Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm aware of the issues, but when certain partys will refuse to attend the wedding otherwise it does limit options sadly.

For the record, I'm none religious on census...always have been since I started filling it out.

No kids will ever be baptised, no funerals will be religious.

I often wonder if they'll actually follow through on that. I've heard friends say the same, but in the heel of the hunt the 'offended' parties always end up going. Maybe calling their bluff might let them know grownups can't have tantrums about other people's ceremonies.

Walter H Price

intheclouds wrote: »

Sure, change comes slowly, but theres no point in people like the OP claiming to want a secular society if they themselves are keeping the whole charade going.

I think that's unfair , particularly on those who do want a secular society but at present are having to baptise kids just to make sure they can get into the local school etc...

I don't necessarily want to see no church's etc in the country , but i would like the religious debate taken out of political issues like abortion and the church removed from primary school education.

My best friend , who will be my best man, has gotten his 8 year old daughter baptised this year so she can make her communion only because she was being bullied for being the only kid in the class not making it. I don't see this as his fault or him as a hypocrite , this is the fault of a broken system where religious instruction and prep for sacraments is still taking place in the classroom.

galljga1

Off topic but connected:
What do you think of Easter egg manufacturers dropping the word Easter from packaging? They are now just eggs.

TheChizler

galljga1 wrote: »

Off topic but connected:
What do you think of Easter egg manufacturers dropping the word Easter from packaging? They are now just eggs.

Just read an article about Cadbury forcing secularisation on us... They were very happy to say the word Easter was now banned. Seems to be a favourite word of those who wish to feel persecuted when someone chooses not to treat them preferentially.

Cabaal

galljga1 wrote: »

Off topic but connected:
What do you think of Easter egg manufacturers dropping the word Easter from packaging? They are now just eggs.

Doesn't bother me either way. Easter eggs and the like are nothing to do with Christian faith anyway. The name and what we know today was hijacked by the church

Easter is named for a Saxon goddess who was known by the names of Oestre or Eastre, and in Germany by the name of Ostara. She is a goddess of the dawn and the spring, and her name derives from words for dawn, the shining light arising from the east. Our words for the "female hormone" estrogen derives from her name.

Ostara was, of course, a fertility goddess. Bringing in the end of winter, with the days brighter and growing longer after the vernal equinox, Ostara had a passion for new life. Her presence was felt in the flowering of plants and the birth of babies, both animal and human. The rabbit (well known for its propensity for rapid reproduction) was her sacred animal.

Easter eggs and the Easter Bunny both featured in the spring festivals of Ostara, which were initially held during the feasts of the goddess Ishtar | Inanna. Eggs are an obvious symbol of fertility, and the newborn chicks an adorable representation of new growth. Brightly colored eggs, chicks, and bunnies were all used at festival time to express appreciation for Ostara's gift of abundance.

Kiwi in IE

TheChizler wrote: »

Just read an article about Cadbury forcing secularisation on us... They were very happy to say the word Easter was now banned. Seems to be a favourite word of those who wish to feel persecuted when someone chooses not to treat them preferentially.

Cadbury is a private chocolate company is it not? I didn't realise that they were under obligation to any church when it comes to naming their products. They are perfectly entitled to call them Chocolate Satan or 666's if they wish.

intheclouds

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Cadbury is a private chocolate company is it not? I didn't realise that they were under obligation to any church when it comes to naming their products. They are perfectly entitled to call them Chocolate Satan or 666's if they wish.

Wonder how well thatd go down with some of the religious grannies referred to in this thread?

"What did get get for Easter kids??"
"We got Chocolate Satans!!!!!!! Yeeeeaaaaahhh!!!!"

NyOmnishambles

intheclouds wrote: »

Wonder how well thatd go down with some of the religious grannies referred to in this thread?

"What did get get for Easter kids??"
"We got Chocolate Satans!!!!!!! Yeeeeaaaaahhh!!!!"

