Ad campaign for God

eth0_

Just saw this on Unison:
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=828613&issue_id=8042

"THE organisers of a €1.8m advertising campaign to promote God are to seek a court injunction to get their TV commercials aired on RTE."

Forget the court injuction....1.8 million to get people back into church?!? That's the most ridiculous waste of money, who in their right mind is going to think a 20 second clip of joe-public getting sentimental over God is going to get bums on pews?

It's absolutely ridiculous and as the person quoted says:

"The €1.8m could be better spent helping the homeless and drug addicts"

Insane.

gurramok

The church/religious folk in this country certainly have money to advertise god on tv, sounds like they are getting desperate

How about giving some of that money to thousands of victims of clerical abuse in their institutions?

meglome

Any god I might believe in doesn't need advertising or cash (for all you Americans out there)

Mr E

Reminds me of that ad (only showing in Cinemas) for some crowd in Dundalk (I think).

2 girls in a laundrette looking through personal ads in a newspaper. One of the ads is for Jesus Christ. People cringe when they see the 'punchline' and laugh at it (and I'm guessing nottalot of people will call the number shown at the end).

- Dave.

DapperGent

I reckon God needs to get out there and start smiting, burning bushes and firing plagues at unbelievers again.

He's gone soft.

Maybe he needs an agent.

azezil

Why not bring religion into the 21st century. Traditionally you become a member of whatever religion your parents belong too but more and more people are turning away from religion. Modern media exposes us to a much wider world, why shouldn't religious groups try to capitalize on this and gain more parishioners.

DeVore

we'll sell them ad banners

DeV.

mike65

Not a fan of this notion, how will the ads not break the guidelines
regarding legal decent, honest and truthful etc, after all its a belif system that being advertised!

Mike.

JustHalf

A couple of quick points.

eth0, why don't you spend all your money on the homeless?

gurramok, the Power to Change campaign is not run by the Catholic church (though it is, I believe, supported by it).

mike65... the ads don't break any guidelines. In fact, RTE *approved* the final scripts (which they worked on with Power to Change, in order to get them to meet the guidelines). Power to Change then went on an made the ads (which do not mention the words "God" or "Jesus" at all). Quite recently, RTE suddenly did a U-turn and reneged on their agreement.

DeV, you're awfully desperate for cash, aren't you

Manach

Wouldn't be in favour of religious ads myself. Branding and productisation seem to distort what ever is plastered on the media in question. If one believed what was implicitly suggested by any number of ads, we'd all be healthy, rich and more attractive to the opposite sex by bying their product.
Religous outreach must be based on a straightfoward, truthful basis as possible, which is not a concept any ad-agency could understand .:D

Chowmein

I think RTE dont want to be seen as assosated with any one religion. If you saw an ad for (forgive me if that isnt a word\is spelt) on the national TV station of a country where Hinduism was the main religion of the country, and no other ads for other relgions on that same station, would you not think that that station was assotating its self with Hinduism?

Oh and personaly i dont think religons should have ads. Religons should be a way of life, not some like brand of shampoo that you can change anyday of the week.

bonkey

Originally posted by Chowmein
I think RTE dont want to be seen as assosated with any one religion.

Right.

Ever heard of The Angelus?

jc

Karl Hungus

It's all well and good for Christian advertising, but would happen if other religions started buying up RTE airtime. I'm sure they'd be allowed leagaly, if ads for God were allowed to be aired? What kind of uproar do you think some ad for a movementarian style cult was aired?

I think it's just another way for views to be hamfistedly rammed down your throat. Next up, it's the mormon hour? Barney the Dinosar converts to Hari Crishna, or however you spell it.

And yes, I realise I'm being quite ridiulous here.

Does RTE still show mass on sunday morning?

Chowmein

Originally posted by bonkey


Right.

Ever heard of The Angelus?

jc

Actuly i just remembered that on the bus today, there gos my point

Mossy Monk

Originally posted by AngelWhore
Does RTE still show mass on sunday morning?

yes they do. at lest they did a few weeks ago. i nearly found God again but then i went outside

Jak

I would rather have ads on the telly than people at my door.

eth0_

Originally posted by JustHalf
A couple of quick points.

eth0, why don't you spend all your money on the homeless?

mike65... the ads don't break any guidelines.

