Church losing its grip...

Gurgle

Apparently the number of Catholic secondary schools is on its way down, and imo it can't happen fast enough.

So Ireland is finally becoming an independant country, as the church loses its deepest foothold in Irish society ?

This would be more suited to Humanities I think.
Moving.

sceptre

Gurgle wrote:

So Ireland is finally becoming an independant country, as the church loses its deepest foothold in Irish society ?

Might depend - what defines a "Catholic school"? My old school hasn't had any teachers or administrators of the cloth since I left there but the land is owned by the local church and I assume the local parish priest is still chair of the board of management. I guess this still counts among the 380?

Nuttzz

still need the special position of the church removed from the constitution IMO

Sleepy

As long as there's a religeon class in the school curriculum, I'll have a problem with it. If the church own the land, I can't see a problem with them having a seat on the board as ti can be argued their just protecting their assets, though I honestly believe the government should have confiscated all school land as retribution for (or taken it as payment for) the abuse of those in institutional care in years past.

It's great to see further steps towards the seperation of church and state. It's not going nearly fast enough for my liking but it's heartening to watch church attendences falling and steps being made to remove their lecherous grip from educaton. At least it's moving the right way, eh?

Gurgle

sceptre wrote:

I assume the local parish priest is still chair of the board of management.

Still way too much power there.

The board of management isn't very visible to the pupils but they have full discretion on hiring staff, spending grants, the school's curriculum and lots of other stuff.

Sleepy wrote:

As long as there's a religeon class in the school curriculum, I'll have a problem with it

ditto
'God has no place in a public school'

Sleepy wrote:

though I honestly believe the government should have confiscated all school land as retribution for (or taken it as payment for) the abuse of those in institutional care in years past.

If only!

BuffyBot

As long as there's a religeon class in the school curriculum, I'll have a problem with it

It shouldn't remain a compulsory subject in any way. As an optional subject I can't see why it shouldn't be there? Or indeed a more broadly based "Religious Studies" subject be introduced.

I honestly believe the government should have confiscated all school land as retribution for (or taken it as payment for) the abuse of those in institutional care in years past.

Hmmm, nice a great precedent. Understandable sentiment, not particularily useful in reality though.

pickarooney

If it were actually a religion (or philosophy) class it would be fine, as opposed to a catholicism class.

Zombrex

pickarooney wrote:

If it were actually a religion (or philosophy) class it would be fine, as opposed to a catholicism class.

I went to a secondary school that had religion as a class but it was just that, a class about religions around the world, rather than a mini version of church. It was very interesting and fun, the teacher was very good. We had a few people from more exotic religions (ie non-Christian) in the class, and we would have lessons on religions from different areas of the world, particularly if they were topical at the time. There was none of this "look at the funny pagans" or anything, each religion was presented on an equal footing to Christianity.

There was a religious extra ciricular (sp?) Churuch of Ireland (other faiths were welcome) class that was a "mini-church" but no one was forced to go to it, and being an athesist I didnt.

ArthurDent

I think there is a difference between doctrinal instruction (ie teaching that the teachings of a perticuar faith are "the only truth") and presenting factual information about any or all faith-based systems. When people say they want to see religion removed from the schools, I think most people want doctrinal instruction removed rather than any reference to god/gods or religion.

I'd certainly fall into that category - I don't mind my kids being exposed to faiths and traditions be they christian or other, but I do have a big problem with schools presenting religious belief as fact. In my opinion it is the role of parents alone to decide to instruct children in a particular faith and they should arrange this outside of normal school hours.

However - this state has to date entrusted the majority of the education of its citizens to denominations (and got land for free and in many cases school buildings for free) and it is enshrined in the education act that all schools have the right to protect their "ethos" and if it is a denominational school that means teaching that faith in the school. I can't see any govrnment soon wrestling this back from any of the denominations in this country - we recently had the minister for Education on air defending state contributions to private school because it had an onus to ensure the protestant ethos of these schools be maintained.

Bucephalus

Nuttzz wrote:

still need the special position of the church removed from the constitution IMO

That was removed in 1973.

mr_angry

Sleepy wrote:

though I honestly believe the government should have confiscated all school land as retribution for (or taken it as payment for) the abuse of those in institutional care in years past.

So you'll be arguing for the government to claim houses from parents who were abusive, hospitals who's staff engaged in abuse, etc? Or would you rather just see the Church punished because you don't like their former power in society?

neuro-praxis

It is worth noting that the percentage of priests involved in child abuse is exactly the same percentage as that of abusers as in any other career.

It is also worth remembering that if it weren't for the Catholic church most of us wouldn't be educated, and our parents certainly wouldn't have been.

A third point: the Catholic church may be waning but the Methodist and Presbyterian churches in Ireland are growing at their fastest rate in history ever.

Bucephalus

Sleepy wrote:

As long as there's a religeon class in the school curriculum, I'll have a problem with it. If the church own the land, I can't see a problem with them having a seat on the board as ti can be argued their just protecting their assets, though I honestly believe the government should have confiscated all school land as retribution for (or taken it as payment for) the abuse of those in institutional care in years past.

Most people have a vague support for educating children of different backgrounds together - this is not the same as supporting secularisation of the school system. A school that had separate religion classes but which educated all pupils together for other subjects would probably satisfy most people.

Some would argue that cutting state funds to schools that insist on teaching religion would make those schools uneconomical and if enough schools end up this way there could be far too few school places for pupils. I don't have the stats or even the background to evaluate this claim.

Sleepy wrote:

It's great to see further steps towards the seperation of church and state. It's not going nearly fast enough for my liking but it's heartening to watch church attendences falling and steps being made to remove their lecherous grip from educaton. At least it's moving the right way, eh?

The USA is famous both for its' separation of church and state and for having large sections of its' population who are quite pious.

Gurgle

mr_angry wrote:

So you'll be arguing for the government to claim houses from parents who were abusive, hospitals who's staff engaged in abuse, etc? Or would you rather just see the Church punished because you don't like their former power in society?

The church, as an organization, actively covered up paedophile rings and helped its members to change their location when they were known about by too many locals.

neuro-praxis wrote:

It is worth noting that the percentage of priests involved in child abuse is exactly the same percentage as that of abusers as in any other career.

But the priests have been the most sucessfull and and active paedophiles, thanks to the efforts of their superiors to keep it quiet when they were caught. Some of these guys got through dozens of victims.

Phil_321

neuro-praxis wrote:

It is worth noting that the percentage of priests involved in child abuse is exactly the same percentage as that of abusers as in any other career.

Ah come on. I know that the public overestimates the amount of clergy involved in child abuse, (which is fair enough considering how these people are 'supposed' to have the highest moral standards and stand on altars preaching to the people), but it is higher than other professions. Hardly a day goes by when you don't see at least one court case in the papers.
What other organization has been involved in as many abuse scandals and set up special units to deal with child sexual abuse by their members?

A third point: the Catholic church may be waning but the Methodist and Presbyterian churches in Ireland are growing at their fastest rate in history ever.

Are you sure.........
from http://www.irishchurches.org/site_information/Statistics_old/body_statistics_old.html

Presbyterian Church in Ireland
1968: 399,807
1975: 379,000
1995: 305,000
1999: 284,704

Methodist Church - Total Community
1968: 65,064
1984: 61,099
1995: 59,669
1999: 55,839


OK, it's not totally up to date but it shows a continual decrease in membership in both churches over the last 40 years.

neuro-praxis

I am sure. This growth has been taking place in the last five years. I will try to find the correct statistics for you.

A difficulty with those blanket statistics is that churches like mine (which is a Presbyterian church) are filled with people from a Roman Catholic background, and who therefore would consider themselves Catholics or simply Christians, worshipping in an evangelical church.

The fact remains that the inner church records of the Presbyterian and Methodist churches are reflecting massive growth in congregational numbers, particularly in Dublin and in the Dublin West region.