I was visiting some nieces and nephews last year at Easter and wished them a Happy Zombie Jesus day

It wasn't well received :pac:

TheChizler

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Cadbury is a private chocolate company is it not? I didn't realise that they were under obligation to any church when it comes to naming their products. They are perfectly entitled to call them Chocolate Satan or 666's if they wish.

I'd buy it!

lazygal

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Cadbury is a private chocolate company is it not? I didn't realise that they were under obligation to any church when it comes to naming their products. They are perfectly entitled to call them Chocolate Satan or 666's if they wish.

"Robs this idea"

looksee

There is a potentially interesting discussion out there about why church and state should be separated. All we have had so far is a rerun of the baptism for schools thread and a lot of waffle about whether or not people should be married in church.

Are the arguments for separating church and state so obvious that they are not worth mentioning, or should the status quo continue?

looksee

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Cadbury is a private chocolate company is it not? I didn't realise that they were under obligation to any church when it comes to naming their products. They are perfectly entitled to call them Chocolate Satan or 666's if they wish.

Those names would still be a nod to religion, no matter how negative.

intheclouds

looksee wrote: »

Are the arguments for separating church and state so obvious that they are not worth mentioning, or should the status quo continue?

I suppose for me its about the will of the people and power.

I would rather our laws reflect the will of the people than the will of a pretendy man who laid down laws in a holy book.

And I would prefer that the people who have power in the state are those were were elected as part of the democratic process rather than people who believe in pretendy stuff.

Id prefer if truth was actually fact and not what a religion doctrines as truth.

It is very difficult for religious societies to evolve as religions dont really evolve.

Hotblack Desiato

intheclouds wrote: »

I suppose for me its about the will of the people and power.

I would rather our laws reflect the will of the people than the will of a pretendy man who laid down laws in a holy book.

And I would prefer that the people who have power in the state are those were were elected as part of the democratic process rather than people who believe in pretendy stuff.

Id prefer if truth was actually fact and not what a religion doctrines as truth.

It is very difficult for religious societies to evolve as religions dont really evolve.

I agree with you, but the problem in 20th century Ireland was that for most of it, most of the population agreed with (or, at least, were not publically prepared to challenge) the power of the RC church, and a legislature that made 'catholic laws for a catholic people.'

The protection of minority rights is a problem in democracies if you allow the majority to do whatever they want - hence the concept of human rights.

We really don't have a good system of governance here from that point of view, we are constantly criticised by Amnesty and the UN because we only permit human rights where the majority of people agree. Thankfully last May they did agree, but put forward something more contentious like the repeal of the 8th amendment, and they may not agree.

A rights based approach would not permit the state to diminish the rights of pregnant women, non-catholics, etc. whether it was popular to diminish those rights, or not.

When you think about it, it was crazy giving straight people a veto on whether gay people should have the same rights as they do (although the electorate chose not to exercise that veto, they could have.) But that is what the constitution has stuck us with.

One eyed Jack

intheclouds wrote: »

Clearly lots of people at least dont mind about it - otherwise why are they still going to mass?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A person may still attend mass, and be disgusted by the institutional abuse of men, women and children that was carried out in the name of, and covered up by those people within the RCC who committed these crimes.

With the separation of religion and State, politicians might actually have to work for a living and do something to justify their exorbitant salaries while claiming there are no funds to provide for services that should be provided by the State, such as education and healthcare.

I would like to see a separation between religion and the State so that neither the religious organisations could interfere with the affairs of the State, and the State would not be able to interfere with the affairs of religious organisations.

The stuff about weddings and baptisms and so on are people's personal choices and have nothing to do with any separation between religious organisations and State.

lazygal

How are education and health care not currently provided by the state? The state pays the salaries, including for chaplains, of those in the health service. It also pays for medical treatment and the upkeep of hospitals. It pays the salaries of teachers, including those complicit in indoctrination, as well as for building and maintaining schools.

One Eyed Jack, could you please provide the figures on the amounts spent by all religions in Ireland on health care and education in Ireland for this year or the last?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The stuff about weddings and baptisms and so on are people's personal choices and have nothing to do with any separation between religious organisations and State.

Weddings, yeah. Baptisms, not really, not so long as baptised kids are favoured in the education system.