That's a rather pedantic cheap shot. How do you know what charities I do or do not give money to? My point was that it's a shameful waste of money to put ads on TV that are going to do next to nothing in terms of getting people into church.

And the ads do break guidelines. AFAIK it's illegal for RTE to broadcast adverts for specific religions.

Jak

That's a rather pedantic cheap shot. How do you know what charities I do or do not give money to? My point was that it's a shameful waste of money to put ads on TV that are going to do next to nothing in terms of getting people into church.

How do you know it will not have an effect? Perhaps it will.

Cabaal

Bloody hell this is just a complete joke!
Though atleast its not RTE forking out all that money, though tbh it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they did.

This country just gets worse and worse, there not going about this the right way at all.

On a side note: Was walking home on Saturday in Waterford and was just walking along the keys when I heard a prayer being said over a loud speaker, as I got closer I noticed a car with megaphones on top of it.

As I turned the corner I noticed a lad dressed as a monk and he was handying out leaflets.

I saw a girl take a leaflet of him so I went upto her and asked whats "this" all about, and I saw that it was about the Nice Treaty!"
The slogan went something along the lines of

"Don't be peagan, Vote no to nice"

All I could think is how scary the whole thing was, maybes its the Gov's plan to get people to vote yes,
Religion and polotics just don't mix!
Either do Media and Religion imho.

Comes out to much like propaganda in the end.

seamus

Originally posted by eth0_
And the ads do break guidelines. AFAIK it's illegal for RTE to broadcast adverts for specific religions.

Yes it is. But these ads don't. Whoever shot the ads kept a close eye on telecommunications regs governing such, and made sure the ads didn't contravene them. RTE agreed, but at the last minute, some lawyer freaked and told them not to screen the ads. Apparently they're just subtle 'suggestive' ads, that imply the whole 'go find jesus' crapology, without saying it, so they don't break any rules.

I think RTE are wholly hypocritical on this situation. They broadcast the Angelus twice a day, and show mass on Monday mornings. Why shouldn't they show these ads? Let's be fair, RTE should broadcast a bell and have a few minutes silence for the Muslims in Ireland, and whatever praying ceremony they do during the day. And maybe a few 'Happy Channuka' ads for the Jews at Christmas time. But they wouldn't. There would be uproar. But there will also be uproar when they remove the Angelus (they will eventually). How do you keep people happy? If you ban all religiously biased programming, people will complain that RTE doesn't cater for them. If you allow all religiously biased programming, people will moan about 'corrupting, blasphemous' programmes. whoops...I'm going OT......:D

Short answer: RTE are wrong.

Long Answer: They're wasting their time using TV as a medium. I won't go into it.......it'd be too long....

eth0_

Perhaps you should email the DG in RTE and ask him why they don't show masses from any other religion? I would have thought they show the angelus and Sunday mass because there must be some sort of demand for it.

And Catholicism *is* the dominant religion in this country.

seamus

Originally posted by eth0_
And Catholicism *is* the dominant religion in this country.

Irrelevant. Women are the majority sex, should we run the country to cater for you?

Cabaal

What demand for it??

The reason they want to show the adverts is because there is no demand for people going to mass so how can they justify airing mass live on TV??
Seems abit of a waste of money don't it?

MiCr0

the reason that it was not allowed is that rte arn't allowed to show ads favouring one religion over another or to be seen to be encouraging one specific religion.

JustHalf

Originally posted by eth0_
That's a rather pedantic cheap shot. How do you know what charities I do or do not give money to? My point was that it's a shameful waste of money to put ads on TV that are going to do next to nothing in terms of getting people into church.

It did wonders in Canada...

And besides, have you any idea how much time and money Christian charities spend helping the disadvantaged?

Originally posted by eth0_
And the ads do break guidelines. AFAIK it's illegal for RTE to broadcast adverts for specific religions.

The ads themselves (at least the RTE ads) did not mention "God" or "Jesus". They could be about pretty much anything.

gurramok

Originally posted by JustHalf
gurramok, the Power to Change campaign is not run by the Catholic church (though it is, I believe, supported by it).

