Fall of the Catholic Church

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044197#Comment_119044197

Welcome to Ireland. 89% of state-funded primary schools are controlled by the Roman Catholic Church.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044183#Comment_119044183

Eh 95%+ ownership of schools by one particular religious group isn't exactly 'diversity' . Many people have little effective choice about schools. People should be able to choose their nearest local school, the one within walking or cycling distance, eliminating swathes of private cars off our at rush hour, reducing pollution, reducing traffic chaos, improving public health. They should be able to choose local without having to worry about obsolete belief systems being imposed on their children.

Get religion out of schools.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044197#Comment_119044197

In the many catholic schools where religion is embedded in the school day and near impossible to avoid. Parents are told "If you don't want them to go to mass, you'll need to take them out of school for that hour, as we won't be able to supervise them ". Not exactly practical for working parents.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044388#Comment_119044388

The only way to make a dint in that percentage is to continue to petition the Dept of Education to allow for the establishment of more non-religious schools. The latest effort isn’t going to change a whole lot -

https://www.breakingnews.ie/amp/ireland/government-will-pay-church-to-rent-schools-that-become-multi-denominational-1272633.html

On top of that, Government needs to invest a hell of a lot more than it’s currently spending on education, to bring DEIS schools up to the same standard as other schools, because people want to send their children to good schools where their children will receive an education in accordance with their values and beliefs and so on.

You talk about giving people effective choice, but you want to remove an option which many people want, and which you’re not going to be able to remove in any case, because religious ethos schools are established for the purposes of providing children with an education in accordance with their ethos, whatever that ethos may be, and the DES aren’t going to do away with the patronage system any time soon.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044003#Comment_119044003

Very insightful post. Thank you.

Sunny Disposition

Only for the Church a lot of people would have got no education. That’s the reality.

As the church has declined abortion culture has increased, so not only can the Church not provide education to these unfortunate people, they never even make it into the world.

Hopefully the church will be restored soon, the election of Biden is interesting.

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044315#Comment_119044315

Absolutely so could. Those buying sweat shop clothes are making a choice. They are putting their finances ahead of the treatment of others. We see in the Ukraine situation, many companies were forced to take action due to public protest (and government sanctions). Now, I totally understand why people choose the cheaper option, I'm not making a moral judgment on them, but they do make that decision.

Those that buy narcotics know that it is illegal and sourced through illegal means. They pretend that they aren't making the problem worse, or even having any impact, but of course they are. Like buying the car radio from the guy down the pub. You know its probably stolen, you know this type of radio/bike/tv etc is worth more than €100 but its a good deal so you avoid thinking about it and tell yourself that you didn't rob it so no guilt on your part.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044758#Comment_119044758

They’re nothing alike at all. You’re trying to associate being a member of the Catholic Church, with criminal behaviour. Even take your example of the buying the car radio that you know is probably stolen, that’s criminal behaviour, handling stolen property -

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/50/section/17/enacted/en/html

Anyone’s subjective judgement as to the rights and wrongs of it, is completely irrelevant. That’s the difference between having a reason to feel guilty, and not having any reason to feel guilty.

zom

"Government needs to invest a hell of a lot more than it’s currently spending on education"

Our government would love to do it. After world most expensive children hospitals we will get world most expensive schools. And half of Germany will nurture on building them for us.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044833#Comment_119044833

I think the issue is that some people have no issue moralising on the failures of the RCC, while at the same time either engaging in exploitative behaviour themselves or refusing to call out that behaviour by family, friends, colleagues. One could say that it's a bit hypocritical, and we only see that behaviour because RCC is probably the easiest target these days.

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044833#Comment_119044833

Wow, are we still really doing this? I am not associating being a member of the catholic church with criminal behaviour. I am saying that they carry some responsibility for their choice to remain a supporter of the church given all they know.

Do you think members of the catholic church are aware of the rape and abuse of children carried out by members of the church?

Do you think members of the catholic church are aware of the cover ups and attacking of victims undertaken as a matter of policy by the catholic church?

On what basis do members of the catholic church now believe that none of that is still the case?

The answers to those questions are Yes, Yes and They Don't. Given that they know the type of institution they support, knowing that funds they provide the church are being used to attack victims and fight against the truth, I'm not sure that any of them can claim to be guilt free.

By failing to act, by failing to demand change, by failing to move to other organisations that don't carry the same institutional baggage, they are tacitly supporting the institution.

