it not be a formal theocracy; they can be completely hand-in-glove, as long as there's one step of removal between the two?

alaimacerc

swampgas wrote: »

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.

I don't think it's quite as subjective as this discussion might lead you to believe. "Defenders" of the 84% & 90% just end up arguing from rather contorted positions (opinion surveys don't actually survey opinion; you don't have to do anything your religion expressly says you have to do; you don't have to believe anything your religion actually makes you recite out loud that you believe). The alternative is just to admit what we've all thought all along, that it's pure cultural hangover, and a relic of totemic nationalist identity politics.

But like all hangovers, it'll ease up over time. Just might require more than a couple of a prairie oysters, a greasy feed of soakage, and some hair of the dog.

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?"

We have to keep asking the same question (though not necessarily as leadingly put, or on a form that's quite so badly designed) so as to avoid making impossible cross-comparison between different censuses. We just have to a) hope that the eye-watering disjunction between "affiliation" and anything meaningful closes over time, and b) take them with a large pinch of salt in the meantime.

Additional questions are possible, but it's hard to see how one can avoid just ending up throwing good data after bad. Short of repeatedly slapping someone round the face and saying "No, really! What religion are you actually?" Which would be problematic given ethical, legal, and budgetary constraints.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

A Catholic is a baptised Christian who is in eucharistic communion with the Catholic church.

Your "nutshell" is remarkably large and preamble-laden, since this is the position I mentioned quite some considerable number of posts ago. But this is not the RCC's definition of "a Catholic", this is the concept of "person in full communion with the pope".

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 could be describing either actual apostasy here, or something vaguer, like failure of obligation. (That I keep referring to "apostasy" as "apostasy", and you keep dancing around the issue at considerable length is somewhat of a marker of this discussion.)

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.

It's not actually theologically possible in Trinitarian Christianity. If you become a prod, you don't need to be re-baptised. You in fact cannot be re-baptised. Baptism is (just about) the one thing that (just about) all Christians agree on. This can up previously in the thread, so I'll suppress any reflex to dive into further detail. But yes, you could be baptised as a Mormon, or you could be received into a different Trin-denom, by various procedures different in each case. Either of those clearly rises to "self-excommunication by reason of heresy".

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.

And more importantly, c) they need to keep up the "self-identifying" numbers as best they can, and d) it's the biggest stick they have for disciplinary purposes, so they can hardly be giving it out to everyone who's skipped too many masses, can they now? Then what would they have left for oiky coadjutors to threaten politicians with?

But you're conflating two distinct processes here. There's formally pronounced excommunication, and there's "inherent to the act" excommunication. Unfortunately, there's the small matter of anyone actually noticing that the latter has occurred. (In <nerd alert> D&D Cleric terms, the hierarchy have been issued with "Excommunicate Naughty Person" spells, but not "Detect Whether Naughty Person Has Excommunicated Themselves" ones.) Punching the pope and my various other suggestions have the advantages of being both automatic, and hard not to notice.

So, yes, there are lots of people that are, in theory, excommunicated, that the RCC has no practical means of determining. But if they don't show up at mass anyway, or they do once in a great while, but don't rock the boat, the point is moot. Schroedinger's wafer.

Merely not showing up, ever, is not sufficient, though. That's a failure of obligation, entails some amount of sin between "none" and "maximum sin reached", and certainly rules out being seen to still be in communion, but is in theory an an entirely separate matter.

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.

They consider people who they've formally excommunicated to be excommunicated. They consider people that they deem to have excommunicated themselves to be excommunicated. They consider people who have excommunicated themselves, unknown to any (relevant) member of the hierarchy, unknown to them, to be excommunicated... or would, if they knew they had. Known unknowns, and all that. But they know this indeterminate category exists, obviously.

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.