They support it as you say so they must have some influence there. Where is the money coming from to run this ad campaign ?
Why don't they get all the clergy to go out there to everyone's door and preach about religion the human way, are they afraid of this approach ?....better spent this way than advertising it.

Another reason it can be branded as wasteful because most people switch channels when adverts come on the tv !

JustHalf

Originally posted by gurramok
They support it as you say so they must have some influence there. Where is the money coming from to run this ad campaign ?
Why don't they get all the clergy to go out there to everyone's door and preach about religion the human way, are they afraid of this approach ?....better spent this way than advertising it.

*sigh*

If I were to say I support the Nice Treaty, would I automatically have some influence over the contents of it?

I don't know where the money comes from (exactly), but I *might* be able to find out.

nick_riviera

The Power to Change campaign is run,and funded by a group of Christian business people,from across a number of denominations (the group is called the Zion Trust,if I recall).The churches are working with the campaign,not funding it.

And RTE does show a Protestant service in place of Mass every few weeks by the way.But its not only RTE that shows Christian-oriented viewing on a Sunday,the BBC does likewise.

neuro-praxis

Originally posted by eth0_ :
And the ads do break guidelines. AFAIK it's illegal for RTE to broadcast adverts for specific religions.

They don't break any guidelines.

I had the opportunity to meet the solicitors who are fighting RTE and on that night, was there while an independent witness (a marketing rep from Bushmills who creates advertisements) watched them and gave her evaluation. To quote her;

"It's totally ambiguous. It could be an ad for herbal tablets."

Remember, the ones you see in the cinema and on British TV are not the ones that were edited for RTE.

I also feel I need to add to people who were griping about a waste of money; the charity that runs this works with various other Christian charities (whom I can name if anyone wants proof) who spend all their resources on meeting people's physical needs.

Power to Change is attempting to meet people's spiritual needs. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Meh

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
"It's totally ambiguous. It could be an ad for herbal tablets."

But they aren't ads for herbal tablets. They're ads promoting a specific religion, which RTE is legally not allowed to show. It may be a dumb law, but it's the law nonetheless.

Kali

Originally posted by Meh
But they aren't ads for herbal tablets. They're ads promoting a specific religion, which RTE is legally not allowed to show. It may be a dumb law, but it's the law nonetheless.

since when is christianity a specific religion?
there are at least a couple of hundred variants of christian belief...

neuro-praxis

You've kinda got it wrong.

It isn't that RTE aren't allowed promote a specific religion. It's that a specific religion isn't allowed to be mentioned in advertisements. And it isn't mentioned, so it doesn't violate that law.

Also, you're allowed to advertise periodicals, books or products related to religion. And Power to Change does that - it advertises a free CD rom and booklet that explain the ads in full.

What bugs me the most is how esoterically religious rip off schemes (psychics on line etc.) are allowed to be shown where vulnerable people can get trapped into paying huge bills and get con-job advice.

Whatever people think of Christianity, nobody will take your money if you ring up for a booklet and CDrom.

logic1

Originally posted by neuro-praxis

"It's totally ambiguous. It could be an ad for herbal tablets."

Advocating the use of "herbal" remedies are you? I never took you for a drug addict.

Disgusting. What would God say?

.logic.

Meh

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
It isn't that RTE aren't allowed promote a specific religion. It's that a specific religion isn't allowed to be mentioned in advertisements. And it isn't mentioned, so it doesn't violate that law.

OK, here's what the three relevant laws have to say:

Broadcasting Act 2001 Nothing in section 20(4) of the Act of 1960 or section 10(3) of the Act of 1988 (including either of those sections as applied by this Act) shall be construed as preventing the broadcasting of a notice of the fact—
(a) that a particular religious newspaper, magazine or periodical is available for sale or supply, or
(b) that any event or ceremony associated with any particular
religion will take place, if the contents of the notice do not address the issue of the merits or otherwise of adhering to any religious faith or belief or of becoming a member of any religion or religious organisation.

1960 20 (4) The Authority shall not accept any advertisement which is directed towards any religious or political end or has any relation to any industrial dispute.