But my aim is not to attack church members, but it shows the hypocrisy of them. They claim to follow a religion based on truth and love, but continue to support the church which has gone out of its way to do neither. It shows the flaw in the religion itself, and thus we are better off having nothing to do with it.

It certainly should not play any part in education, politics etc. Bishops etc should not be treated as some special voice, given prominent positions just because of who they are rather than their experience and talents.

We are moving in the right direction but we need to continue to remove the church for all aspects of peoples lives unless that it their choice. But with that choice comes responsibility for that choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119039622#Comment_119039622

Exactly my point yes. Some charities have actual charity and altruism as their central motivation. Some use charity as a front to spread their cult, their message, or some other agenda. It pays to recognise which is which and be open and honest about which is which. At least as best we can where we can.

No one, least of all me, has suggested you are "not allowed" mention anything. You are being rather hyperbolic there.

Nor was I speaking about you personally. I made a GENERAL point that I often see religion being defended as a good thing, because of things like Charity Work. And I see a worthwhile distinction to be made between ACTUAL altruistic charity work.... and charity work done because A) their business model is to be a charity broker and/or B) because they are attempting to smuggle in indoctrination or other agendas.

So by all means we can talk about the good AND the bad things religion or the religious do. But in general that is a boring and irrelevant conversation. A more interesting conversation to have is the good AND bad things they do solely because of their religion. Morality, ethics, charity, altruism.... these things do not appear to require religion at all. So are we to give religion credit by proxy? Or are we to notice it likely has little or nothing to do with it at all, other than their being a successful charity broker model?

When I buy a Twix I would distinguish between the product (the chocolate) and the packaging (the wrapper). The wrapper has a function, but also a cost and harms. I view religion in the same way when it comes to topics like morality and charity. Religion appears to be the packaging for the actual product. Yet some people act like it is itself the product in that context.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119039657#Comment_119039657

I do not think all religion is bad. Rather I would say that religion appears AT BEST to be neutral, irrelevant and ineffectual.... with a strong tendency to turn bad.

Put another way I like to look at things in a kind of "Cost/benefit" framework. It is clear that religion has a cost. From division and polarisation, to derangement, to the horrors we have seen perpetrated by the church, the hampering of progress and individual freedoms, the undermining or discourse, and so on and so on.

So for me the wise move is to look at the benefits. And distinguish ACTUAL benefits from ones that merely form by proxy or association. (My baby / bathwater comment from earlier). And more importantly whether any of those benefits are impossible, or even markedly more difficult, to attain in the absence of religion (as we discussed, charity and altruism appears NOT to be on that list even a little).

So rather than say "All religion is bad" which is too black and white and simplistic.... I would err more towards sentences like "The cost and harms of religion do not even remotely appear to scale with the (alleged or actual) benefits". Rather than call it "all bad" I would call it a "net negative".

On the off chance you have not watched this debate already, it's not a waste of ones time to indulge:

youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119040050#Comment_119040050

On a lighter more tongue in cheek note: I once created a joke law which I called "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forum posting". The law essentially says "The probability a given user is going to post on a thread again goes UP in direct proportion to the number of times they claim they are done."

Nozz's first law strikes again :) Though in fairness I only created it having read a Douglas Adams text where he joked about the kind of person who first flounces only to storm back in a few seconds later saying "And another thing.....!".

The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying 'And another thing...' twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument.

----Douglas Adams

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044745#Comment_119044745

It's 2022. The Church has no place in schools indoctrinating children. Call it education all you want but that's what it is. Get them young when their minds are less resistant to their poison and beat it into them if necessary.

It's a social tumour that's dying more and more by the day. If the best its defenders can do is drop daft terminology like "abortion culture" into conversations, it shows they have nothing to actually defend it with.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044958#Comment_119044958

You’re still missing the point that you’re the only person is making that association. The people you’re referring to don’t make the same association as you do because there is no association can be made between being a member of an organisation, and child sexual abuse.

It would be like someone suggesting that anyone who has children is tacitly supporting child sexual abuse. It would appeal to anyone who already thinks that. To anyone else it’s a ridiculous attempt to associate two things that aren’t related in any way.

Dravokivich

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045009#Comment_119045009

You can't make this all about the schools. My son goes to a catholic school. Only other choice in the area was a protestant school. Does it bother me that he had to go to either? Not really. Whatever he learns or whatever events occur, it's generally up to me as a parent to understand how he perceives it and help him come to whatever conclusion he can fit to his experiences.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119042434#Comment_119042434

the issue is not that they had paedophiles in their ranks. that can happen to any organisation. the issue is how they deal with it. and they dealt with it in the most serving way possible with no regards for the children involved. As for feeble minded, well, take a look in the mirror.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045139#Comment_119045139

I'm not. It's a legitimate thing to discuss in this context.

You don't mind. That's great but if I were in the same situation, I think I'd be entitled to a choice in a twenty-first century country. Any children I may have in Ireland shouldn't be forced to listen to drivel from some man in a silly frock.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045174#Comment_119045174

The issue is very much having paedophiles among the ranks, who the hell wants any association with paedophilia?

You obviously didn’t see what I did there, the point is that it is an unreasonable position to make the association in any case, let alone expect that people would abandon an organisation they don’t associate with paedophiles and child molesters. If anyone wants to make that association in an attempt to humiliate people who don’t agree with them into submission, that’s on them, not on the people they’re trying to humiliate into submission.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044389#Comment_119044389

I was educated by the Christian Brothers, and any non-Catholics just went to another class while religious instruction was taking place , and not once ever have I seen non Catholics attending a Catholic Mass. ( Catholic Funerals excepted) And I don't remember religious instruction being on the schedule every single school day either.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044745#Comment_119044745

If only this wonderful church cared as much about children after they were born as before they were born.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045276#Comment_119045276

They do, that’s why as of 2019, there were almost 2Bn members of the Catholic Church worldwide -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/number-of-catholics-increasing-worldwide-falling-in-europe-1.4710161

Dravokivich

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045193#Comment_119045193

But, he isn't forced to listen "to drivel from some man in a silly frock." No child is actually required to do religion in a public school in Ireland.

dublin49

Good riddance to a bad lot ,long may their demise continue ,their only value are the beautiful cathedrals they will leave behind which are handy to visit on rainy days.Their Storm troopers ,the Christian Brothers did some damage in their day.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045243#Comment_119045243

I see your reading comprehension is not working today.

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045250#Comment_119045250

You think it is perfectly reasonable to force children to be segregated and have to sit in another class? And for what? A non school activity which should we done outside of school. Parents of free to take their children to mass, to football, ballet etc. What they should do is force children to be excluded from their peers and made to feel excluded.

And then 'let back in' when the 'normal kids' are finished with their special class.

It's appalling.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045294#Comment_119045294

allowing priests to continue to molest children, throwing dead babies into septic tank etc etc. yeah they really care about children.

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045294#Comment_119045294

So now you want them to be treated as one big group. Make up your mind.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045294#Comment_119045294

Discriminating against kids born outside of marriage? Enslaving mothers of same kids? Indoctrinating kids that a non-existent genocidal maniac is the supreme being? And that's without even getting in to all the kids they murdered and buried in unmarked graves.

I guess they can continue to target those in poor nations, get their hands on them young, and brainwash them.

Imagine supporting this evil. God is not Pro-Life – Evil Bible .com

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119044326#Comment_119044326

Has it occurred to you , that a large Nr of Catholics do not want change???? Seems to me that in the present times and recent history, Catholic's are not being represented,,,,,,all you will hear is the usual rant " Pedophile clergy, sky fairy believers, Bishop Casey etc" For many Catholics, their interest in Religion ( mine included ) stem's from the belief that 2'000 years ago, a Man after changing the face of religion as it was then, was Crucified, buried and 3 days later was resurrected. And that to me is what its all about.....its not about what people have done in His name down through the centuries, and all the evil that has existed and is still in existence. Its a tenet of faith, that if you believe in God, then you believe in the devil too. People argue about the proof of Gods existence, but no such argument is needed for proof of the devils existence. The bottom line is, if you believe, you do not need any persuading, and no one is forcing you to, and what ever might have been the situation years ago, its no longer the case. Religion in this day and age, is a personal choice.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119045323#Comment_119045323

There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I understand the point you’re making, I just think it’s ridiculous. I also understand why you would suggest that no right-minded person would disagree with your opinion, implying that anyone who disagrees with your opinions is not a right-minded person. It was my fault for assuming you were familiar with the no true Scotsman fallacy -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman