A chance to scrap the Angelus - Nutella, Croissants and Pineapples.

Huntergonzo

Absolam wrote: »

The census was four years and two months (ish) ago. So.... you're saying you were complicit in your mammy falsifying the census return? If it's been on your mind, it's worth knowing that any person who fails or refuses to provide the information requested on the census form or who knowingly provides false information may be subject to a fine of up to €25,000. So if you feel like doing the right thing.... you're worth up to €50k in fines to the State.

Adding in more bits there I see big shot, well threats to try and spread fear have always been heavily favoured by the religious, I shouldn't have expected any less from you.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

it doesn't negate the fact that they identify themselves as Catholic

Still not the point I was responding to.

Absolam wrote: »

To avoid any additional confusion, since the Nicene Creed is considered a profession of faith, the statement "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." is considered sufficient profession for Christians becoming part of the Church.

Whose faith is the Nicene creed professing then?

frostyjacks

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

What does the pope and vatican think on the subject? Sure you can have a few priests who are capable of allowing others to have religious freedom but the organisation itself was against it. The leaders in Ireland even considered backing out of the civil part of marriages.

Is this going to be the newest thing? Heres a priest who was ok with the state deciding how it wants to treat marriage, therefore the church wasnt against it despite the people in charge and all the groups like iona who happened to be affiliated with the church was against it. I know people are a fan of pretending the church was never wrong but at least wait a few years before you do it.

The Church may disagree with gay marriage, but they didn't tell people how to vote, which was the accusation levied.

I don't pretend the Church is never wrong, I just don't like to see falsehoods thrown around.

expectationlost

http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/0627/20150627_rteradio1-marianfinucane-theangelus_c20803705_20803711_232_drm_.mp3 .mp3 Michael Nugent vs Sr Margaret McCurtain vs Brendan O'Connor

Michael Nugent vs George Hook http://t.co/oGueH4WUf2

Hotblack Desiato

frostyjacks wrote: »

The Church may disagree with gay marriage, but they didn't tell people how to vote, which was the accusation levied.

A pastoral letter read out at mass isn't telling people how to vote.

A piece of cracker can be human flesh and blood.

Catholic logic.

tayto lover

I am not religious BUT what harm is the Angelus?
When I hear it I think of good friends and relations who have passed on and also that I am at home in Ireland and have friends and relatives nearby if i need them.

The Angelus is quite harmless.
As someone else said you can always change the station if you don't like it.

frostyjacks

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A pastoral letter read out at mass isn't telling people how to vote.

A piece of cracker can be human flesh and blood.

Catholic logic.

Logic? How about facts? They didn't tell people how to vote. To say otherwise is simply false.

obplayer

frostyjacks wrote: »

Logic? How about facts? They didn't tell people how to vote. To say otherwise is simply false.

Ok, they weren't telling the faithful, they were just hinting very very strongly. And the old virgin in Rome would really really like you to vote the way he wants.

Absolam

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'm aware that christianity is in Ireland quite a long time but what does that prove? and how did it spread anyway, surely people must have started teaching other people about it and it spread widely in what was a very superstitious time. Anyway we now know a lot more about the world and universe around us which sort of negates the need for omnipotent sky fairies I'd argue.

Well it would certainly indicate that there were Catholics before there were Catholic schools, so with regards to the correlation you offered, it's likely you're getting it backwards; the reason there are so many Catholic schools in Ireland is likely to be that there are so many Catholics. 84% of the population apparently. Whether or not they need omnipotent sky fairies is probably up to them, but I've never met anyone who said they did, have you?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

ie, we're the catholic majority, so you can fcuk off.

Who said that? I don't think anyone said that.. certainly no one is saying that 7.6% of cultural programming shouldn't reflect the interests of those who indicate no religious belief. But if you think 7.6% should dictate to 84% in a democratic society, you'll probably find more than just Catholics express their disdain for the notion just as you've described.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

The state should be there to ensure that the majority don't have more rights than the minority.

Maybe. But shouldn't it also be there to ensure a minority can't dictate to the majority?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

As it is at the minute catholics have a right to hear their call to prayer (which is what the angelus is) on the national broadcaster, yet people of other faiths don't and atheists aren't represented either. Anyway I don't want to see atheists opinions or other faith calls to prayer before the 6.01pm news, I just want to see the 6.00pm news!!!

I think that's just not true.
First of all Catholics don't have a right to hear it; RTE broadcasts it because according to it's research a majority of its viewers want to hear it.
Nor has RTE (or anyone else) forbidden the call to prayer for other faiths being broadcast, but at 1% of the population, I can't see the Muslim call to prayer warranting a daily feature, can you?
As for atheists; what do you think would be a reasonable representation?
If 84% warrants sixty seconds a day, 7.6% (to include agnostics and unspecifieds as well) warrants about five and a half seconds. What would you like to do with it?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha, yes I'm complicit, actually no complacency was my main crime, I presumed it would be filled out correctly and found out later that it wasn't.

I'm sure you did the right thing and immediately reported your mammy to the appropriate authorities.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

As a matter of interest are you complicit in supporting pedophile priests by donating your money to the catholic church (an organisation who systematically covered up for those vile pedophiles) in their collections at mass?

I'm pretty sure I'm not. For a start, if I was aware of a pedophile priest engaging in illegal activities (even if I found out later) I would report him to the appropriate authorities. Further, I've never donated money to the Catholic Church, though if I had I don't think I'd feel funding the positive aspects of an organisation made me complicit in it's negative aspects.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Adding in more bits there I see big shot, well threats to try and spread fear have always been heavily favoured by the religious, I shouldn't have expected any less from you.

Big shot eh? I feel positively flushed with praise
Is it threatening to point out someones obligations? Be honest, did you feel even the tiniest frisson of fear, for even a moment, that your anonymous post on the internet would lead to your mammy being arrested for falsifying your census return? I doubt it... but hyperbole is a tool heavily favoured by those trying to make a point seem more than it is, so I don't expect any less from certain quarters.

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Still not the point I was responding to.

Obviously not... but then, what I actually said was the point you were responding to was "The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Whose faith is the Nicene creed professing then?

It is a profession of the Christian faith. Do you think that should make a difference to whether a Catholic should need to accept it, if the Catholic Church doesn't say a Catholic needs to?

frostyjacks

tayto lover wrote: »

I am not religious BUT what harm is the Angelus?
When I hear it I think of good friends and relations who have passed on and also that I am at home in Ireland and have friends and relatives nearby if i need them.

The Angelus is quite harmless.
As someone else said you can always change the station if you don't like it.

Being harmless isn't enough. It must conform to their worldview.

Dozen Wicked Words

I think it would be a nice slot for a thought for the day type thing like they have on radio 4. Multi faith but still spiritual, few calming words with some nice images of Ireland, jobs a good'un. (I know there have been some controversial ones but most are pretty tame, particularly if they are only getting a minute here instead of 2 on the radio, I doubt it would be an issue)

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Being harmless isn't enough. It must conform to their worldview.

Just because something is harmless doesn't mean it's good or that we should keep it. What worldview is being pursued by proposing that RTE no longer provides free advertising twice a day of the Catholic call to prayer?

Hotblack Desiato

frostyjacks wrote: »

Logic? How about facts? They didn't tell people how to vote. To say otherwise is simply false.

They circulated this in all parishes. It makes it very clear what the official catholic view is on this issue, and therefore which way catholics should vote.

Cut to the chase in the last two pages:

God’s Plan for Our
Marriage and Family

As we answer God’s call
in our vocation
in the Sacrament of Marriage
to follow Christ and to serve
the kingdom of God in our married life,
we ask, in and through the concreteness of
events, problems, difficulties and circumstances
of everyday life, that God will come to us,
guiding us and enlightening us as we share
Christ’s love with one another, in our family life,
at work, in our neighbourhood, in our
contributions to society
and in the life and worship of our parish.