1988 10 (3) No advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards any religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute.

It's pretty clear that these ads do "address the issue of the merits or otherwise of adhering to any religious faith or belief or of becoming a member of any religion or religious organisation". They're not a simple factual notices saying "Call 1800-JESUS for a free leaflet", they directly try to promote religion. Therefore, they aren't covered by the exemptions in the 2001 Act and are therefore illegal for RTE to show.

DMC

Er, well....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/1002/ads.html

In short, they've changed the ads in such a way that they are promoting the booklet and CD and not Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Before they were advertsing their way of life, but now they are using the ads to plug the merch. They can do it in that fashion, that's allowed, but intriguingly, the new ads mention Jesus Christ, where the old ads don't!

neuro-praxis

Ah! At last I manage to get to a pc. Sorry for the delay; I find this an interesting argument.

The update (as kindly supplied by DMC) is good news for supporters of the Power to Change campaign. I’d just like to make the response that I’d intended to, before.

I’ve seen the original ads and the edited ones for RTE (although not the newly-edited ones which have been accepted). And if there wasn’t such controversy about the ads (which I’m not complaining about – it’s been great to have people talking about it), people would not have known that the ad was “promoting religion”.

While the aim of the project as a whole is to spread the gospel across the country, this is not the aim of the ads. Most people involved in the project agree that a television ad generally speaking is not going to alter anyone’s life (although in Canada 24,000 people responded to them).

Therefore, the aim of the ad is to get people to call for the free booklet and CD rom and from there, hopefully, become a Christian at some point on the route that they’re led.

So it is not quite right to say that the ad itself promotes a religion; the ad promotes the CD rom and booklet which in turn promotes Christianity, which is indeed nought but freedom of speech.

In my opinion, the ads edited for RTE technically did not violate the broadcasting act, which is presumably the argument which was being made in its favour. Obviously it is subjective and open to debate, but it looks as though a compromise has been reached, so I’m pretty satisfied.

Yesterday I ran the CU stall in Maynooth with five of our members and over thirty new people have signed up. This may not sound like a lot, but in a predominantly lapsed Catholic university, this is amazing. We have gone from 10 members to over forty. I suspect Power to Change may have had something to do with it. Only problem is, CU is in my house…where am I going to put everybody?

Typedef

I have no problem with an organisation or conglomeration instigating ads for religion(n) or political party(y) so long as said conglomeration/interest group/organisation divies up the money, let said interested parties pay away to their hearts content.

Why should I care, either I choose to watch the advertisements or I do not, that is the entire impact of such an ad campaign on my life.
Unlike the Angeles state money is not being used to proport or extoll a particular relgious genre (ie Christianity) or branch/derivative thereof (ie Lutheranism or Catholicism).

It seems a glaring dichotomy and utter hypocrisy to use state funds to proport a religious genere via the Angeles and then try to prohibit the use of private funds for religious advertisements.

Essentially I object to public money of which I am a part contributor to being used for relgious purposes when I am atheist and this Republic has no official relgion, I find that entire concept an affront to my choice in atheism as a citizen of a this Republic.

So in short, no state funding of religion in Television or elsewhere, but allow individuals or groups to fund and advertise to their hearts content, because as I have said, in a state without an official religion, it is a fallacy to append religion into, onto or in association with state activities.

Feel free to call me an Atheist Communist at your discression.

WhiteWashMan

hey, god deserves his 15 miuntes of fame too you know.....

DMC

Originally posted by Typedef
It seems a glaring dichotomy and utter hypocrisy to use state funds to proport a religious genere via the Angeles and then try to prohibit the use of private funds for religious advertisements.

Where in part I can see your point, The Angelus has (thankfully) moved away from being a picture of Mary, to scenes of people downing tools for a minute to contemplate and think, i.e. neutralising the Catholic factor in it. The bells still ring, but a bell is not a purely religious symbol. The change while not instantly recognisable, was seismic.

Remember, each evening in the UK on certain ITV stations from the 50's to the 80's, they ended each evening's viewing with a religious epilogue. When telly was set up here, the first thing on it after the anthem, DeV (no, not our DeV!) and Lemass was benediction! The past is very often a different country, but the Angelus was the done thing then. And now that the emphasis of it has changed as I outlined above, I can accept it more. 1 or 2 minutes a day of quiet thought is needed now more than ever.