Phil_321

Why would it be different for the Presbyterian and Methodist churches, as the above statistics seem to bear out the same decline as the Catholic Church is undergoing as Ireland becomes more secular.
What could have triggered such massive growth in the last few years?

I find it hard to believe, tbh.

neuro-praxis

The growth is as a result of three things (somebody close to me is writing a masters thesis on this subject at the moment):

1) Catholics switching over to protestant denominations
2) Immigration (almost all of our African immigrants are evangelical Christians)
3) Conversions - people are converting from atheism/agnosticism to Christianity all the time.

elvenscout742

pickarooney wrote:

If it were actually a religion (or philosophy) class it would be fine, as opposed to a catholicism class.

... or change the name of it to reflect its content, at least. I personally am tired of being accused of being "anti-religious" just for my secular, tolerant viewpoint that is opposed to what I see as the very essence of Christianity.

Oh, BTW, I would be happy with these new developments, if it were only more true. I'm very pessimistic. It's only going to reach a certain point until the conservatives manage to bring it to a halt.

It's also going too slowly.

Victor

'God has no place in a public school'

That wouldn't quite match the Constitution and by the way, who are you quoting?

Its amazing how many people posting here are living in the 1970s.

Phil_321, look at the 2002 census here www.cso.ie and see how wrong you are.

What could have triggered such massive growth in the last few years?

Immigration? Protestants having babies?

If it were actually a religion (or philosophy) class it would be fine, as opposed to a catholicism class.

And quite often it is.

... or change the name of it to reflect its content, at least. I personally am tired of being accused of being "anti-religious" just for my secular, tolerant viewpoint that is opposed to what I see as the very essence of Christianity.

Who's been attacking you?

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

It is worth noting that the percentage of priests involved in child abuse is exactly the same percentage as that of abusers as in any other career.

Yes, but not many other careers give its practitioners a position where they are given quite a lot of power over children and the automatic respect of the community, much less a hierarchy in which the superiors will go to great lengths to hide the "indiscretions" of its members.

neuro-praxis wrote:

It is also worth remembering that if it weren't for the Catholic church most of us wouldn't be educated, and our parents certainly wouldn't have been.

Oh, well, that makes it ok for the country's educational curriculum to include religious bias then. Look at Spain - when I was in school there (about 15 years ago) they had mandatory religion classes which were pretty much the same as they are here; they've now scrapped the notion as far as I'm aware and, despite complaints from the church, there's been few complaints from voters. I'd love to see the same thing here, purely because religion and education should not be mixed. People should be free to practice their own religion if they want, but it shouldn't be forced on anyone as mandatory, much less on kids in school. There's no class in atheism or other religions to present a different perspective on it, so you can't exactly argue that it's "fair".

neruo-praxis wrote:

A third point: the Catholic church may be waning but the Methodist and Presbyterian churches in Ireland are growing at their fastest rate in history ever.

I'd be interested in seeing figures about this, actually - I have heard mutterings along similar lines elsewhere, and also for certain areas in Spain (oddly enough involving large numbers of young people converting, which surprised me given the general trend over the last 50 years or so). However, I'm rather reluctant to believe that "atheists convert all the time", unless your definition of atheist is less stringent than mine (ie someone who's made a conscious decision regarding what they belief, as opposed to someone who's not really sure but doesn't like getting out of bed on a Sunday to go to mass). Still, any numbers would make interesting reading, methinks.

elvenscout742

Victor wrote:

Who's been attacking you?

Narrow-minded people. I've known quite a few of them. And (s)he was quoting (rather inaccurately) Super Intendent (sp?) Chalmers from The Simpsons, after he hears Principal Flanders saying a prayer over the school intercom.

For the record, I'm by no means the kind of person who is opposed to religions in general (I'm actually quite fascinated by the belief systems of one or two); I would like to see some more diversity, that's all. (And, to the best of my knowledge, the central doctrine in Christianity - that faith in Jesus Christ is important for one's acceptance into Heaven - goes very much against my views, and advocates extreme religious imperialism. See the second last line in my sig.)