... and who has ever at any point advanced such a view? Or, ascribed that view to anyone else? You're conflating two (or more) different things, here. The church's view is that one's "permanent" status is determined by the initiatory sacraments; one's "temporary" status is whether you're presently in communion with the church. Those definitions are both useless and irrelevant as far as anyone else is concerned (and fairly useless even to the church). The world, as I've said, must construe according to its wits, not according to these notional (and fundamentally unknown) initiatory or communicant status.

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.

No, it's not the "opposite desire". The opposite desire would presumably entail, as a matter of necessity though hardly sufficiency, actually showing up at a mass every now and then and actually participating in act of said communion. The "desire" they're actually "expressing" is on the face of it not more than to not be prosecuted by the CSO for non-completion, or to go to the seemingly conceptually radical step of going all the way down to the "No religion" box. It's certainly not much evidence at all of not having become an apostate, by the church's declared standard for such (or the various other means of self-excomming).

By the your claimed criterion that an excommunicant is no longer a Catholic, by the test of the creed and canon law, there are lots and lots of people (say, around half or so?) that aren't. But since the church doesn't know this, it'd be a bit much for the census form to try to do any better.

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Everyone's entitled to their views.

Apart from the lack of any right to the view that "self-identifying" (i.e., box-ticking) (non-)Catholics aren't actually Catholics? Or is that not actually a lack of a right, just a rhetorical silencing tactic?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I believe anyone can call themselves a catholic if they like and no one should feel they have the right to tell them they've chosen incorrectly.

vibe666

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The highlight sections above are entirely anti-democratic.

It doesn't matter how much you hate the RCC or how badly you think Ireland has been served by them and by Governments influenced by them, in a functioning democracy, EVERYONE gets a say.

No it's not, it is specifically enforcing the Irish constitutional requirement for a separation church and state that expressly forbids any religious institution (not just the Catholic church) from influencing government policy.

vibe666

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In this case, I'm fine with that as the alternative is supporting legislation which allows for the deliberate killing of unborn children.

So you're okay with the church coercing TD's into voting differently than either their conscience or the majority of their constituents would want them to?

TD's are elected representatives of the people, specifically their local constituents, NOT the church and as such they have a responsibility to vote according to those factors only, not as the church wants them to vote.

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That is not treason. Article 39 of our constitution will set you straight on this.

Article 6
1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial,
derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to
designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to
decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good.

Constitution and Powers
Article 15

2. 1° The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State
is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative
authority has power to make laws for the State.

Article 39
Treason shall consist only in levying war against the
State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or
conspiring with any person to levy war against the
State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent
means to overthrow the organs of government
established by this Constitution, or taking part or being
concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to
make or to take part or be concerned in any such
attempt.

A coup would be treason. I'm not fine with a coup.

I'm totally fine with a church reminding its adherents of what it expects of them. Regardless of their dayjob.

Hyperbole doesn't help our case. Another reason I know its not treason is that no one has been charged with treason (except on internet forums).

Going by your logic there is no such thing as a 'crime' unless someone has actually been charged.

Car stolen - not a crime unless we charge the perps apparently.

Raped? - not a crime unless...

Would you be fine with members of other religions adhering to their religious beliefs over and above the laws of the land?

Sharia Law for Muslims maybe? Should that be extended to Non-Muslims who happen to live in a area where the majority are Muslim?

What about when those 'religious' laws are in direct contravention of Civil laws?

Should the 'religious' laws take precedence.

You appear to be arguing that they should.

As for 'treason' - the argument can certainly be made that when the representatives of a foreign state - which you have argued in another thread in a term that applies to the Vatican - apply pressure on Irish legislators to ignore the results of several referenda and instead act according to the wishes of that foreign state this is to incite those legislators 'levy war' against 'the organs of government' i.e. to commit treason.



The hierarchy of the Irish branch of the RCC is appointed by the Vatican. They take their orders from the Vatican. The Vatican is, as you have argued, a foreign sovereign state.



Notice the wording of the article - if 'levy war' referred specifically and only to violent methods there would be no need to include the words 'or attempting by force of arms or other violent means'. It says 'levy war' or 'attempting by force of arms or other violent means' which means 'levy war' means more than employing violent methods.