Absolam

I think it's wonderfully ironic that separation of Church and State is being used as rationale for wanting State agency to be used to curtail religious liberty; the very opposite of what the concept of separation of Church and State was intended to prevent.

I do like that we have, and espouse, separation of Church and State though. It's good for everyone that as religious preferences change the State is restrained from interfering in religious practice (for instance not banning Burqas), and is obliged to allow parents of all religious (and irreligious) perspectives equally to choose how they educate their children, even up their establishing schools which can receive State funding.

Obviously, it's a tricky proposition to prevent public representatives working for the State who have views (or represent people with views) that closely align with Churches from espousing those views in State business, but personally I think that so long as neither State nor Church gets to dictate (as distinct from effectively dictate, or influence) to the other how they should conduct their business, we're heading in the right direction.

It's a fact that on occasion, a State may be obliged to keep Churches from religiously inspired actions that cause harm to individuals (for instance fgm), and that a State that is composed of people largely of one religious viewpoint will reflect that viewpoint, but I don't think these really reflect a lack of separation of Church and State, rather they acknowledge that there is an inevitable overlap.

Further separation of Church and State should I think be a carefully considered measure; it's important that what action may be taken is in the interest (and is the will) of the public, rather than what I suspect might more likely be simply the desires of anti-theists dressed up as a supposed public benefit.

Canadel

Absolam wrote: »

I think it's wonderfully ironic that separation of Church and State is being used as rationale for wanting State agency to be used to curtail religious liberty; the very opposite of what the concept of separation of Church and State was intended to prevent.

This makes no sense.

Separation of church and state was intended to protect religious liberty, and specifically to prevent the dominance of one particular religion. It was intended to prevent exactly the situation we have in this country concerning Catholicism.

In a rational world, religious people would be the strongest proponents of separation of church and state, never mind atheists or anti-theists.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

How are education and health care not currently provided by the state? The state pays the salaries, including for chaplains, of those in the health service. It also pays for medical treatment and the upkeep of hospitals. It pays the salaries of teachers, including those complicit in indoctrination, as well as for building and maintaining schools.

In separating the religious from State affairs, the State would be obliged to overhaul the education and healthcare system. The religious organisations would have to cover their own costs, and the State would have to cover theirs.

One Eyed Jack, could you please provide the figures on the amounts spent by all religions in Ireland on health care and education in Ireland for this year or the last?

I can't tbh. I'm fairly sure that whatever all religions spent, the State spent a substantial amount more that could have been used to provide a State education and a functioning at least, healthcare system, because the current system is a joke, in all areas of healthcare, across the board.

Canadel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In separating the religious from State affairs, the State would be obliged to overhaul the education and healthcare system. The religious organisations would have to cover their own costs, and the State would have to cover theirs.

An interesting point Michael O'Brien made tonight on the VB show, the Catholic Church could still choose to fund the state schools, they just would not be permitted to run them according to a predominantly Catholic ethos i.e. they wouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate kids any more. They'd simply be funding childrens' education. You'd imagine that would be a very Christian thing to do, so in fact the state might not have to cover all of the costs of secularisation.

Absolam

Canadel wrote: »

This makes no sense.
Separation of church and state was intended to protect religious liberty, and specifically to prevent the dominance of one particular religion. It was intended to prevent exactly the situation we have in this country concerning Catholicism.

To be more specific, I think it was intended to prevent the State making one particular religion dominant, and to prevent the State from interfering with (orthodox) religious liberty. There's no argument that they intended to give their State a mandate to prevent a religion being dominant, or that they envisioned their State protecting religious liberties from anything other than itself.

The thinking was actually more in line with preventing situations such as pertained in England at the time, where the Head of State was also the Head of the State Religion, than with the current situation in Ireland (which they really couldn't have envisioned, in fairness) where the majority of people at least claim to belong to one religion, though they may have given some thought to Ireland at their own time, where the established State religion was suppressing the majority religion of the nation via it's direct association with the State and the establishment of the penal laws and suchlike.