Memnoch

I wish for all religions to die out and eventually be abolished completely. I don't mind spirituality, but I do mind very much the blind ignorance that is preached by pretty much every single religious institution out there, christianity included.

Religion is the greatest evil faced by our society today, and it is a tool used for hatred and division. The sooner we rid ourselves of it, the sooner we can progress as a race.

themurt

Sleepy wrote:

...it's heartening to watch church attendences falling...

Why are you glad that the number of people going to church is falling?

elvenscout742

Memnoch wrote:

I wish for all religions to die out and eventually be abolished completely. I don't mind spirituality, but I do mind very much the blind ignorance that is preached by pretty much every single religious institution out there, christianity included.

Religion is the greatest evil faced by our society today, and it is a tool used for hatred and division. The sooner we rid ourselves of it, the sooner we can progress as a race.

I've found that this is the attitude of instinctively good people who know only Christianity. The Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions, I've found, are the only ones that really still advocate hatred and prejudice. Almost all other religions lack any kind of "believe-this-or-go-to-Hell" doctrine, but rather say that other religions are simply others' ways of viewing the world or the like. Look at Buddhism, Shintō, the traditional Mongolian religion, Ásatrú, etc., etc.

Gurgle

elvenscout742 wrote:

(s)he was quoting (rather inaccurately) Super Intendent (sp?) Chalmers from The Simpsons, after he hears Principal Flanders saying a prayer over the school intercom.

Inaccurately ?

How did it go then ?

Memnoch wrote:

Religion is the greatest evil faced by our society today, and it is a tool used for hatred and division. The sooner we rid ourselves of it, the sooner we can progress as a race.

I have no objections to religions, faiths or beliefs. I honestly believe the whole God idea is a fairy-story, but if people choose to continue to believe it even when they're grown up, thats their perogative. 'God's message' usually includes being nice to people, so no harm there.

Its the universal arrogance shared by all the different religious hierarchies that annoys me.
The entire ethos of any religious organization can be summed up as 'We're right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong'.

From that starting position, its only to easy to move on to 'We should educate them', to death if neccessary.

elvenscout742

Gurgle wrote:

Inaccurately ?

How did it go then ?

"God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within an organised religion!" - it's just a technicality, really.

Gurgle wrote:

Its the universal arrogance shared by all the different religious hierarchies that annoys me.
The entire ethos of any religious organization can be summed up as 'We're right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong'.

From that starting position, its only to easy to move on to 'We should educate them', to death if neccessary.

Actually, as I stated above, that's really just Judaism, Christianity and Islam (though the latter to a lesser extent in a historical context), with Christians trying to force down peoples' throats that all other religions are the same, but they really aren't. Sure, many others have their darker parts (the Caste System, Japanese colonialism, Aum Shinrikyu, etc.), but that's no more than anything else that spawns from the human imagination. In Japan, for instance, the line between church and state has historically been almost as blurred as in Ireland, but it is less of a problem because Buddhism and Shintō are much more tolerant, and less politically dangerous, than Roman Catholicism.

Manach

Whilst it is always nice to thought of as something that is dangerous, , in the build up to WWII (paraphrasing from memory the book "The Road to War"), Japanese Shintoism was one of the prime idealogical threads used to justify a warrior-culture ethos. However, it seems to have been co-opped by secular nationist elements from within Japanese society to force it into that role and various people did protest against this usurption.

Sleepy

themurt wrote:

Why are you glad that the number of people going to church is falling?

Because I believe that religion has a detrimental effect on society and that it promotes ignorance, hatred and piety. If I could remove religion from the face of the earth, I would in an instant.

Memnoch said it quite well above: (But then he would given his relationship with God [/Anne Rice Joke])

Memnoch wrote:

The sooner we rid ourselves of it, the sooner we can progress as a race.

elvenscout742

Sleepy wrote:

Because I believe that religion has a detrimental effect on society and that it promotes ignorance, hatred and piety. If I could remove religion from the face of the earth, I would in an instant.

Might that be because of yer utter ignorance of the ways of all non-Judeo-Christian religions? I would never do something like that, because I realise I could never foresee what would come of it. I know of few religions that promote ignorance, hatred, or even, on the scale you're thinking of, piety.