TREASON ACT, 1939.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF TREASON AND CERTAIN ANCILLARY OFFENCES. [30th May, 1939.]

WHEREAS it is provided by Article 39 of the Constitution that treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, on assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government, established by the Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0010/print.html

Corkfeen

weisses wrote: »

You should make a game of it but instead of rock, paper, scissors use poll census, referendum

The referendum asked a clear question that was explained time and time again. It's completely different from a vague question on what your religion is.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

TDs don't swear an oath.

You're correct. I'm very uncomfortable with that, we need a new government structure.

I Heart Internet

alaimacerc wrote: »

Oh good grief, this old "terminological exercise" again. I refer you back to my earlier extensive rebuttal of this, which I recall you ducked out of after I pointed out the flaw in your attempted equation of fee-paying schools into the same "state-funded" category as (what any reasonable personal is happy to regard as) "state school". i.e., the ones overwhelmingly built by state funds, overwhelmingly run with state funds, and run with a state-provided educational infrastructure.

I seem to recall suggesting (or agreeing to the suggstion) that these privately owned and state funded schools be called "state-funded schools". This reflects the reality.

Calling privately owned and managed schools "state schools" is entirely misleading. It suggests that the Govt need only issue a circular and every school will cease to be unique and become Public School No. 1, Public School No. 2, etc.

I Heart Internet

alaimacerc wrote: »

The church says a lot about a lot of things. But it says a whole lot about "moral issues" (i.e., relating to sex). You seem to be upset that people don't have the good taste as to pretend not to notice. Not our "undue weight": theirs.

You think that "moral" = "relating to sex". Wow. And you say the RCC is obsessed with sex!?

I Heart Internet

alaimacerc wrote: »

Apart from the lack of any right to the view that "self-identifying" (i.e., box-ticking) (non-)Catholics aren't actually Catholics? Or is that not actually a lack of a right, just a rhetorical silencing tactic?

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Everyone has the right to feel as they like about people's religion.

I Heart Internet

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Article 6
1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial,
derive, under God, from the people.........

So someone has reported this alledged crime to the Gardai??

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So someone has reported this alledged crime to the Gardai??

Once again - since when does a crime have to be reported to constitute being a crime?

If a woman is raped but does not report it - does that mean no crime was committed?

That is what you are saying.

You seem to have gone silent on the issue of whether the 'laws' of a religion should trump the laws of the State...Care to explain why you are arguing that this would be an appropriate course of action for an elected representative?

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Oh, just better off in general. I'm not the person insisting on dragging in off-topic fanciful "claims" about Breivik. Just willing to spend the few moments that were required to demolish yours.


I made the error of trusting your own artless characterisation of it as "meditation", which makes no sense if it were indeed intended to be strictly a one-off. My mistake not to double-check your own woolly assertions (especially as everything else I did check proved to be utterly wrong, as I've demonstrated).


Up to your usual standard of "rebuttal": i.e., dismiss, insult, totally ignore the evidence cited, claim superior knowledge, absent any demonstration thereof whatsoever. Feel free to get back to me with an actual argument in the event you manage to throw one together.


It really just isn't. I've pointed out where he directly contradicts what you asserted. Produce some material "redirect", or have the good grace to just stop repeating yourself. What next, going to scweam and scweam until you're sick?


The two are not exclusive. The one may indeed just essentially be the usual "cultural" window-dressing for blatant racism. But it's absurd to claim, as you've apparently just doubled down on (having been cited direct evidence from the manifesto you've supposed already read in detail) that someone anticipating admittance to heaven as a martyr, devising "pledges of allegence" to (inter alia) god, anticipating wholesale reconstruction of European church polity, ethnically cleansing the continent on "culturally" Christian lines, etc etc is areligious, irreligious, or (utterly nonsensically) "secularist".