Feel free to call me an Atheist Communist at your discression.

I won't, but if the Angelus was dropped in favour of 1 minutes more advertising, what would your stance be??

rob1891

Concerning the Angleus, it is a relic of the rather shabby consitution this nation was founded on:

Article 44.1 reads that the State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence and shall respect and honour religion. Taken with the preamble this has been taken to mean by the courts that the citizens of the Irish state are a religious people, but does so in terms which do not confine the benefit of that acknowledgement to members of the Christian faith (Casey, 1992, 556). However one does not have to be a legal genius to see that article 44.1 provides a broad justification for the State s participation in religious ceremonies, the playing of the Angelus on State television and radio each day being an obvious example.

and the preamble:

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Eire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give ourselves this Constitution.

(from The Chimera of State Neutrality in a secularising Ireland.
Bill Kissane, Department of Government,
London School of Economics. (a paper posted on these very boards, the link is lost and my connection is to slow to go searching!))

Can one amend a preamble? I would be of the opinion that no specific religion should have any place in any part of a constitution, yet ours is crippled from the start! (though the preamble is not meant to have any legal meaning, it has was cited in court in the 1980s to curtail our personal freedom ... find the paper and read it if you are interested!). In the 80+ years we've had this constitution, we have slowly torn it away from the (poor imho) partnership of state and church that it was founded on. The angelus will go eventually, I wouldn't give it too much thought, it is only minor compared to some issues that have had to be dealt with.

As for these adverts, they have been edited for RTE, to bring them into line with whatever regulations there are concerning Television broadcasting, but they are part of a wider campaign on billboards and in cinemas (the only places I have seen them so far). What regulations have these other advertisements met? Are they in line with the regulations RTE have, or do they promote a specific creed, Christianity. If they do, then can you let the specially edited tv ads run? People will associate them with whatever message the Zion Trust are trying squeeze into our little minds via bill boards and kino advertisements. Can you have an advert which is part of a wider campaign that promotes christianity, that has been edited as per the tv regulations but uses the same icons, colours and faces as its other less obtuse brothers and sisters?

There are lots of coulds cans and ifs there, only because I have tried so hard ignore the posters as much as possible, I can't be sure of their content. Same with the cinema ad, I believe I just cringed and told the friend next to me that it, the vodaphone ad and tom hanks were going to make the next 2 hours an experience i may just have to walk out on!

Does 1800-JESUS promote the christian faith? I won't be ringing it anyway. :rolleyes:

rob

Typedef

Yes, but this is how Article 44 Reads now

Irish constitution
Article 44.

1
The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

2
2.1 Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2.2 The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
2.3 The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
2.4 Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
2.5 Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes .
2.6 The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

Thus the 'Angelus' is contrary to article 44.2.2 of the Irish constitution especially when it shows a picture of the Pyramid Church in Glasnevin (where I made my Communion and Conformation and have since renounced Catholocism being an adult and old enough to realise there is no proof for god's existance).

What's more I regard the entire intonation of Catholicism as an inappropiate ammendum to what should be a wholely secular state broadcast and yes since the question was asked I would prefare an extra minute of ads to the Angelus as I find being force fed however serrupticiously and subtley other people's religion as personally insulting and insulting to the choices I have made in this life to live as a secular citizen of Ireland and as an atheist at large, despite having had large pressure put on me by factions of my family to simply 'believe in god' when in fact said belief does not hold up to logical scrutiny. Thus I find the relgious intonation as an intellectual insult, perpitrated by the State.

Do I sound sufficiently hot and bothered yet? Fine if schmo (x) wants to go and spend private money on funding a pro-God campaign, that is his/her/their right in this Republic, what is wrong is associating any intonation of Religious pretext into what should be a secular national service.

Edit:Typo.

rob1891

44.2.2



I was going to say this too, that the Angelus contravenes the article, but I wasn't sure. By endow they mean to support and maintain a particular religion. Merriam-Webster comes to an articulate rescue:

Main Entry: en·dow

Pronunciation: in-'dau, en-

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French endouer, from Middle French en- + douer to endow, from Latin dotare, from dot-, dos gift, dowry -- more at DATE

Date: 15th century

1 : to furnish with an income; especially : to make a grant of money providing for the continuing support or maintenance of <endow a hospital>

2 : to furnish with a dower

3 : to provide with something freely or naturally <endowed with a good sense of humor>

The Angelus does express a support for the church, but not a financial support and the state definitly does not provide a maintaining financial support, so the bells are okay? Personally I'd prefer an extra minute of the news!



rob

Meh

Originally posted by rob1891
The Angelus does express a support for the church, but not a financial support and the state definitly does not provide a maintaining financial support, so the bells are okay? Personally I'd prefer an extra minute of the news!

Well, the angelus isn't the worst instance of the state supporting religion in this country. What about all the state-funded religious schools? With our taxes paying teachers to promote Catholic/Protestant/Muslim teachings?

Typedef

Thats a damn good point.

Essentially what annoys me about the Angeles is the enitire propaganda element to it. Of course on logical scrutiny the state funding of schools that teach a form of Creationism is wrong big time.

I think the content of what a Relgious shcool teachs is important, ie, when the state divies up money so cleric/rector/elder (x) can spout Creationism that is wrong and is support of a Religous ideology. If a Catholic school for example teachs maths without Creationism, then that should be allowed because it doesn't support a Relgious belief.

In conclusion the State should prevent the teaching of Religion using state monies.

Again I don't and never did attend a school that required you to accept that God created the heaven and the earth (etc fortunately for me), and again I find that the state paying for the Angeles to be broadcast is contrary to Article 44.2.2 of the Irish constitution. So long as one accepts that endow means proport, extoll, promote or in the case of the Angeles give state airtime for free I think the exponenciation of Christianity can be shown to be happening with the Angeles in contravention of Article 44.2.2.

Also I would argue that the state substanciating in constitutional text Article 44.1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion. is also in contravention to Article 44.2.3 Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen as I don't think this state respects my decision as an athiest, by effectively acknowledging that there is a thing called "Almighty God", I don't happen to agree that there is such a thing, but this State seems to disagree.

Perhaps that makes me a bad little athiestic citizen.

nick_riviera

Are there really any religious schools that teach creationism in this country?I never came across it,and creationism isn't supported by mainstream Christian churches.I seem to remember being encourged to read "Origin of the Species" in my (Catholic) secondary school biology class.

neuro-praxis

Woah, quite a lot has happened since my last visit.

Typedef, I agree with you on many levels and disagree with you on others.

I feel the need (despite my own difficulties with the institution) to defend the Catholic church to a degree. I am not a Catholic and do not attend a Catholic church. However, I was educated by nuns who were absolutely amazing women. They ran the school like clockwork and I had a wonderful education.

I think that what a lot of people forget when they complain about the state funding religious schools is that the Catholic church own those schools. If you don’t want your kids raised in a Catholic environment, don’t send them to a Catholic school. If it wasn’t for the Catholic church in Ireland, our parents would mostly be uneducated. I know that many people have suffered at the hands of evil nuns and priests (my folks included), but lay teahcers have also proved to be evil. The Catholic church have done a great deal of damage, but they have also done a great deal of good (I am thinking specifically of the Legion of Mary and St. Vincent de Paul and other organisations). In spite of my own positive experiences, I would prefer my children to go to a non-denominational community project school (“Educate Together” in Lucan is a good example) and keep their faith something we discuss in an informal setting.

This being said, I don’t have a problem with the state paying for teachers to teach RE, as it is optional. If students do not wish to attend said classes (or if their parents don’t want them to), there is no obligation to do so. After all, the majority of Catholic religion classes only teach morality and have turned into discussion forums; in my entire school career we never once opened a bible. In Protestant schools, up north in particular, RE means bible study.

I would also like to point out that the Catholic church has eliminated any teachings of creation as scientific fact.

