Just be honest with yourself. You're not a Catholic. That's ok.

_Whimsical_

lukesmom wrote: »

I'm Catholic, a practising Catholic and I respect atheists for their non beliefs and I also very much respect them for telling the truth about where they stand with their non beliefs. It's the pretend Catholics I take issue with.

So would your definition of Catholic be a weekly mass goer or someone who doesn't partake of sacraments but believes? Could an unmarried mother or a gay person be a Catholic?
Not calling you out at all, I'm just curious.

lukesmom

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

So would your definition of Catholic be a weekly mass goer or someone who doesn't partake of sacraments but believes? Could an unmarried mother or a gay person be a Catholic?
Not calling you out at all, I'm just curious.

Well my definition of a catholic is not somebody who pretends to be one to get the kids into school but never goes to mass. I was an unmarried mother! Some of my friends are gay. It's not for me to judge them. They are being honest about their sexuality. People who tick on the Catholic boxes but don't practise the religion they are ticking are not honest.

eviltwin

How do you define a Catholic? Someone being baptised? A belief in Catholic dogma? Following the rules re mass, sex etc? I know a fair few Catholics but none of them believe in the faith or follow the rules. They still ticked Catholic on the census though.

K4t

The politics forum or politics café, or even an education forum, would surely be the best place for this thread?

That is considering most atheists merely ask that Ireland move more swiftly towards a truly secular state and that this nonsense about baptising children to get into schools and so on ends.

dixiefly

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Scrap Baptism for babies

People should not have a forced religion until they actually have an understanding of religion and choose themselves.

Excellent post, totally agree.

No matter how religious (and I am not commenting either way) but I think baptism to be taking place at minimum age 10 would be a great idea for all sides of the debate.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you define a Catholic? Someone being baptised? A belief in Catholic dogma? Following the rules re mass, sex etc? I know a fair few Catholics but none of them believe in the faith or follow the rules. They still ticked Catholic on the census though.

I think it's best let people define themselves and identify themselves for themselves, rather than telling them what they are or aren't. The only way one can identify a Roman Catholic is if they tell you they are Roman Catholic.

In your example above, depending upon how you look at it, you could identify someone as a pretend Catholic, and someone else could identify them as a pretend Atheist. They are absent of a belief in a deity, therefore by definition they are atheist, yet they practice Catholic rituals like the wedding ceremony or baptism of their children and so on.

As bluewolf pointed out earlier, there was a member of the hierarchy (I can't remember was it a priest or a bishop) but I do remember him making the news for calling out all those people who he saw as pretend Catholics. But the reason that case was highlighted in the media is because nowadays it's unusual for a member of the Hierarchy to do so, whereas you don't need to go back too far in history to remember the clergy calling people out from the ambo and vilifying them for their lack of devotion to the Church.

Nowadays what's weird, for me personally anyway, is to see the number of people who identify as Atheist who are calling people out for their lack of devotion to the Church, and the Hierarchy are looking like the more tolerant group led by Pope Frank who says "Who am I to judge?".

The Atheism movement might do well to take a leaf out of the RCC PR manual before they denounce pretend Catholics as idiots and so on if they actually want to encourage people not to be afraid to identify themselves as Atheist. People left the Church in their droves because they could no longer identify with a club of judgemental nutbars, and it's something Atheists should keep in mind before they go judging and denouncing other people.

It causes people to be resentful of, and averse to, identifying with a label which they associate with people who are so judgemental and scornful of other people who don't share the same devotion to their principles as they do.

Turtwig

It's very much in the rcc's best interests to accept anyone who identifies as Catholic. This is in spite of the whether or not they defecate over the catechism. Regardless of self identification, most Catholics do not aspire to follow the catechism.

coffee_cake

Now you see I wasn't making it up

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/dublin-archbishop-tells-lapsed-catholics-to-leave-the-catholic-church-135400893-237423621.html

The church believes that a la carte Catholics have picked and chosen which Catholic rituals to get involved with but Martin says the church will expect a far fuller commitment in the future.

In the new documentary 'Would You Believe,' priests reveal they will expect a firmer commitment from church-goers.

Hoof_Harted

I haven't been to mass in about 3/4 months, not because I don't want to - because I believe the man himself wouldn't judge you if you haven't gone to mass in a certain period of time.