Canadel wrote: »

In a rational world, religious people would be the strongest proponents of separation of church and state, never mind atheists or anti-theists.

Only if they didn't belong to a religion that exercised dominance over a State. It's not at all rational to give up an advantage; it's rational to use it to gain further advantage. Like the Protestants did in Ireland in the century prior to the Founding Fathers drafting the First Amendment; you never know, Grattans Patriots might have been part of the Founding Fathers inspiration for doing so.

Absolam

Canadel wrote: »

An interesting point Michael O'Brien made tonight on the VB show, the Catholic Church could still choose to fund the state schools, they just would not be permitted to run them according to a predominantly Catholic ethos i.e. they wouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate kids any more. They'd simply be funding childrens' education. You'd imagine that would be a very Christian thing to do, so in fact the state might not have to cover all of the costs of secularisation.

I think it's a stretch to conclude that covering a part of the cost of secularisation is a Christian thing to do

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Weddings, yeah. Baptisms, not really, not so long as baptised kids are favoured in the education system.

Do you not think that's self-perpetuating though?

Have to get the children baptised to give them a better chance to get into a school => Children get into school because they have been baptised over other children that haven't been baptised => School maintains the religious criteria for enrolment.

If enough people refuse to have their children baptised, then Government would have no choice but to act, as the State has a duty to provide for children's education.

Absolam

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you not think that's self-perpetuating though?
Have to get the children baptised to give them a better chance to get into a school => Children get into school because they have been baptised over other children that haven't been baptised => School maintains the religious criteria for enrolment.
If enough people refuse to have their children baptised, then Government would have no choice but to act, as the State has a duty to provide for children's education.

Actually, that holds true in reverse as well; if the number of baptised children applying to a school for places is less than the schools capacity, the school would never have a reason to engage a faith first policy, because all of their ethos requirements would be fulfilled and they would simply be accepting unbaptised (or circumcised, whatever) children as part of their normal intake.

That assumes a majority of parents not actually wanting to baptise their children in the first place obviously, and being prepared to take a principled stand rather than seeking personal advantage in the second place.

I think the secular schools argument is that people are far more likely to look after their own interests than their principles, therefore the State must look after their principles for them, at the behest of secular advocates. Or maybe I'm being a little harsh

One eyed Jack

Canadel wrote: »

An interesting point Michael O'Brien made tonight on the VB show, the Catholic Church could still choose to fund the state schools, they just would not be permitted to run them according to a predominantly Catholic ethos i.e. they wouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate kids any more. They'd simply be funding childrens' education. You'd imagine that would be a very Christian thing to do, so in fact the state might not have to cover all of the costs of secularisation.

That sounds like Michael was taking the michael surely?

People who identify with a particular religion would fund their own children's education in a school with a religious ethos, and those people who are of no religion would fund their children's education, and any parents who chooses or could not afford private education, would have the option of sending their children to a State funded public school.

Canadel

Absolam wrote: »

Only if they didn't belong to a religion that exercised dominance over a State. It's not at all rational to give up an advantage; it's rational to use it to gain further advantage. Like the Protestants did in Ireland in the century prior to the Founding Fathers drafting the First Amendment; you never know, Grattans Patriots might have been part of the Founding Fathers inspiration for doing so.

We finally arrive at the truth. It's only rational to continue to exercise that dominance to the biased observer. That is exactly why separation of church and state exists. For the situation whereby 99.9999% of people belong to and are in favour of a state religion. It exists to protect not only the 0.0001%, but also the 99.9999% if the 0.0001% was the state religious power.

Canadel

Absolam wrote: »

I think it's a stretch to conclude that covering a part of the cost of secularisation is a Christian thing to do

I can't think of anything more Christian.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

I seriously do believe if people don't want to be engaged by any christian ethos shouldn't be allowed near a church at all, dont get married at a church and dont celebrate christmas as after all you're celebrating a christian tradition

One eyed Jack

Canadel wrote: »

I can't think of anything more Christian.

I don't know have you ever seen this episode of South Park?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvin%27_Marvin_in_Space