What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

One eyed Jack

CruelCoin wrote: »

I thought we had a new law recently that religion couldn't be used anymore in deciding school places?

I'd like to see them removed entirely from schools, but i wouldn't agree that there is no desire.

There’s a bit more to it than just a blanket ban on religious discrimination in schools admissions policies, but I didn’t say there was no desire, I said there was no real desire, to remove religious influence from our education system, which there isn’t.

RobbieTheRobber

CruelCoin wrote: »

I thought we had a new law recently that religion couldn't be used anymore in deciding school places?

I'd like to see them removed entirely from schools, but i wouldn't agree that there is no desire.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not, and certainly not in Ireland where religion is one of the cohesive elements in education among both Irish children and their immigrant counterparts (or second and subsequent generation immigrant counterparts). Religion is also a cohesive element in socioeconomic and cultural values among Irish and immigrants for the most part (it hasn’t gone unnoticed), particularly in urban areas where there are concentrations of both extremes - DEIS schools and fee paying schools - both will share the same ethos, but one will have significantly more resources than the other and will have a far better pupil:teacher ratio.

That’s not accounting for ET schools (which are a bit of a mixed bag in terms of the socioeconomic backgrounds of their student population), nor is it accounting for schools which are not recognised by the State and therefore receive no State funding (which are again something of a mixed bag between Steiner schools and religious ethos schools) or home school networks which again would share core values and educational standards which must meet a non-defined minimum standard of education for the children, overseen by TUSLA. There are many different demographics which have no desire to participate in a more secular liberal education, France being one of the more extreme examples, but it’s evidenced in Germany and the UK too, and to a lesser degree here in Ireland, precisely because there is no real desire to remove religious influence from our education system.

Undoubtedly, the influence of religion presents something of a paradox or conundrum for liberal academics, who all too often choose to do as you have done, and pretend that religion is a completely separate issue in terms of multiculturalism. They’re thinking of multiculturalism on their terms (an abstract ideological concept which they can theorise and quantify and predict with statistical data which suits their ideological and political leanings), and not what multiculturalism actually is in reality - it’s like mixing oil and water for the most part. That’s not to suggest a stable and sustainable multicultural society is an impossible achievement, but in order for the process to work, it’s important to acknowledge and understand all contributing factors rather than simply ignore or discard factors which don’t gel with a liberal understanding of multiculturalism, and soap, lots and lots of soap

There were two issues with school admissions policies which would have had a huge negative impact on immigrants.
Cruel coin has already mentioned one of those the baptismal barrier. Over 90% of the schools in Ireland are catholic despite in some cases being built and paid for entirely by the state. These schools used a catholic baptismal certificate as a barrier to entry. This would allow Catholic baptised students to take preference over other children of even other Christian religions and be given places before those of other or no religions.
The baptismal barrier is now gone.

A second barrier for entry for immigrants to schools was the waiting list system. The waiting list system allowed those already in the state to apply to schools in some cases before the birth of their child. This has very obvious negative impacts on the likelihood of immigrants or even people who are recently moved to area in getting school places in their local schools.

The waiting list system has also only recently been banned by the government.
So in terms of schooling the state has already made progress in removing two major issues affecting immigrants in school places and hopefully creating greater integration opportunities within our communities.

I would like to go further and for the state to ban religious education in all state funded schools and if the schools wish to continue religious education it can be done as a extra curricular activity after the regular school day has finished.

CruelCoin

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I would like to go further and for the state to ban religious education in all state funded schools and if the schools wish to continue religious education it can be done as a extra curricular activity after the regular school day has finished.

I've always thought that was a double standard people have.
Madrassas; bad. Teaching children that if they don't believe 5 fish fed thousands, they're going to hell; Good!

If one is evil indoctrination, then so is the other.
That the state would allow this behaviour is abhorrent.

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

And by definition, these 4 million down the road,will need how many million to support their pension's? and so on and so on??? I'm not sure how long this model will work for.....especially when you think about how job demographic's are changing with AI etc.