I agree with you on that it's a good thing that Catholicism's power in this country seems to be decreasing, though.

BuffyBot

Because I believe that religion has a detrimental effect on society and that it promotes ignorance, hatred and piety.

Hardly all it does though, is it?

If to take people's faith away, you better have something superior to replace it with, and quickly, because otherwise you will end up with chaos.

Manach

Well, I find day-time TV has a pretty mind-numbing opiate effect on me.

mrhankey88

Because I believe that religion has a detrimental effect on society and that it promotes ignorance, hatred and piety. If I could remove religion from the face of the earth, I would in an instant.

And who says the devil is not working his evil on this earth. You will certainly go to hell. Your evil words should be banned and you should be publicly named and shamed.

Zillah

mrhankey88 wrote:

And who says the devil is not working his evil on this earth. You will certainly go to hell. Your evil words should be banned and you should be publicly named and shamed.

Are you just trolling? Most of your posts seem to be randomn pro catholic hateful drivel.


And I say the Devil isn't working his evil on this earth. I am.


EDIT: Typo

mrhankey88

Are you just trolling? Most of your posts seem to be randomn pro catholic hateful drivel.

Im trying to defend my counrty against traitors like you who wants it's destruction.
Are you from Ireland? Are your parents Irish? Are you catholic?

ArthurDent

mrhankey88 wrote:

Im trying to defend my counrty against traitors like you who wants it's destruction.
Are you from Ireland? Are your parents Irish? Are you catholic?

so let me get this straight - only those who are irish, of irish decent and catholic are entitled to an opinion? How very broad minded of you....

Zombrex

mrhankey88 wrote:

Im trying to defend my counrty against traitors like you who wants it's destruction.

You might want to look up the definition of the word "traitor"

Man I hope you are trolling :rolleyes:

Zombrex

mrhankey88 wrote:

Your evil words should be banned and you should be publicly named and shamed.

Careful ... your heart seems so full of Christian love you might have heart failure :rolleyes:

RainyDay

Just to get back on topic - it's not just a question of religious instruction within the school. School admissions policies are a huge issue in Dublin where (typically) supply of school places outstrips demand.

Schools with a religious ethos are able to enshrine religious discrimination by setting an admissions policy which prioritises certain religions (and effectively bans those of non-mainstream or no religion.

This really concerns me, and I do believe that there is scope for a constitutional case to overturn this.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Apparently the number of Catholic secondary schools is on its way down, and imo it can't happen fast enough.

So Ireland is finally becoming an independant country, as the church loses its deepest foothold in Irish society ?

While I certainly support the separation of Church and State, I do think it’s probably time we grow up and stop playing Guelphs and Ghibellines because whatever harm the Roman Catholic Church may have committed, it’s also done great good and certainly cannot be blamed for all of Ireland’s ills either (as increasingly seems to be the fashion).

As a child growing up in Catholic Ireland I specifically remember being repeatedly told how the perpetually backward economy was as a result of 800 years of British oppression. Actually, most of Ireland’s problems were apparently as a result of 800 years of British oppression. By the late eighties people weren’t swallowing this one any more.

Then suddenly it dawned on us that all our ills were all the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, all along. Go figure - how we could have gotten it wrong all that time.

I wonder whom we’ll blame next? Not ourselves is my bet.

ferdi

The Corinthian wrote:

While I certainly support the separation of Church and State, I do think it’s probably time we grow up and stop playing Guelphs and Ghibellines because whatever harm the Roman Catholic Church may have committed, it’s also done great good and certainly cannot be blamed for all of Ireland’s ills either (as increasingly seems to be the fashion).

As a child growing up in Catholic Ireland I specifically remember being repeatedly told how the perpetually backward economy was as a result of 800 years of British oppression. Actually, most of Ireland’s problems were apparently as a result of 800 years of British oppression. By the late eighties people weren’t swallowing this one any more.