Inspired by John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio (51),
from The Family Prayer Book11

In seeking to reaffirm the unique value to children and
society of the mutual and complementary roles of a
mother and father, we ask that the principle of equality
not be undermined by applying it inappropriately to two
fundamentally different types of relationship. Marriage is a
unique relationship different from all others for a reason.

11. The Family Prayer Book, Council for Marriage and the Family (Dublin:
Veritas, 2013), p. 164.


The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis,
as are all communities and social bonds. In the
case of the family, the weakening of these bonds is
particularly serious because the family is the fundamental
cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite
our differences and to belong to one another; it is also the
place where parents pass on the faith to their children.
Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere
emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way
or modified at will. But the indispensible contribution of
marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary
needs of the couple. As the French bishops have taught, it is
not born ‘of loving sentiment, ephemeral by definition, but
from the depth of the obligation assumed by the spouses
who accept to enter a total communion of life’.

POPE FRANCIS, The Joy of the Gospel, 66



Marriage is a unique relationship
different from all others for a reason
Is gaolmhaireacht faoi leith an pósadh,
difriúil ó gach eile gaolmhaireacht ar chúis
COMHDÁIL EASPAG CAITLICEACH ÉIREANN
catholicbishops.ie

PopePalpatine

Not to mention the novena against marriage equality.

I'm not surprised to see who's thanked THAT post.

frostyjacks

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They circulated this in all parishes. It makes it very clear what the official catholic view is on this issue, and therefore which way catholics should vote.

Cut to the chase in the last two pages:

Again, they're not telling people how to vote; they're leaving it up to the individual to make up his/her own mind. Are they not allowed to express an opinion on something?

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They circulated this in all parishes. It makes it very clear what the official catholic view is on this issue, and therefore which way catholics should vote.
Cut to the chase in the last two pages:

I think the therefore is where your argument falls apart though. The Catholic position was made clear, perfectly true. But nowhere in that circular did the Church tell anyone how to vote; just as frostyjacks said.
You yourself demonstrated that, by extrapolating a consequence (therefore) from what you quoted, rather than simply quoting the circular where they told people how to vote. Which you could (and presumably would) have, if they had actually done it.

A lot more reasonable to simply say the Catholic Church made strong efforts to influence the vote, acknowledge they had as much right to do so as anyone else in the country, recognise that they were unable to exert sufficient influence over a large enough segment of the population (despite the indoctrination so deeply fixed in so many of them) to carry the vote, and leave it at that. After all, it probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether we should scrap the Angelus or not....

SpaceTime

The only slight issue, whatever the church said about voting, is that 90% of our schools are run by an organisation that has a fundamental problem with gay people and particularly gay parents.

Yet legally and constitutionally we've got every right to be openly gay or be gay and parents.

It'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with homophobic bullying.

Cabaal

SpaceTime wrote: »

The only slight issue, whatever the church said about voting, is that 90% of our schools are run by an organisation that has a fundamental problem with gay people and particularly gay parents.

Yet legally and constitutionally we've got every right to be openly gay or be gay and parents.

It'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with homophobic bullying.

Interesting really, how on one hand can a Catholic ethos school claim bullying somebody that is gay is wrong but at the same time their own ethos calls that person unnatural and they want that person to have less rights and protection under law than everyone else.

It's like claiming bullying a person with special needs is wrong but at the same time your own policies mean you think and call that person a f*cked up freak of nature and you want them to have less rights.

Is it any wounder younger generations have no interest in the Catholic Church once they hit teens, the church has such hatred towards so many people in this world.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

The only slight issue, whatever the church said about voting, is that 90% of our schools are run by an organisation that has a fundamental problem with gay people and particularly gay parents.
Yet legally and constitutionally we've got every right to be openly gay or be gay and parents.

Though in fairness, the boards that actually run the schools are largely composed of lay people, a substantial proportion of whom just demonstrated their unwillingness to be persuaded by the Church on that issue.

SpaceTime wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with homophobic bullying.

Is there a reason to think it will change from how they currently deal with homophobic bullying, other than the normal evolution of those kinds of policies?

SpaceTime

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting really, how on one hand can a Catholic ethos school claim bullying somebody that is gay is wrong but at the same time their own ethos calls that person unnatural and they want that person to have less rights and protection under law than everyone else.

It's like claiming bullying a person with special needs is wrong but at the same time your own policies mean you think and call that person a f*cked up freak of nature and you want them to have less rights.

Is it any wounder younger generations have no interest in the Catholic Church once they hit teens, the church has such hatred towards so many people in this world.

It's an interesting concept called "complete and utter hipocracy".

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

Though in fairness, the boards that actually run the schools are largely composed of lay people, a substantial proportion of whom just demonstrated their unwillingness to be persuaded by the Church on that issue.
Is there a reason to think it will change from how they currently deal with homophobic bullying, other than the normal evolution of those kinds of policies?

I know a few gay people who would have been quite obviously gay and they're were bullied to within an inch of their lives (literally nearly drove one to suicide) at school in Ireland not all that many years ago.

When parents complained the response was pretty weak and watery to put it mildly. This was long after the Equal Status Act and the outside world was quite gay friendly.

My concern is that ethos will result in it being left as a subject to be tolerated but skirted around and avoided.

One member of staff said "well can be not tone it down. He shouldn't be flaunting it in school anyway!"

It was a sort of awkward hand wringing and a freaking out that this was a topic related to something sexual and they didn't want to discuss it.

Anyway I'm getting way off topic here ... Back to the bongs!!

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

I know a few gay people who would have been quite obviously gay and they're were bullied to within an inch of their lives (literally nearly drove one to suicide) at school in Ireland not all that many years ago. When parents complained the response was pretty weak and watery to put it mildly.

So do I, but don't recall it being condoned or even facilitated by the school.. nor in my experience did it only happen in Catholic schools.

SpaceTime wrote: »

My concern is that ethos will result in it being left as a subject to be tolerated but skirted around and avoided. One member of staff said "well can be not tone it down. He shouldn't be flaunting it in school anyway!"

Well, is it currently a subject to be tolerated but skirted around and avoided?
For instance, Belvedere College's anti bullying policy specifically mentions perceived sexual orientation.
Blackrocks policy also mentions bullying based on sexual orientation, Holy Faith specifically calls out Identity based bullying such as homophobic bullying, St Josephs CBS policy specifically seeks to explicitly address the issues of cyber-bullying and identity-based bullying including in particular, homophobic and transphobic bullying.... and these are all Catholic schools.
They don't seem to be aiming to tolerate or skirt around and avoid the subject, so what reason is there to think they will begin to?

Not a NSA agent

frostyjacks wrote: »

The Church may disagree with gay marriage, but they didn't tell people how to vote, which was the accusation levied.

I don't pretend the Church is never wrong, I just don't like to see falsehoods thrown around.

I didnt see anyone saying that they said vote no (although I could just be missing it) but are saying the church opposed it and encouraged it which is obviously true. Rather than say vote no the said that people should "protect the family" and failure to do so could lead to them no longer covering the civil parts of marriage.

The RCC tends to tone it down a bit here but if we look at the pope in the Philippines we get a less censored version of the churches view.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500200.htm

Brian Shanahan

Absolam wrote: »

According to the Curriculum, it's neither religious indoctrination, nor faith formation, it's religious education.

A) religious indoctrination and faith formation are one and the same thing, the second phrase is just trying to dress up an unpalatable truth in nice language, just like with the phrase enhanced interrogation replacing torture when the US does it. When the "religious education" consists of ramming catlick doctrine down children's throats in the hopes they'll swallow it, you can bet your arse that it is indoctrination, albeit of a very crude kind.

Also:

Is it flippant? Brian Shanahan put forward the notion that the Angelus is on a state broadcaster too, which is supposed to cater to all Irish, the non-religious majority as well as the tiny minority of paleolithic era catlicks.

Does it really gall you that much that you are part of a dying breed of people?

The fact of the matter is, Absalom, you are woefully out of step with the rest of Ireland who consider themselve catholic, never mind the vast majority who really don't give a **** about religion except as a cultural "communion, weddings, burials" kind of thing.

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

So do I, but don't recall it being condoned or even facilitated by the school.. nor in my experience did it only happen in Catholic schools.
Well, is it currently a subject to be tolerated but skirted around and avoided?
For instance, Belvedere College's anti bullying policy specifically mentions perceived sexual orientation.
Blackrocks policy also mentions bullying based on sexual orientation, Holy Faith specifically calls out Identity based bullying such as homophobic bullying, St Josephs CBS policy specifically seeks to explicitly address the issues of cyber-bullying and identity-based bullying including in particular, homophobic and transphobic bullying.... and these are all Catholic schools.
They don't seem to be aiming to tolerate or skirt around and avoid the subject, so what reason is there to think they will begin to?

We actually don't have any non Christian ethos secondary schools unless maybe the grind schools until educate together comes on stream there are no mainstream ones.

They're all coming from more or less the same place mostly Catholic of various strengths of involvement in day to day management or small number of Protestant schools. None of the Christian churches are particularly good at gat rights. The church of Ireland has recently become a lot more progressive but it's still pretty muchom the fence on the issue.

I'm glad to see those schools mentioned above have good policies but it's still just a bit odd that the church comes out with one thing yet then claims to be all tolerant in the next breath.

You really wouldn't know where you stood with them.

A lot of church tolerance at official level is "tolerance" too not acceptance. There's an awful lot of "hate the sin love the sinner" type stuff which is pretty hurtful to people who are LGBT.

All I'm saying is it's just a very two faced position the organisation takes. How can you be on the one hand quote openly and officially anti-gay and on the other supportive of gay students ?

Doesn't make sense.

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

Just because something is harmless doesn't mean it's good or that we should keep it. What worldview is being pursued by proposing that RTE no longer provides free advertising twice a day of the Catholic call to prayer?

As already mentioned, it's not the Catholic call to prayer. It's a moment of reflection. I'm not sure what the intentions are with those looking to scrap it, but I'm curious as to why such a short, harmless broadcast provokes so much bile in people.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) religious indoctrination and faith formation are one and the same thing, the second phrase is just trying to dress up an unpalatable truth in nice language, just like with the phrase enhanced interrogation replacing torture when the US does it. When the "religious education" consists of ramming catlick doctrine down children's throats in the hopes they'll swallow it, you can bet your arse that it is indoctrination, albeit of a very crude kind.

And still,regardless of whether you think religious indoctrination and faith formation are one and the same thing (and let's be honest, it's only those who oppose the latter who misidentify it as the former), neither one is on the Irish schools curriculum; the curricular subject is religious education, and contrary to what you said, Irish primary schools do not have to spend 10% of teaching time on "faith formation" which is a rule set down by the department, nor is the amount of time spent on "faith formation" (or even religious education) the largest amount of time spent on a single subject in the Irish primary curriculum.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Also: Does it really gall you that much that you are part of a dying breed of people?

I only pointed our you statement was factually incorrect, like the others you made. Does it gall you so much to be called out on your fabrications that you feel the need to imagine the 'breed' people belong to?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The fact of the matter is, Absalom, you are woefully out of step with the rest of Ireland who consider themselve catholic, never mind the vast majority who really don't give a **** about religion except as a cultural "communion, weddings, burials" kind of thing.

Would you prefer it if I was 'in step'? Would it make you feel better if I conformed to your notions of what people should consider themselves to be? I don't think it would make me less likely to point out your presentation of nonsense as facts to be honest.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

frostyjacks wrote: »

As already mentioned, it's not the Catholic call to prayer. It's a moment of reflection. I'm not sure what the intentions are with those looking to scrap it, but I'm curious as to why such a short, harmless broadcast provokes so much bile in people.

I second on you with that.
Don't see how a minute of silence can affect a persons life ENORMOUSLY!!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.