Exactly, this pension issue needs to be fixed instead of multiplication of populations.

The world is grossly overpopulated already and we're heading for another few billion added in our life times.

The solution isn't to keep increasing the population, pension models that are sustainable to the current, or lower populations is what we need to solve.

Cordell

Both are evil but there are multiple levels of evil.

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I would like to go further and for the state to ban religious education in all state funded schools and if the schools wish to continue religious education it can be done as a extra curricular activity after the regular school day has finished.

I would go further and suggest that religious indoctrination take place in their place of worship, alongside whatever type of service they attend.

Esho

bubblypop wrote: »

I would go further and suggest that religious indoctrination take place in their place of worship, alongside whatever type of service they attend.

My mother wore a headscarf leaving the house when I was young.
Same ****, different headscarf here now.

I agree, any religious education that is towards any one religion should be out of school hours.

CruelCoin

CruelCoin wrote: »

I've always thought that was a double standard people have.
Madrassas; bad. Teaching children that if they don't believe 5 fish fed thousands, they're going to hell; Good!

Ahh well, there's a crapton of willful misinformation (embracing absolutes and generalisations) going on by all sides when it comes to religion and education. I'm not religious now but I had a religious upbringing, and I have nothing but praise for the education, and the "indoctrination" I received. Whereas I have friends who hated their experiences. Different experiences, different schools, different teachers.

When I was in the M.East, I went to a variety of schools (since my friends were all teachers/parents), and I found little difference between their schools and ours.

It's not the schools themselves that are the problem. It's the cultural and moralistic lessons they impart. Islam follows a range of cultural norms which, in some cases, are opposite to western/Irish values.

If one is evil indoctrination, then so is the other.
That the state would allow this behaviour is abhorrent.

Only if you deal in absolutes, in which case you'd fit in well with both religious groups. And all schools deal in indoctrination, whether they be religious, private or State run.

Western religions (and their schools) have changed as a result of changes in society.. Islamic schools change as a result to changes within Islam.. not society. So we see a hardening of views among many Islamic followers, which is imparted to their children. There is also the aspect that with funding coming from certain sources, both Mosques and schools, can have a political (combined with religious) drive behind them.

We've seen a softening of Western Christianity (not including the US) over time, where society no longer tolerates the negative behaviors that were associated with the past.

That's an important difference.

biko

Esho wrote: »

My mother wore a headscarf leaving the house when I was young.
Same ****, different headscarf here now.

But your dad probably wouldn't kill your mum if she chose to not wear the scarf.
That is what happens if you try to not wear a niqab/hijab etc, or maybe you "just" get shunned by your family and friends.

If someone becomes too westernised they can get shunned/raped or killed. How racist is not that?!

One eyed Jack

Esho wrote: »

Most of the illegals here have been paying tax and are working. I've no problem with this myself.

I agree with you that there is a problem where diverse = black from all the types who live on planet zog - like social justice warriors, journalists, politicians and others who are too lazy to think or to spineless to address this issue head on.

One thing politicians have actually addressed head on is the issue of modern day slavery where employers are exploiting illegal immigrants by not paying them properly for their labour, and avoiding paying employers PRSI, leaving employees in the lurch where they do not qualify for any form of social protection. There are massive problems in the area of what is now called the ‘underground economy’ or ‘shadow economy’ (it’s not referred to as the black economy any more, but it’s the same thing, just by a different name).

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So in terms of schooling the state has already made progress in removing two major issues affecting immigrants in school places and hopefully creating greater integration opportunities within our communities.

Both those issues were more of a hassle for Irish parents than they were any sort of a barrier for parents coming from countries where the majority of the population are predominantly Catholic, Protestant or some other minority religious denomination. The language barrier was more of an issue than either of the above, and in schools which are oversubscribed (a minority of schools in urban areas), what was known as ‘the sibling rule’ was a handy way to keep out undesirables, who would then have no issues with enrolment in their local DEIS schools.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I would like to go further and for the state to ban religious education in all state funded schools and if the schools wish to continue religious education it can be done as a extra curricular activity after the regular school day has finished.

I know, and therein lies the conundrum I referred to earlier. It’s multiculturalism of course, but on your terms, which aims to up-end Irish society in a way which suits only a tiny minority of people, as opposed to the current education system which appears to be meeting the educational needs at least, of the vast majority of the population, and the vast majority of immigrants who are choosing Ireland as the type of society in which they are choosing to settle and raise their children.

RobbieTheRobber

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One thing politicians have actually addressed head on is the issue of modern day slavery where employers are exploiting illegal immigrants by not paying them properly for their labour, and avoiding paying employers PRSI, leaving employees in the lurch where they do not qualify for any form of social protection. There are massive problems in the area of what is now called the ‘underground economy’ or ‘shadow economy’ (it’s not referred to as the black economy any more, but it’s the same thing, just by a different name).





Both those issues were more of a hassle for Irish parents than they were any sort of a barrier for parents coming from countries where the majority of the population are predominantly Catholic, Protestant or some other minority religious denomination. The language barrier was more of an issue than either of the above, and in schools which are oversubscribed (a minority of schools in urban areas), what was known as ‘the sibling rule’ was a handy way to keep out undesirables, who would then have no issues with enrolment in their local DEIS schools.





I know, and therein lies the conundrum I referred to earlier. It’s multiculturalism of course, but on your terms, which aims to up-end Irish society in a way which suits only a tiny minority of people, as opposed to the current education system which appears to be meeting the educational needs at least, of the vast majority of the population, and the vast majority of immigrants who are choosing Ireland as the type of society in which they are choosing to settle and raise their children.

I am Irish by birth and by decent I do not want Catholic schools I do not want religious schools I am not alone. Only 78% of respondents stated Catholic as their religion in the 2016 census yet over 90% of our state funded schools are Catholic a further 5 to 6% are other Christian denominations even our non religious patron schools must teach religious education.

In the last census over 10% of the population was declared as no religion do we not deserve our fair place in Irish society?

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I am Irish by birth and by decent I do not want Catholic schools I do not want religious schools I am not alone. Only 78% of respondents stated Catholic as their religion in the 2016 census yet over 90% of our state funded schools are Catholic a further 5 to 6% are other Christian denominations even our non religious patron schools must teach religious education.

In the last census over 10% of the population was declared as no religion do we not deserve our fair place in Irish society?

You have your fair place. You can go to a State/private school and request that religion not be taught to your children.

Whereas my sister is an Atheist (they never go to mass, or engage in any religious activities as a family), but wants her children to experience religion for themselves, so that they can come to their own decisions as to what they believe.. so they go to a religious school. When they finish primary school, the kids themselves will decide whether they continue in a religious school or go elsewhere. The eldest chose the community college (secondary school) which doesn't place any importance on religion, and parents can opt out their kids from any religious related subjects.

You want more than a fair place. You want everyone to live under your preferred conditions. ie. no religious schooling.

CruelCoin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know, and therein lies the conundrum I referred to earlier. It’s multiculturalism of course, but on your terms, which aims to up-end Irish society in a way which suits only a tiny minority of people, as opposed to the current education system which appears to be meeting the educational needs at least, of the vast majority of the population, and the vast majority of immigrants who are choosing Ireland as the type of society in which they are choosing to settle and raise their children.

The papers are nothing but wall to wall kiddy fiddling and babies in septic tanks, and most people attend church only for those events they feel they have to, as opposed to want to.

Plastic christians, most of the population, so i wouldn't be quick to say it's meeting the populations needs at all.

You are what you eat, you are what you wear, you are what you act on. The country has only a tiny minority of actual christians, and the schooling system should reflect that.

CruelCoin

Deleted User wrote: »

Only if you deal in absolutes, in which case you'd fit in well with both religious groups. And all schools deal in indoctrination, whether they be religious, private or State run.

Western religions (and their schools) have changed as a result of changes in society.. Islamic schools change as a result to changes within Islam.. not society. So we see a hardening of views among many Islamic followers, which is imparted to their children. There is also the aspect that with funding coming from certain sources, both Mosques and schools, can have a political (combined with religious) drive behind them.

We've seen a softening of Western Christianity (not including the US) over time, where society no longer tolerates the negative behaviors that were associated with the past.

That's an important difference.

I'm sure we can agree that some religions are worse than others, from a liberty and fundamentalism standpoint, no doubt about that.
But I don't get what one being worse has to do with the other being bad?
That one's worse, so this one is ok?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You have your fair place. You can go to a State/private school and request that religion not be taught to your children.

Whereas my sister is an Atheist (they never go to mass, or engage in any religious activities as a family), but wants her children to experience religion for themselves, so that they can come to their own decisions as to what they believe.. so they go to a religious school. When they finish primary school, the kids themselves will decide whether they continue in a religious school or go elsewhere. The eldest chose the community college (secondary school) which doesn't place any importance on religion, and parents can opt out their kids from any religious related subjects.

You want more than a fair place. You want everyone to live under your preferred conditions. ie. no religious schooling.

I believe this is the wrong way around. The state should provide education without any religious education. If parents wish their children to receive religious education, they should pay for their kids to go to a private religious run school, or go to class at whatever religious service they themselves attend.

religion is a private matter and should be kept out of state education facilties.

CruelCoin

Deleted User wrote: »

You have your fair place. You can go to a State/private school and request that religion not be taught to your children.

Whereas my sister is an Atheist (they never go to mass, or engage in any religious activities as a family), but wants her children to experience religion for themselves, so that they can come to their own decisions as to what they believe.. so they go to a religious school. When they finish primary school, the kids themselves will decide whether they continue in a religious school or go elsewhere. The eldest chose the community college (secondary school) which doesn't place any importance on religion, and parents can opt out their kids from any religious related subjects.

You want more than a fair place. You want everyone to live under your preferred conditions. ie. no religious schooling.

There's a difference between being schooled about religion and being schooled in it.
I absolutely want kids to be taught about religion (I used to enjoy the classes), but i don't want them to be schooled in it.
It's an important distinction to make. Problem is almost all schools now are of the latter type, not the former.

Wibbs

Esho wrote: »

Most of the illegals here have been paying tax and are working. I've no problem with this myself.

How can an illegal migrant pay income tax without a PPS number? How can an undocumented/illegal migrant get a PPS number? How can they be legally employed without one? And a large percentage of those illegals have been living here for many years.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re thinking of multiculturalism on their terms (an abstract ideological concept which they can theorise and quantify and predict with statistical data which suits their ideological and political leanings), and not what multiculturalism actually is in reality - it’s like mixing oil and water for the most part. That’s not to suggest a stable and sustainable multicultural society is an impossible achievement, but in order for the process to work, it’s important to acknowledge and understand all contributing factors rather than simply ignore or discard factors which don’t gel with a liberal understanding of multiculturalism, and soap, lots and lots of soap

This. In a big way.

Those who support multiculturalism do so in a remarkably narrow and liberal European way and usually do so at some remove from many of the cultures they seek to "integrate", again in very narrow terms. It's a feature of the exoticism that seems to appeal and is one of the main "positives" trotted out in any debate on multiculturalism. An appeal with a long history in the European mind. They tend to see cultures as a pastiche of what they actually are, adapted to a European model. A Chinoiserie culture rather than actual Chinese or Japanese culture.

Faith based schools an example. Our own are automatically bad of course, because of recent history, non Christian schools are kinda bad too, but because of that recent history many don't see or understand why Muslim or Jewish or indeed still believing Christians from overseas parents would want their kids to attend one. A majority of their own grandparents would have far preferred a Catholic or CofI schooling over a non-denominational one.

Basically many migrants may simply not want to adapt to a liberal non faith based European culture and mindset. Now some of those from Muslim cultures are an obvious one, but Nigerians who are mostly Christian show from the wiki are strongly likely to feel that they do not have many values in common with Irish people I suspect they'd not be alone in similar. How do we square that circle?

CruelCoin

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm sure we can agree that some religions are worse than others, from a liberty and fundamentalism standpoint, no doubt about that.
But I don't get what one being worse has to do with the other being bad?
That one's worse, so this one is ok?

No. You missed the point. Western Christianity has been evolving due to social pressure, and the reaction to it's past behavior. The Catholic religion today is not what it was 30 or 40 years ago, either in itself, nor the way it interacts with modern western society. It doesn't have the influence it once did, nor the goodwill that people held towards it. The various scandals, and subsequent drop in popularity for the Church, has ensured that the Church has needed to change with the times, in the hopes of encouraging people back into the fold.

This isn't the case of saying that just because Islam is worse, Catholicism is fine.

Catholicism, for all it's faults supports western culture and values... Islam doesn't. I have zero issue with Islamic culture being taught in Islamic countries. I do take issue with Islamic culture being taught in Western nations, because I do see it leading to divisions and friction.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I believe this is the wrong way around. The state should provide education without any religious education. If parents wish their children to receive religious education, they should pay for their kids to go to a private religious run school, or go to class at whatever religious service they themselves attend.

religion is a private matter and should be kept out of state education facilties.

Oddly enough, I agree with everything you've said.

I'd expand it to all religious activities and expressions of those faiths be restricted to peoples homes, and their religious buildings. I'd be very supportive of a complete removal of all religious expression in any public setting. Don't see it happening in my lifetime though.

RobbieTheRobber

Deleted User wrote: »

No. You missed the point. Western Christianity has been evolving due to social pressure, and the reaction to it's past behavior. The Catholic religion today is not what it was 30 or 40 years ago, either in itself, nor the way it interacts with modern western society. It doesn't have the influence it once did, nor the goodwill that people held towards it. The various scandals, and subsequent drop in popularity for the Church, has ensured that the Church has needed to change with the times, in the hopes of encouraging people back into the fold.

This isn't the case of saying that just because Islam is worse, Catholicism is fine.

Catholicism, for all it's faults supports western culture and values... Islam doesn't. I have zero issue with Islamic culture being taught in Islamic countries. I do take issue with Islamic culture being taught in Western nations, because I do see it leading to divisions and friction.

I'm sorry but both the marriage referendum and the abortion referendum show that Catholicism does not have as much in common with modern Irish culture and values. They were both overwhelmingly supported by the population yet opposed by the catholic church in Ireland.

The fastest growing religious belief in Ireland according to the most recent census is no religion (76.1% increase on 2011 census) how does growth in no religious belief tie in with Catholic values?

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I'm sorry but both the marriage referendum and the abortion referendum show that Catholicism does not have as much in common with modern Irish culture and values. They were both overwhelmingly supported by the population yet opposed by the catholic church in Ireland.

My parents are both devout Catholics. Regular mass attendees, observing all the religious days, and such. They voted wholeheartedly for both the marriage referendum, and abortion. I know the same for a variety of relations, who would also be devout Catholics. Just as I have an uncle who left the priesthood, has since married, and wholeheartedly supports such changes in the laws.

You seem to have problems understanding that for many Catholics, there is a difference between the RCC and their actual belief in Catholicism. The days of believing the Church as being the sole link to God, has disappeared long ago.. along with the belief that the RCC presents the best representation of what Jesus/God would have wanted. Many Catholics are able to hold modern views while also being strong believers in their faith. The RCC provides all manner of rules, and expectations... but as time goes by, many Catholics are moving away from that administration.

The fastest growing religious belief in Ireland according to the most recent census is no religion (76.1% increase on 2011 census) how does growth in no religious belief tie in with Catholic values?

The core moral values that are taught by Catholicism are not exclusive to being a believer or an Atheist. Catholic values are intertwined in many of our social/cultural values, and it would difficult to tell where one started and the other finished.

RobbieTheRobber

Deleted User wrote: »

My parents are both devout Catholics. Regular mass attendees, observing all the religious days, and such. They voted wholeheartedly for both the marriage referendum, and abortion. I know the same for a variety of relations, who would also be devout Catholics. Just as I have an uncle who left the priesthood, has since married, and wholeheartedly supports such changes in the laws.

You seem to have problems understanding that for many Catholics, there is a difference between the RCC and their actual belief in Catholicism. The days of believing the Church as being the sole link to God, has disappeared long ago.. along with the belief that the RCC presents the best representation of what Jesus/God would have wanted. Many Catholics are able to hold modern views while also being strong believers in their faith. The RCC provides all manner of rules, and expectations... but as time goes by, many Catholics are moving away from that administration.

On the one hand you say the church is adapting to modern values in Ireland then when I question that you say actually its not the church its people beliefs.
So if the church is not adapting and people beliefs are and people aren't attending church what the hell has Catholicism got to do with modern Ireland and why is it given centre stage in our education system and allowed to force indoctrination on over 90% of our schools.

Deleted User wrote: »

The core moral values that are taught by Catholicism are not exclusive to being a believer or an Atheist. Catholic values are intertwined in many of our social/cultural values, and it would difficult to tell where one started and the other finished.

The core moral values of sanctity of marriage and no to homosexuality are very much a part of Catholicism and nothing to do with no religious belief.

Justin Credible Darts

never understood this mentality that things like morality, compassion , sanctity of marriage etc have to be associated with some moronic imbecilic invisible man in the sky nonsense.

In fact i find some of the most ignorant, least compassionate, dogmatic, oppressing people anywhere are those who believe in santa for adults.

As someone who does not buy into religion, but have no issue if others do, as long as they allow me the same freedom as i would allow them, things like compassion , morality, decency are something you have as a person.
As a married person I respect the sanctity of marriage, not because of some made up invisible person, but because I gave my word, love my wife and have respect for marriage. Religion has nothing to do with it.

also...No church anywhere should have any influence on a government, be it the pedo ring that ran this country or the fatwa lovin camel jockeys in the middle east who treat some people including women like absolute dirt.

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

On the one hand you say the church is adapting to modern values in Ireland then when I question that you say actually its not the church its people beliefs.
So if the church is not adapting and people beliefs are and people aren't attending church what the hell has Catholicism got to do with modern Ireland and why is it given centre stage in our education system and allowed to force indoctrination on over 90% of our schools.

You're being terribly obtuse here. I said originally that Catholicism was changing in reaction to social change. The expectations of society are forcing change within the RCC, and people who are believers in Catholicism are not tied to following the doctrine of the RCC.

As for forcing indoctrination, I don't think it is, or can do so anymore. There are too many watchdog bodies or individuals to prevent such a thing.

The core moral values of sanctity of marriage and no to homosexuality are very much a part of Catholicism and nothing to do with no religious belief.

They were core values of the RCC, as a way to manage society. As was having only male priests. And yet, we're seeing gradual change in their policies over time, and as society demands change.

We're at the point where I'm repeating myself. If you don't understand yet, I doubt anything else I say on the matter will change your perspective.

Wibbs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I'm sorry but both the marriage referendum and the abortion referendum show that Catholicism does not have as much in common with modern Irish culture and values. They were both overwhelmingly supported by the population yet opposed by the catholic church in Ireland.

As an aside it wasn't so overwhelming though considered and largely reported as such. Understandably as most of us, at least myself were glad they both passed. IIRC the nays were a little over 30% in one and nearly 40% in the other. A third of the Irish electorate were against. "overwhelmingly supported" would be more like 80% plus.

Regardless and more to the point of this thread, quite the number of migrants from outside the EU, if the same votes were restricted to them, I'd bet the farm the results would be quite different. We see this in our neighbour the UK when their Muslim population have been surveyed and attitudes to matters like homosexuality were very much of a deeply conservative nature. Half of British Muslims think that homosexuality itself should be illegal. Many African cultures aren't exactly pro Gay. It's not just along "race" lines either, Russian and some Eastern European cultures aren't exactly San Francisco either. Again how do you integrate those cultural differences and often deeply held ones into our increasingly liberal cultures? And as we see from our European neighbours who have been running this multicultural experiment for generations if anything attitudes have hardened over time, or at least stayed stable while native Europeans changed. There is an awful lot of again wishful thinking that because our Western European liberal culture has become more open and laissez-faire around such topics(in a short timeframe with it) that other cultures will do the same.

Justin Credible Darts

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

never understood this mentality that things like morality, compassion , sanctity of marriage etc have to be associated with some moronic imbecilic invisible man in the sky nonsense.

Associated... yes.. because they are. We have centuries of exposure from the RCC within western culture, and as such, it has directly influenced how, western societies, have developed.

Associated. Not exclusive.

You're equating a belief in God with Religion, as if you can't have one without the other. You can believe in God without following any religion. I'm very much anti-religion, but I have firm beliefs in a God, and what I expect is acceptable behavior within that belief. But then, they're my morals, some taken from my Catholic upbringing, and some from personal experience.

In fact i find some of the most ignorant, least compassionate, dogmatic, oppressing people anywhere are those who believe in santa for adults.

Funnily enough I find the same about Atheists. This need to sh1t on everyone elses beliefs, and are generally quite intolerant of others beliefs.

But then, I view Atheism as being close to a religion these days, with all the social proofing they receive online or from social media.

Justin Credible Darts

I dont believe in god
dont believe in religion either
and my faith in "man" has never been lower .

What irritates me about religious people is they expect people to tolerate their belief in an invisible man, but are quick to knock anyone that questions the existence of this figment of imagination.

I don't see atheists or agnostics knocking at my door or posting me begging envelopes.

Dont remember atheists stopping me from buy condoms during the HIV crisis...let that sink in.

Dont recall any atheist pedo rings covered up, like the catholic church.

anyone brainwashing children with this god nonsense and telling them they are born with sin and guilt should be arrested for child abuse.

Justin Credible Darts

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I dont believe in god
dont believe in religion either
and my faith in "man" has never been lower .

What irritates me about religious people is they expect people to tolerate their belief in an invisible man, but are quick to knock anyone that questions the existence of this figment of imagination.

I don't see atheists or agnostics knocking at my door or posting me begging envelopes.



Dont recall any atheist pedo rings covered up, like the catholic church.

anyone brainwashing children with this god nonsense and telling them they are born with sin and guilt should be arrested for child abuse.

Ahh well, my faith in western cultural norms has never been lower... not so much my faith in people.

Some religious people behave that way. My teachers (Marist brothers and Jesuits) encouraged me to explore other religions and philosophies when I was questioning my own faith. They sat with me and debated the merits of Christianity, vs other faiths, or the impact of religion on society and in the end, respected my leaving of the faith. They didn't try to cover up the negatives associated with their religion, acknowledging the behaviors of weak men/women.

I'm still friends with many of them, and they still respect my choices in life.. both as a bisexual male, and that I chose not to get married/have children. I have met overly judgmental religious people, along with quite a few fanatics from the various sects, who were completely intolerant of anything that didn't fit their black/white worldview.

The point though being that, for me, those negative experiences don't represent the whole. I've known hundreds of religious people in my life, and the vast majority were gentle in their beliefs and how it impacted on other people.

You want to take a group and make them representative of the whole (Child molestation, for example). Fine. That's your choice, and I won't suggest that you shouldn't hold that belief. I, on the other hand, choose to hold the more positive experiences I've had, and the appreciation of the incredibly gentle and supportive priests/nuns/brothers/followers I've known in my life. And continue to know.

I don't hold with religion because it seeks to control society. I will never accept any belief that suggests I need the help of another person to hold my belief in God, or that my approach to life needs affirmation from others.

At the same time though, I don't hold with this need to sh1t on everything associated with the religion either. This going to extremes. Nah. Not my thing. I see plenty of negatives to both Christianity and the RCC (I see them as being separate), but I'm not going to adopt a black/white absolute attitude that it's either good or bad. All the way... nah.

Dont remember atheists stopping me from buy condoms during the HIV crisis...let that sink in.

When was this? I've been able to buy condoms all my adult life, and I'm in my 40s.

RobbieTheRobber

Wibbs wrote: »

As an aside it wasn't so overwhelming though considered and largely reported as such. Understandably as most of us, at least myself were glad they both passed. IIRC the nays were a little over 30% in one and nearly 40% in the other. A third of the Irish electorate were against. "overwhelmingly supported" would be more like 80% plus.

Regardless and more to the point of this thread, quite the number of migrants from outside the EU, if the same votes were restricted to them, I'd bet the farm the results would be quite different. We see this in our neighbour the UK when their Muslim population have been surveyed and attitudes to matters like homosexuality were very much of a deeply conservative nature. Half of British Muslims think that homosexuality itself should be illegal. Many African cultures aren't exactly pro Gay. It's not just along "race" lines either, Russian and some Eastern European cultures aren't exactly San Francisco either. Again how do you integrate those cultural differences and often deeply held ones into our increasingly liberal cultures? And as we see from our European neighbours who have been running this multicultural experiment for generations if anything attitudes have hardened over time, or at least stayed stable while native Europeans changed. There is an awful lot of again wishful thinking that because our Western European liberal culture has become more open and laissez-faire around such topics(in a short timeframe with it) that other cultures will do the same.

You are very much wrong on the support for both referendums wibbs
In neither referendum was the support over 40% against the change.
So yes I would still consider both overwhelming.

The marriage referendum was passed by 82% in favour to to 17.9% against.
That is very much overwhelming support. A strong slap in the face for catholic belief in the sanctity of marriage in Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#:~:text=After%20amendments%20by%20the%20Oireachtas,June%202019%20by%20Michael%20D.

The Abortion referendum a much tougher choice for people to support due to the connotations of murdering an unborn baby was 66.7% in favour of amending the constitution. Considering the nature of this referendum I would say this was overwhelming. Further when we look at exit polls we see the future of the country ie the younger generations even more overwhelmingly in support of the change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#:~:text=29%20of%202018)%20is%20an,Oireachtas%20to%20legislate%20for%20abortion.&text=It%20was%20put%20to%20a,President%20on%2018%20September%202018.


Back to multicultiurism indeed, I wont argue that Muslim countries have a bad attitude to homosexuality but strangely that is actually a more recent thing and historically while not supported by the Quran was generally tolerated.
I believe the rise in fundamentalist Islam has more to do with the current intolerance in Muslim communities.

As for abortion well that is really strange one in Islam and I believe may be acceptable religiously as long as the abortion is carried out before the foetus is 4 months old. But I'm no Islamic scholar so could well be wrong on that.


Edit: abortion and islam

Stage 1 Nutfa (Sperm)[9]

This is the stage from conception to 40 days since the semen has fertilized the ovum. In this stage, Hanafites permit abortions, the majority of Shafites permit abortions, some Hanbalites permit it, but Malikites do not.

Among contemporary Sunni scholars, Yasir Qadhi states that abortion may be performed within the first 40 days of pregnancy "for a very legitimate reason", but is prohibited after that period, at which point ensoulment occurs.[10]

Stage 2 Alaqa (Blood Clot)

This is the stage 40-80 days after conception when the fertilized egg has become blood clot-like. In this stage, Hanafites permit abortions, while only some Shafites and Hanbalites permit it.

Stage 3 Mudgha (Embryo)

This is the stage 80-120 days after conception where the blood clot has now formed into flesh. In this stage, Hanafites permit abortions, only some Shafites and Hanbalites permit it.

Stage 4 Khalqan Akhar (Spirit)

This is the stage 120 days after conception when based on Islam a soul/spirit has entered the body. In this stage none of the four schools of thought permit abortions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

Justin Credible Darts

Deleted User wrote: »

When was this? I've been able to buy condoms all my adult life, and I'm in my 40s.

amazing how you are on the internet, with all this information in front of you and you could not find out for yourself.
As someone a few years older than you I can assure you most definitely it was illegal to buy condoms thanks to the church's influence on the law.


google contraception in Ireland