Oh, but you very much are. Your attempts to argue that other people have some supposed "double standard" necessitates tortured characterisation of what other people might have said (but, well... didn't), adding on about three or four layers of wildly inappropriate extrapolation and invalid comparison, and claiming to have made fools of us all.

People are "affiliated" to a religion to the extent that they do or think anything that would provide evidence of that. The different between "tap all" and "ticking a census box every five years, or allowing it to be ticked for you" is minimal. Breivik may or may not pass my (... and the churches'...) suggested "Credo" test, with or without assorted caveats and factoring in doubt, but he's a great deal further into "demonstrated affiliation with Christianity" than that.

I'm not exactly sure what you think you know or what references you have provided but it is like I said.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60849766/Anders-Behring-Breivik-Manifesto-2083-%E2%80%93-A-European-Declaration-of-Independence-By-Andrew-Berwick

This is the section in context of Breivik's prediction that he will "pray" during his attacks.


Take note of the title "Even the most hardened atheist turns to Christ during his final hour"

Breivik's prediction that he would have "prayed" was during what he fully expected to be a suicide-mission.

He then proceeded to quote some famous atheists who embraced God as they were close to death.

This is the section in context on his "praying", with my emphasis.

There are no atheists in foxholes
I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think;


“Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higherpower if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.”


Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state for example during illness,death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well.

However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet... But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, gunsblazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. I know there is a 80%+ chance I am going to die during the operationas I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission. When I initiate (providing I haven’t been apprehended before then), there is a 70% chance that I will complete the first objective, 40% for the second , 20% for the third and less than 5% chance that I will be able to complete the bonus mission. It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would.I can’t possibly imagine how my state of mind will be during the time of the operation, though. It will be during a steroid cycle and on top of that; during anephedrine rush, which will increase my aggressiveness, physical performance and mental focus with at least 50-60% but possibly up to 100%. In addition, I will put my iPod on max volume as a tool to suppress fear if needed. I might just put Lux

Aeterna by Clint Mansell on repeat as it is an incredibly powerful song. The combination of these factors (when added on top of intense training, simulation,superior armour and weaponry) basically turns you into an extremely focused and deadly force, a one-man-army. At the moment, I do not fear death, but I am very concerned about being afraid on the day of the mission. I’m afraid that the potential fear I might experience during the mission will paralyze me or will result in me “crapping my pants” so to speak. Theoretically, this will not happen, as I have grown to be extremely mentally disciplined and I have undergone numerous hours of training and simulations. Nevertheless, it is impossible to properly simulate a martyrdom operation so I am still somewhat concerned for my mental state during that time.If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out... If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.I am pursuing religion for this very reason and everyone else should as well,providing it will give you a mental boost.

He is also quite clear on his secularism.

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a JusticiarKnight?

A:As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;


-That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage.


The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity - Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority).It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways,our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment.

It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we
do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage(what we do want).

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fightfor our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnosticor a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order

And it's not at all off-topic. It exposes the blatant double-standard with shifting defintions of what makes a religious person based not on their beliefs and actions but if we can claim him as one of "theirs" to make "them" look bad.

You can't have it both ways.

Turtwig

Brevik's manifest consolidates his position as a troll. I think he just wrote heaps of those words so they could be put into nice easy quotes for the media to harp on about. He covered just about every section of society in the darn thing.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You can't have it both ways.

And yet that is exactly what many of those who self-identify as Roman Catholic want...

They want to be seen to be part of the majority religion while at the same time be allowed to ignore the rules which pertain to being members of that religion.

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet that is exactly what many of those who self-identify as Roman Catholic want...

They want to be seen to be part of the majority religion while at the same time be allowed to ignore the rules which pertain to being member of that religion.

I've said this many times but part of the "rules" which are determined by the Church is determining the penalties for breach of these rules. They are still entitled to call themselves Catholic if they opt-in, meet the entry requirements - Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation haven't been excluded as a matter of punishment.

AerynSun

Jernal wrote: »

Brevik's manifest consolidates his position as a troll.