Then suddenly it dawned on us that all our ills were all the fault of the Roman Catholic Church, all along. Go figure - how we could have gotten it wrong all that time.

I wonder whom we’ll blame next? Not ourselves is my bet.

post of the year tbh

solas

corinthian wrote:

As a child growing up in Catholic Ireland....

I was thinking the same thoughts.

elvenscout742

I think a bad economy is something that is rarely enough blamed on the Church, especially with the way the economy's been going of late. Having been born around the birth of the Celtic Tiger, I can't really remember anyone complaining about a bad economy, though.

Sleepy

Of course I don't believe that relgion is responsible for all evils (though many have been in their collective names), just that it's nothing more than self-delusion and I don't think that lying to oneself can ever have positive outcomings. Every chuch or religeous monument I see repulses me because I can't help but look at it without seeing the opportunity cost of it's being built and maintained in terms of the unnecessarily dead.

Sleepy

BuffyBot wrote:

If to take people's faith away, you better have something superior to replace it with, and quickly, because otherwise you will end up with chaos.

What kind of chaos? I don't get what you're saying at all...

BuffyBot

If to take people's faith away, you better have something superior to replace it with, and quickly, because otherwise you will end up with chaos.

Why do you think so many people follow the various religions? Because they give them a belief structure, and a moral framework to follow.

If you hypothetically removed those tomorrow (most importantly the second aspect), you would end up with a world in chaos.

BlitzKrieg

society tends to be built by the alternative method. Us vs them. You define yourself by what your not and what you have and what THEY dont.

We define ourselves as democratic, free, logical, civilised. We are not Terrorists, fanatics, oppressed and so on.

We are Irish not American and vice versa

More then any other force religion allowed this binding within a nation.

We are Catholics NOT Muslims, Jews etc.

the effect is a form of social structure. Faith has always been considered a binding force in religous soiciety.

Removing this is believed to hcause a breakdown on social order and the binding that is the centre of most nation states breaks and the nation could fall apart.

alot of this is theory though, because its not a common event.

solas

Salaam alaikom!

Sleepy

Makes no sense to me tbh. I don't see why religion is needed to have a moral framework or belief structure. As an agnostic I have both.

To answer your question, I believe that people follow religions because they're either stupid, delusional or afraid. None of which are a good reason to follow something imho. Most followers of a religion are born into it. Children accept what their parents tell them without question and by the teenage years when they no longer do, they've already been indoctrinated into whichever faith their parents followed. There are, of course, a large number that throw off beliefs based in this stage when they become old enough to think for themselves.

At this stage, people choose to believe. Either because they're too stupid to question what they've been taught since childhood or because they'd rather ignore common sense than accept that afterlives, deities and magic, while comfortingly easy answers to presently unanswerable questions, are completely unfounded and irrational beliefs.
[/off-topic]

Unless someone can present a decent argument as to why any single religion should have a say in the running of anything other than their own organisation in any country (and I don't think that Vatican City can be counted as a proper country), I can't see the point of continuing this thread.

solas

Agnostic:
1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

sleepy wrote:

To answer your question, I believe that people follow religions because they're either stupid, delusional or afraid.
Either because they're too stupid to question what they've been taught since childhood or because they'd rather ignore common sense than accept that afterlives, deities and magic,
I don't see why religion is needed to have a moral framework or belief structure. As an agnostic I have both.

Yes, your wonderful moral framework just shines through your postings.
how can you reconcile these two points? As an agnostic is neither comitted to believing or not believing, yet you profess to the latter. That means your athiest.

many people choose to follow religions for the spiritual aspects they present.

Unless someone can present a decent argument as to why any single religion should have a say in the running of anything other than their own organisation in any country

I don't think anyone here would like to see any religion as anything other than a spiritual guide, the Church does not "run" Ireland, nor America or any other country, you get to vote for your leader and his moral conduct is based on his own life experience.

That has to be the most insulting and ignorant post I've read on the subject so far, whereas most people here can seperate the organisation from people, it seems you are quite content to attack the people and not the organisation.
Yes, I'm sure the world would be a better place if people like you were running it sleepy.