I do though say the odd prayer now and again and if certain situations occur. Will I be rejected at the pearly gates?

One eyed Jack

Turtwig wrote: »

It's very much in the rcc's best interests to accept anyone who identifies as Catholic. This is in spite of the whether or not they defecate over the catechism. Regardless of self identification, most Catholics do not aspire to follow the catechism.

I don't mean to be funny but, well, unless you're a mind reader, there's no real way to judge other people's aspirations.

You can certainly judge them by their actions, you can even judge them by their opinions, but unless they actually tell you individually, there's no real way you can say most, or even any Roman Catholics, do not aspire to follow the Catechism of the RCC. The very fact that they identify as Roman Catholic in the first place is an indication that they indeed aspire to some degree to follow the Catechism.


EDIT: Completely agree with the rest of your point btw, the RC Hierarchy are only too happy to accept anyone who identifies as RC. The cynic in me would suggest it's less about acceptance, and more about maintaining their dominant position of influence in society.

Captain Pancake

Jaysus, I'm a recovering Catholic.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's best let people define themselves and identify themselves for themselves, rather than telling them what they are or aren't. The only way one can identify a Roman Catholic is if they tell you they are Roman Catholic.

In your example above, depending upon how you look at it, you could identify someone as a pretend Catholic, and someone else could identify them as a pretend Atheist. They are absent of a belief in a deity, therefore by definition they are atheist, yet they practice Catholic rituals like the wedding ceremony or baptism of their children and so on.

Agreed

The Atheism movement might do well to take a leaf out of the RCC PR manual before they denounce pretend Catholics as idiots and so on if they actually want to encourage people not to be afraid to identify themselves as Atheist. People left the Church in their droves because they could no longer identify with a club of judgemental nutbars, and it's something Atheists should keep in mind before they go judging and denouncing other people.

It causes people to be resentful of, and averse to, identifying with a label which they associate with people who are so judgemental and scornful of other people who don't share the same devotion to their principles as they do.

Is there an Atheist movement, or if there is, do most people here subscribe to it? I am not part of any movement, I don't much care what other people believe, exceptwhere those beliefs impact on me and on others in society who do not subscribe to the beliefs. Those people who give only lip service to religion are holding back any progress in achieving a fairer society.

Yes, the church (any variety) is a club, I have no problem with clubs, they can be a great benefit to people's social lives, but I don't expect people to be told that they can't send their children to the local school if they do not belong to the same golf club as the board of management.

robindch

Hoof_Harted wrote: »

I haven't been to mass in about 3/4 months, not because I don't want to - because I believe the man himself wouldn't judge you [...]

You've hit the nail on the head right there - by setting your own limits on your own god's behaviour. In another context, that might be called the tail wagging the dog.

Hoof_Harted wrote: »

I do though say the odd prayer now and again and if certain situations occur. Will I be rejected at the pearly gates?

Probably the wrong forum to ask that question in

The answer you will receive will depend on who you ask - I'd imagine that most priests would say that you would be accepted; a minority would say you'd be rejected; almost all of them would shroud their answer in a cloud of hems and haws, perhaps even sufficient to obscure their own beliefs in the matter.

But in reality? Well, this is A+A and most regular posters here are likely to believe that you'll not be rejected, not because you've not said the right prayers, or not carried out the requisite level of good deeds, but simply because there are no pearly gates to start with.

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that if you are good and do good, well, mostly likely, you'll be fine.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Is there an Atheist movement, or if there is, do most people here subscribe to it?

Oh come now, you're aware of Atheist Ireland surely for starters, and there are a number of other organisations and individuals that promote Atheism in society and to that end have even modelled their campaigns on the LGBT movement with encouraging closet atheists to come out! I genuinely don't know if anyone here subscribes to, or aligns themselves with any movement as such, but to claim it that an Atheist movement doesn't exist is, well, ever so slightly disingenuous.

I am not part of any movement, I don't much care what other people believe, exceptwhere those beliefs impact on me and on others in society who do not subscribe to the beliefs.

I think most ordinary people would actually share that point of view in that they don't actually care for the beliefs or absence of beliefs of other people, unless like you - their beliefs or absence of beliefs impact upon them or other people in society who do not share their beliefs or absence of belief.

I considered joining Atheist Ireland because I support their principle of the promotion of a secular society, but I decided not to join them because I could not support their principle of the eradication of religion and superstition in society. The second principle for me would contradict the first - secularism is a separation, eradication is another matter entirely.

Those people who give only lip service to religion are holding back any progress in achieving a fairer society.

I'd switch that around a bit and say that anyone who holds religion responsible for holding back progress in society, is only paying lip service to the idea of a fairer society.

In a fair society, the goal is surely to accommodate and accept everyone in that society, otherwise you're just being selective as to what is and isn't fair in society based on your own individual criteria and issues that affect you personally. The goal of a fair society is that everyone in that society feel they are treated fairly.

Yes, the church (any variety) is a club, I have no problem with clubs, they can be a great benefit to people's social lives, but I don't expect people to be told that they can't send their children to the local school if they do not belong to the same golf club as the board of management.

There's nothing stopping anyone sending their children to the same school as everyone else, but those people shouldn't be able to demand that the board of management should play cricket instead of golf (stretching the metaphor, I know :pac: )

I'm reminded of one woman who I was talking to one evening who used hire the local Catholic Institute grounds to play hockey, and she was telling me she wanted them to drop the "Catholic" from the title because she was non-religious. I thought to myself "In what world does she think that's going to happen?" There's nothing to stop her from playing hockey elsewhere, it just wouldn't be as convenient.

In the same way, there's nothing stopping those who want non-denom schools from campaigning for the provision by the State of non-denom schools, instead of sending their children to multi-denom or denom schools, and then complaining about the fact that their children are in multi-denom or denom schools - well you put them there, so you're tacitly supporting those schools, hence non-denom schools aren't seen as a priority by the State which has limited resources to allocate to Education.

coffee_cake

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don't know if anyone here subscribes to, or aligns themselves with any movement as such, but to claim it that an Atheist movement doesn't exist is, well, ever so slightly disingenuous.

She didn't

K4t

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd switch that around a bit and say that anyone who holds religion responsible for holding back progress in society, is only paying lip service to the idea of a fairer society.

In a fair society, the goal is surely to accommodate and accept everyone in that society, otherwise you're just being selective as to what is and isn't fair in society based on your own individual criteria and issues that affect you personally. The goal of a fair society is that everyone in that society feel they are treated fairly
.

But you would admit yourself that many Catholics are only paying lip service to their religion. If we go on the premise that most people aren't actually Catholics, but as this thread highlights, that they are cultural Catholics or Catholics in name only, then surely you are simply wrong when you say that the fairer society based on religion and religious doctrine is right if most people are identified as Catholics? The fairer society you speak of is in fact a falsity, an illusion, the horrible result of an expertly carried out experiment in control and manipulation, tradition and of course indoctrination.

One eyed Jack

bluewolf wrote: »

She didn't

I know looksee didn't specifically claim there wasn't an Atheist movement, but the question -

looksee wrote: »

Is there an Atheist movement, or if there is, do most people here subscribe to it?

I interpreted it as questioning the existence of an atheist movement, implying that there wasn't one.

coffee_cake

maybe she's just not up to date or with it

K4t

The thing is, we shouldn't even need an Atheist movement to secure a secular state; if religious leaders weren't such hypocrites and contrarians they would be the very people advocating separation of church and state, but as it suits their interests in this country, they ignore that little part of freedom of religion which says that freedom of religion only exists if there is also freedom from religion.

Jefferson, who created the wall of separation between church and state in the US, was religious himself. It was not due to any pressure from Atheist groups or Atheist movements in the US at the time that this clause was installed in the 1st amendment, but from pressure from a religious group, the Danbury Baptist church.

For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious tyranny whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished.

One eyed Jack

K4t wrote: »

But you would admit yourself that many Catholics are only paying lip service to their religion. If we go on the premise that most people aren't actually Catholics, but as this thread highlights, that they are cultural Catholics or Catholics in name only, then surely you are simply wrong when you say that the fairer society based on religion and religious doctrine is right if most people are identified as Catholics? The fairer society you speak of is in fact a falsity, an illusion, the horrible result of an expertly carried out experiment in control and manipulation, tradition and of course indoctrination.

You're not wrong there, and a perfect example of it was the Celtic Tiger economy where people spent money they didn't have In an economy that was an illusion, and now we're seeing the horrible results of that. It goes back to the point someone made earlier that they have no problem with what anyone else wants to do as long as it doesn't affect them - now we're all expected to give a damn about people who wouldn't have looked twice at us during the boom who are now having their homes repossessed.

In the same way - those people who choose to identify as Catholic, don't have any problem in doing so because they feel that they're already living in a society which is fair on them. They're not affected by the issues that affect non-religious people. Why should they care about non-religious people?

If non-religious people want a society which they feel is fair to them, but aren't willing to do anything about it, then it is non-religious people who are only paying lip service to the idea of a fairer society surely?

Atheists pretending to be Catholic are a problem for Atheists, and that problem isn't going to be solved by denouncing them using derogatory terms. That's simply cutting off your nose to spite your face IMO, a bit like "outing" people who are in the closet - nobody likes that kind of shaming behaviour and will choose to dissociate themselves from it as far as possible, preferring instead to stay where they're comfortable, and thus maintaining the status quo in society.

K4t

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If non-religious people want a society which they feel is fair to them, but aren't willing to do anything about it, then it is non-religious people who are only paying lip service to the idea of a fairer society surely?

Agree with a lot of that post, but just on this bit again, and I allude to it in my previous post too; I would sooner join an Anti-Theism movement than an Atheism movement tbh, but the two could both even be separate from the idea of a secular state, which both the religious and non-religious should strive for. But as you allude to, the religious don't really care or either don't understand how they are affecting the non-religious, so yes it is then up to groups like Atheism Ireland to lead the fight for the non-religious! Being an atheist in Ireland must feel surreal, knowing you live in a country where there are as many atheists as religious folk, and where secularism would be supported by a majority, and yet are still surrounded by strong religious influence on government policy and in schools.

One eyed Jack

K4t wrote: »

The thing is, we shouldn't even need an Atheist movement to secure a secular state; if religious leaders weren't such hypocrites and contrarians they would be the very people advocating separation of church and state, but as it suits their interests in this country, they ignore that little part of freedom of religion which says that freedom of religion only exists if there is also freedom from religion.

How do you make that out? I would say that if religious leaders weren't such hypocrites and contrarians, we'd be living in a theocracy. Of course they're going to ignore the freedom from religion though, because as you quite rightly point out, that wouldn't suit their idea of a fair society. A fair society in the eyes of religious leaders is quite literally - one nation under God.

Jefferson, who created the wall of separation between church and state in the US, was religious himself. It was not due to any pressure from Atheist groups or Atheist movements in the US at the time that this clause was installed in the 1st amendment, but from pressure from a religious group, the Danbury Baptist church.

For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious tyranny whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished.

And I would be of a similar perspective as Jefferson, which is why I am an advocate of a secular State, but that's not going to happen without more support. Atheists need the support of religious people, which just isn't going to happen if the people who want their support are calling them idiots, hypocrites, etc. That's simply going to leave a nastier taste in the mouths of religious people than any Christ crackers!

fisgon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nowadays what's weird, for me personally anyway, is to see the number of people who identify as Atheist who are calling people out for their lack of devotion to the Church, and the Hierarchy are looking like the more tolerant group led by Pope Frank who says "Who am I to judge?".

The Atheism movement might do well to take a leaf out of the RCC PR manual before they denounce pretend Catholics as idiots and so on if they actually want to encourage people not to be afraid to identify themselves as Atheist. People left the Church in their droves because they could no longer identify with a club of judgemental nutbars, and it's something Atheists should keep in mind before they go judging and denouncing other people.

.

I don't accept that there are these hordes of atheists denouncing catholics for not being religious enough. The OP here was actually very rational and respectful, as are most of the posters. In fact, a lot of the irrationalities came from the religious direction, as well as a lot of the ranting.

I also don't see all of this judgementalism. There may be some on the atheist side, but the fact is that if you point out the vast contradictions in someone's position, contradictions that they have never thought of before, it is going to make them defensive and prone to accusing atheists of judging them. It is a defense mechanism. A lot of people don't like to have the truth pointed out to them, and don't react well to it.

We have seen the truth of this right through this thread, people claiming to have no supernatural beliefs and yet determined to be still catholic. People campaigning for civil rights in the States got the same reaction, as have people wanting more rights for women throughout history, being called "judgmental", and much worse, for pointing out obvious contradictions and injustices.

One eyed Jack

fisgon wrote: »

I don't accept that there are these hordes of atheists denouncing catholics for not being religious enough. The OP here was actually very rational and respectful, as are most of the posters. In fact, a lot of the irrationalities came from the religious direction, as well as a lot of the ranting.

The thread title itself begins with a statement - Be honest with yourself - you're not Catholic. That is immediately suggesting to someone that they aren't what they claim they are, according to the OP's standards. You can't claim to be respectful of someone while at the same time accusing them of lying to themselves. If anyone here needs to be honest with themselves, it's a person who says - "You're not who you think you are, but I'm not judging you". In order to make that statement, they would have to have judged them, and then assessed that anyone who does not square with their standards, is not worthy of identifying themselves as Catholic. Respect for a person means asking them, rather than telling them. Respect for a person means acceptance, rather than judgment. What's irrational is thinking you can claim to be both respectful and judgemental at the same time, and to that end - one side is as bad as the other. Neither side is willing to show acceptance of those people who do not share their ideas. What's irrational is thinking that rejection leads to acceptance.

I also don't see all of this judgementalism. There may be some on the atheist side, but the fact is that if you point out the vast contradictions in someone's position, contradictions that they have never thought of before, it is going to make them defensive and prone to accusing atheists of judging them. It is a defense mechanism. A lot of people don't like to have the truth pointed out to them, and don't react well to it.

I completely agree, which is why I said one side is as guilty of judging people as the other. The fundamental difference between them is their versions of what is true for them. Your truth for example, is not mine. I don't know where the expression "as easy as taking candy from a baby" comes from, but if you ever tried it, it's bloody difficult. The same is true if you try to take away from someone anything that they find comfort in - they're not going to like it. If you identify as Atheist, you're not going to like a religious person telling you you're wrong, and if you're religious, well, you're not going to like an Atheist telling you you're wrong. Both are going to get defensive.

If you want people to come round to your way of thinking, then show them something positive about your way of thinking, instead of passing judgment upon them and trying to take away from them that which gives them comfort.

If you're going to tell me that your truth will set me free, and I see how miserable it's made you, well, it stands to reason that I'm going to reject your truth and hold on to my own which gives me comfort. I may be delusional according to you, but I'm happy, and you're not.

We have seen the truth of this right through this thread, people claiming to have no supernatural beliefs and yet determined to be still catholic. People campaigning for civil rights in the States got the same reaction, as have people wanting more rights for women throughout history, being called "judgmental", and much worse, for pointing out obvious contradictions and injustices.

Anyone who makes demands from a minority position is immediately going to be accused of upsetting the apple cart by people who aren't affected by the issues that affect them. As far as the majority is concerned, they feel they are treated fairly in society, so they can afford to ignore the minority. The fact that the majority don't like the minority trying to upset the apple cart really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

It puts people who don't like to see themselves as judgemental in a bit of a bind, where they can't see the obvious contradiction in their own position. Which matters more to you - injustice, or being faced with the truth of your own position?

Zamboni

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thread title itself begins with a statement - Be honest with yourself - you're not Catholic. That is immediately suggesting to someone that they aren't what they claim they are, according to the OP's standards. You can't claim to be respectful of someone while at the same time accusing them of lying to themselves. If anyone here needs to be honest with themselves, it's a person who says - "You're not who you think you are, but I'm not judging you".

Don't misrepresent me please.
I don't think people are lying nor am I judging them. I am speculating that some people simply haven't even considered their religious identity and I am trying to raise awareness that it will have an impact on their lives if they wish to get access to the education system for their children. The differing statistics indicate a significant difference between self proceeded Catholics and actual active catholics.
I don't want people to be athiest either. Quite frankly I don't give a damn. Nobody is trying to deconvert anybody.

One eyed Jack

Zamboni wrote: »

Don't misrepresent me please.

I'm not misrepresenting you at all. You're trying to distance yourself from your own position and in doing so, you're misrepresenting yourself - you're trying to point out to people the hypocrisy of their position, while at the same time suggesting that you're not judging them. You simply refuse to accept that's exactly what you're doing, so it was always going to be difficult for people to understand where you're coming from when you're denying your own hypocrisy.

You're asking people to critically evaluate their own position, when it seems you haven't critically evaluated your own position.

I'll go through this slowly -

I don't think people are lying nor am I judging them.

You presented a checklist in your opening post for people who consider themselves Catholic, and then suggested that if people don't meet the criteria on that list, then they're probably not Catholic. That statement implies that you think that people who don't meet those criteria, are lying to themselves - if they aren't being honest, then surely the opposite of that is that they're being dishonest with themselves, ie - lying to themselves.

You then go on to suggest that they should do what you tell them to do if they don't meet your criteria. You assume that these people haven't critically evaluated their religious identity. What part of that isn't passing judgment upon people? You're telling people to be honest with themselves, while you can't even be honest with yourself.

I am speculating that some people simply haven't even considered their religious identity

I see, you're not judging, you're 'speculating'. I call that semantics. You can't possibly form an opinion on an issue without judging the evidence presented, and then your opinion is speculation based on your judgment of the evidence.

and I am trying to raise awareness that it will have an impact on their lives if they wish to get access to the education system for their children.

This isn't anything against you personally, but that phrase, and the people who see nothing wrong with it, really grate on me, because it's people working off the assumption that other people aren't as 'aware' of issues as they are.

Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps they are aware of the impact on their lives of these issues, but they just don't care about it as much as you do? They're not the people with the problem - you are. How's that critical evaluation coming along?

It doesn't amaze me any more the number of people who assume that I couldn't possibly know what it's like to be homeless, an alcoholic or a drug addict, just because nowadays I wear a shirt and tie (my shirt and tie cost less than the Nike tracksuit on the homeless guy telling me I don't know what it's like to be homeless, but I choose not to argue. Pissing contests don't interest me).

Most people are only interested in an idea if there's something in it for them. Going against the status quo is difficult, why shouldn't people take the easy route?

That's where the onus is upon you to come up with a compelling enough argument to have people change their minds, and you won't do that if you're quicker to judge them than you are willing to understand them.

It's easy to judge someone else, and when you're in a minority, judging other people who are in the majority, isn't going to endear them to listening to your grievances. Some people within the marriage equality campaign are only beginning to realise this now when all along they were pouring scorn on religious people and the elderly, who in fact were among their biggest support base, and now they see that support slipping away as a consequence of their complacency. The phrase "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" comes to mind.

The differing statistics indicate a significant difference between self proceeded Catholics and actual active catholics.

Statistics don't mean jack in reality. They're useful for academic types, lobby groups and bean counters, but your average person doesn't actually give a damn about them. If you ever hope to gain support for your ideas, then give people something they can relate to - personal experience. The average person doesn't care for numbers on a spreadsheet.

I don't want people to be athiest either. Quite frankly I don't give a damn. Nobody is trying to deconvert anybody.

I know you don't want people to be atheist. You just want them to question why they still choose to pretend to be theists. In doing so, it appears you do give a damn, but it appears you don't give enough of a damn to lead the change.

You want everyone else to take responsibility, but you seem unwilling to take any responsibility. You're not judging people though, you're just telling them what to do.

Zamboni

Thanks for the condescending amateur psychoanalysis.:-)

robindch

Mod:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

[...] your own hypocrisy [...]

No unparliamentary language please.

One eyed Jack

Zamboni wrote: »

Thanks for the condescending amateur psychoanalysis.:-)

Emm...

Zamboni wrote: »

I am speculating that some people simply haven't even considered their religious identity

Well, this is awkward...

stupid_is_as _stupid_does

I understand the concerns of the OP regarding religious patronage of schools and the effect that the inflation of those identifying as Catholic may have on policy makers' decisions with regards to regulating for this. However, I think people should be free to identify as Catholic, even if they only see it as a cultural relationship with the religion.

This should not affect the rights of those who do not want to baptise their children when it comes to education. Unfortunately under the current system it does. I am against religious patronage of schools but do not believe it is going to change any time soon. Having read much of the thread and based on my personal views on the matter, I emailed the minister for education regarding the ability for schools to discriminate against non-religious families in their admission policies.

I think banning this practice would be a good step and would stop forcing non-religious parents to baptise their children out of fear that they wont get a place in their local school. The removal of the system of religious patronage will happen organically but will most likely take a lot longer. I will be emailing politicians in my constituency with regards to the admissions policy issue in the run up to the election and I hope others who have expressed strong opinions on here do likewise.

To reiterate my initial point, this is a separate matter from how people choose to identify themselves and those who feel strongly regarding the influence of religion on state policy should contact their local politicians and the ministers in charge of drafting policy to make sure their views are heard.