It nearly sounds impressive if you listen to Lux Aeterna will you read it :pac:

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Brevik's manifest consolidates his position as a troll. I think he just wrote heaps of those words so they could be put into nice easy quotes for the media to harp on about. He covered just about every section of society in the darn thing.

He had the vaguest of vague Christian ideas. His association with Christianity wasn't spiritual at all. It was a part of his fantasy that he was a successor to the Knights of the Crusades.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've said this many times but part of the "rules" which are determined by the Church is determining the penalties for breach of these rules. They are still entitled to call themselves Catholic if they opt-in, meet the entry requirements - Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation haven't been excluded as a matter of punishment.

So they can have it both ways then.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He had the vaguest of vague Christian ideas. His association with Christianity wasn't spiritual at all.

Once again - much like many of those who self- identify as Roman Catholic.

You seem to be arguing that all one needs to 'do' to be a Catholic is identify as one but also that Breivik wasn't a Christian because he didn't know enough about it and his association with Christianity was/is cultural.

What a bizarre line of reasoning.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Are you saying that as Breivik failed to know enough about this broad religious category called 'Christianity' (which covers an extremely wide range of conflicting beliefs) he cannot be a Christian but someone can be a Roman Catholic ( a sub-set of Christianity with very specific rules) as long as they participated in some rituals when they were children but know little about the tenets of the Faith they profess, participate in its rituals in anyway what so ever nd actively flaunt the very specific rules of the RCC ?

You can't seriously be saying that???

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So they can have it both ways then.

Do you appreciate the distinction between an individual self-identifying and a stranger trying to force strict definitions onto them from the outside?

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you appreciate the distinction between an individual self-identifying and a stranger trying to force strict definitions onto them from the outside?

Do you appreciate how much you are contradicting yourself?

If self-identification is all that matters - why are formal steps (Baptism. Communion, Confirmation) required?

As for ' a stranger trying to force strict definitions onto them from the outside' - that is actually very funny given how many people try to force a Catholic ethos and a Catholic definition of what it means to be Irish on non-Catholics in Ireland.

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - much like many of those who self- identify as Roman Catholic.

You seem to be arguing that all one needs to 'do' to be a Catholic is identify as one but also that Breivik wasn't a Christian because he didn't know enough about it and his association with Christianity was/is cultural.

What a bizarre line of reasoning.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Are you saying that as Breivik failed to know enough about this broad religious category called 'Christianity' (which covers an extremely wide range of conflicting beliefs) he cannot be a Christian but someone can be a Roman Catholic ( a sub-set of Christianity with very specific rules) as long as they participated in some rituals when they were children but know little about the tenets of the Faith they profess, participate in its rituals in anyway what so ever nd actively flaunt the very specific rules of the RCC ?

You can't seriously be saying that???

I am not saying that at all. Breivik seem well-versed in Catholic history. Far greater in fact than the average Irish person despite the supposed Vatican sponsored covert MK Ultra programs to brainwash our youth.

What I am saying/have said is that census, while being far from perfect is the most comprehensive and accurate survey of the religious affiliation of Irish people.

I have already said that as a minimum a Christian must have some rudimentary spiritual beliefs in line with their Church. An individuals right to self-identify is important but not infinite. There are situations where a Christian's beliefs falls below this minimum threshold. This is something I think we can all agree on. Though not how high to set the bar.

What I have been trying to explain over and over again. Is that these surveys which have been shared do not discredit the census with exception of the small number of self-professed Catholics who don't believe in God. Everything else can be explained with the respondent remaining Catholic,

Therefore the census bends a little but certainly doesn't break.

On the other hand, we have people accepting Breivik as a Christian based purely on his self-identifying. When he doesin't fit any of the criteria they insist must be applied. People not even giving a fleeting thought if Islamic terrorist fit their otherwise strict and uncompromising definitions of what it means to be a member of a faith.