The Angelus (while it means little or nothing to me) is not offensive to me. I think that you must choose to find it offensive. Obviously it is a Catholic affair but a moment or two of reflection in a day isn’t harmful. The ads are a little dull, but who cares? I just change the channel. I don’t think it’s anything to get your knickers in a twist over. To say you are being “force fed” anything is a trifle silly. There are far more harmful things that you could be force-fed – if in fact you really are incapable of switching channels when it comes on.

I agree that any universal statement about God should be kept out of the constitution. America has recently removed the word “God” from their declaration. Overall I think this is a good idea because it means that there’s no hypocrisy involved.

And a wee footnote; Typedef, if there are two types of non-Christians that I can respect it’s pagans and atheists. Paganism because it makes a lot of sense, and atheism because it is rigorous. However, you must consider that a solid and considered belief in a God can also be rigorous, for dozens of philosophical reasons (which I would love to batter out with you some time on IRC if you wanted ). It is not illogical to have a belief in a God, however illogical many of the trappings of religion prove to be.

Typedef

When one gets taught in Religion class that God created the heaven and the earth, yes that is essentially creationism.

Admittadely it is not the same as being taught in Biology class that man came from 'God' as opposed to a branch of simians, however being 'taught' in school subject(x) that 'God' creating the show in seven days speil is essentially Creationism, ok, so it's not the Adam and Eve story in place of the theory of evolution, however it is a religously subject ammendum, in my opinion.

In my opinon teaching two origins of the species Creation and Evolution is analagous to teaching a child in maths class that two plus two equals four and then teaching that child in religion class that 'god' makes four.

neuro-praxis

For goodness' sake, if you attend a Christian religion class, expect to be taught a little of what Christians believe...

If you don't want your kids in those classes, don't send them.

And religion in general and the theory of evolution don't clash, despite your misconceptions.

seamus

Originally posted by Typedef
In conclusion the State should prevent the teaching of Religion using state monies.

Exactly. I have no problem with religiously oriented schools, that teach Catholicism/Muslim/Judaeism, etc, but when it's funded by the state, it just becomes wrong. My school was owned and run by priests/brothers. As was explained to us, plenty of the priests/brothers taught at the school (and the charter stated that the pricinpal must be a priest and the vice-principal must be a layperson), and they were paid for teaching, which then was placed in the priests' communal fund (they had a vow of poverty). Many of them teach English/Irish/History etc, but what really annoys me is that some of them only teach religion at the school and they get paid for it. So essentially, our tax monies give money to this priest community for nothing. Religion should be a purely optional choice, and be disregarded in terms of examinability. A course such as Philosophy or Theology would be fine, but to have a subject which is based on one religion, and for which academic credits can be awarded, is just ridiculous and frankly, racist.

It's annoyed me more, that while Catholicism is dying out in Ireland, the government is trying to protect it, eg by making religion compulsory for the Junior Cert. Surely, it's none of the Government's business what happens to a religion, and the Government shoudl always make decisions which reflect the trend of the people. The abortion referendum was another example of the Government trying to go against public opinion, in defence of Catholic beliefs. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that makes me a bad little athiestic citizen.

No. just means your eyes are open. For the record, I'd be classed agnostic, but I haven't really got time to consider the mysteries of the universe right now .

Typedef

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
in my entire school career we never once opened a bible. In Protestant schools, up north in particular, RE means bible study.

Bah, that was one of the most significant departures of Martin Luther and the entire Lutheran & Calvinist brances of Christianity, ie the Protestants were encouraged and expected to study the bible and the Catholics were expected to get their interpretation of the bible from the pulpit and the Pope.

nick_riviera

I think I understand the point you are making Typedef.When I hear creationism I usually think of the handful of American school board districts who insist on teaching the Genesis account as a replacement for,or alongside evolution.

However,I must add my own experience with religion class in school never included anything relating to the book of Genesis,or indeed all too often,the Bible.Generally what was taught in those classes varied depending on the teacher,for example,one year we were involved in the "Free East Timor" campaign.

So while the atheist could argue that there was too much Christianity involved,the Christian could argue there was too little.Really though,if you go to a religious school,to have 2 or 3 hours a week for instruction in the beliefs of that faith should be expected.Otherwise parents should really send their children to one of the equally good multidenominational schools.