This is the double-standard. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. You can have your own personal definition of what makes a Christian, what makes a Muslim and so on but it has to be consistently applied not based on how you can best spin the facts. Even then, this opinion formed from the outside that you have of an indiividual never carries a greater weight than the opinion of themselves and their personal and private relationship between themselves and their Church. This is a matter of personal freedoms and liberty and to not be pidgeon-holed by others.

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you appreciate how much you are contradicting yourself?

If self-identification is all that matters - why are formal steps (Baptism. Communion, Confirmation) required?

As for ' a stranger trying to force strict definitions onto them from the outside' - that is actually very funny given how many people try to force a Catholic ethos and a Catholic definition of what it means to be Irish on non-Catholics in Ireland.

OK. Could you just answer the question please?

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not saying that at all. Breivik seem well-versed in Catholic history. Far greater in fact than the average Irish person despite the supposed Vatican sponsored covert MK Ultra programs to brainwash our youth.

What I am saying/have said is that census, while being far from perfect is the most comprehensive and accurate survey of the religious affiliation of Irish people.

I have already said that as a minimum a Christian must have some rudimentary spiritual beliefs in line with their Church. An individuals right to self-identify is important but not infinite. There are situations where a Christian's beliefs falls below this minimum threshold. This is something I think we can all agree on. Though not how high to set the bar.

What I have been trying to explain over and over again. Is that these surveys which have been shared do not discredit the census with exception of the small number of self-professed Catholics who don't believe in God. Everything else can be explained with the respondent remaining Catholic,

Therefore the census bends a little but certainly doesn't break.

On the other hand, we have people accepting Breivik as a Christian based purely on his self-identifying. When he doesin't fit any of the criteria they insist must be applied. People not even giving a fleeting though if Islamic terrorist fit their otherwise strict and uncompromising definitions of what it means to be a member of a faith.

This is the double-standard.

If Breivik believes Jesus was/is the Messiah he is a Christian. There is no other requirement as far as I am aware.

(Do you have some window into his mind that you can state with absolute certainty he does not believe that Jesus was/is the Messiah???)

Unlike the general term 'Christian' being a Roman Catholic has very specific requirements.

Claiming to be a Roman Catholic while engaging in pre-marital sex, using contraception, engaging in homosexual sex, having (or aiding the procurement of) an abortion is classic double standards - not to mention not believing in God at which point it become frankly ridiculous.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. Could you just answer the question please?

Yes I do.



Your turn - do you appreciate just how much you are contradicting yourself?

I must go and do some science experiments now with my granddaughter so take your time, read back through your own posts and see if you can discover what parts could be considered contradictory and perhaps you could clarify why that is the case.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On the other hand, we have people accepting Breivik as a Christian based purely on his self-identifying. When he doesn't fit any of the criteria they insist must be applied. People not even giving a fleeting thought if Islamic terrorist fit their otherwise strict and uncompromising definitions of what it means to be a member of a faith.

This is the double-standard. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. You can have your own personal definition of what makes a Christian, what makes a Muslim and so on but it has to be consistently applied not based on how you can best spin the facts. Even then, this opinion formed from the outside that you have of an individual never carries a greater weight than the opinion of themselves and their personal and private relationship between themselves and their Church. This is a matter of personal freedoms and liberty and to not be pigeon-holed by others.

Sorry, BB, but this thread is mostly about how and why Irish people self-identify as Christian, something of significant interest to many on this forum. You seem to want to derail it and use the thread as a platform to bang on about discrimination against Muslims. You might want a different thread, or even a different forum for that.

Not saying it isn't an interesting topic in its own right, but not one I feel like getting stuck into right here.

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

Sorry, BB, but this thread is mostly about how and why Irish people self-identify as Christian, something of significant interest to many on this forum. You seem to want to derail it and use the thread as a platform to bang on about discrimination against Muslims. You might want a different thread, or even a different forum for that.

Not saying it isn't an interesting topic in its own right, but not one I feel like getting stuck into right here.

*Checks to see where swampgas' modhat is. *
Must be in the back seat somewhere.
:pac: