Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…8990929495…101

Comments

  • #2732
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,692 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    J C wrote: »
    It seems that many Atheists not only don't believe that God (or gods) exist ... but if the God of the Bible does exist, they would reject Him and would have nothing to do with Him ... citing numerous negatives supposedly associated with Him.

    The person who believes without a shadow of a doubt that God exists can only conclude that the atheist has rejected God.

    What you seem to be saying is that if God stood in front of an atheist they would still reject him.

    That's nonsense. The issue for the Atheist is ONLY whether there is a God or not. Nothing more.
    They're also deeply anti-religion and especially anti-christian, as a result of their views on the God of the Bible.

    It would be a hypocritical position to take that one doesn't believe in God but at the same time be pro religion. I'd be quite happy to leave religious ppl alone if they would pay me the same courtesy.


  • #2733
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    AllForIt wrote: »
    What you seem to be saying is that if God stood in front of an atheist they would still reject him. That's nonsense. The issue for the Atheist is ONLY whether there is a God or not. Nothing more..
    I would have said for an atheist that's not an issue at all; an atheist already knows there are no gods hence the name.
    AllForIt wrote: »
    It would be a hypocritical position to take that one doesn't believe in God but at the same time be pro religion. I'd be quite happy to leave religious ppl alone if they would pay me the same courtesy.
    That smacks of you're either of us or against us. I think there's a world of opinion in between; it's perfectly possible to acknowledge pros and cons of anything without believing in, or even endorsing it.


  • #2734
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Absolam wrote: »
    My own experience is that most atheists hold an agnostic view of religion; any religion. I've noticed that those (whom I've met and discussed with) who are active anti-theists, particularly anti-Catholic (generally an Irish thing to be fair) tend to be either teenagers being teenagers or people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up. I'd say it's far from many atheists; I reckon it's a very small minority indeed, since the majority of people I know take no interest in religious matters at all.

    That's not to say there aren't genuine crusaders on either side, dedicated to the promulgation or suppression of religion, true believers in the righteousness of their cause which they feel more than justifies the specious nonsense they come up with.

    Most people aren't anti-Catholic anymore since it has begun to clean up its act and taken its rightful position in society which is to have no influence over how society is governed.

    Based on personal experience and the experiences of almost everyone of my generation, authority figures within Catholicism, usually the teaching orders, physically and mentally abused most children. It would be wrong to blame those children for having a biased view of the Catholic church when they are adults. The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.

    However, I do agree with you that most atheists have no interest whatsoever in the Catholic church. In fact, many of those atheists who were historically mentally and physically abused by Catholic clergy do have no interest in the Catholic church these days because it rarely impinges on their lives today. They have moved on.


  • #2735
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Most people aren't anti-Catholic anymore since it has begun to clean up its act and taken its rightful position in society which is to have no influence over how society is governed.
    Well, I can't speak for most people in general myself, but I can say that that's simply not true of most people in my experience. My observation is not that the changes in the Church have caused them to lose interest, but they were simply never interested. If anything, regardless of your opinion of the Church's rightful position, it would seem its changes garner it more interest rather than less, certainly if A&A is anything to go by.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Based on personal experience and the experiences of almost everyone of my generation, authority figures within Catholicism, usually the teaching orders, physically and mentally abused most children. It would be wrong to blame those children for having a biased view of the Catholic church when they are adults. The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.
    Oh, I think we can confidently say that the way most adults behaved towards children back then would be construed as physical and mental abuse these days, they didn't need to be 'within Catholicism' to do it. Though it seems a bit of a non sequitur to harp about blaming children for it.... it doesnt really seem to follow from the idea that atheists aren't interested in the Church. Trying to slide in a bit of an agenda item there?


  • #2736
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    ... or perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't set out to exclude religious POVs from the public space.

    Here's the short definition as given by the National Secular Society;
    Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

    If you follow the link you'll get further details. Secularism doesn't seek to exclude religious views from the public space, it seeks to remove religious influence from the running of the state. From the same site;
    Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

    As I've said previously, secularism is largely about removing any right of religious people to impose their beliefs on others, or force them to act in accordance with their belief system.


  • Advertisement
  • #2737
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    So why should secularists get to impose their beliefs in Catholic schools and hospitals? This is not a secular country as per our constitution.


  • #2738
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.
    A great self-serving definition of how the world should be run ... if you're an atheist.

    What exactly is meant by 'strict separation' of state from religious institiutions ?
    Shouldn't religious institutions have the very same rights of access to government that all other institiutions have ?
    Why are people of different religions only equal before the law? ... which will be devised by secularists alone (if the state operates a strict separation from people of faith).
    Why are religious people not to be given equal rights ... including the freedom of religious expression ... in the 'brave new' secularist world?

    Rephrasing your definition of secularism to remove its gross religious discriminatory aspects it would read ...
    The first is the strict separation of the state from all institutions. The second is that all people are equal before the law.

    Why is it never phrased like this ... but instead is focussed on separting out religious people and institiutions for special mention?


  • #2739
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    A grest self-serving definition of how the world should be run ... if you're an atheist.

    What exactly is meant by 'strict separation' of state from religious institiutions ?
    Shouldn't religious institutions have the very same rights of access to government that all other institiutions have ?
    Why are people of different religions only equal before the law? ... which will be devised by secularists alone (if the state operates a strict separation from people of faith).
    Why are religious people not to be given equal rights ... including the freedom of religious expression ?

    If you're arguing for all religions to be equal before the law, you're pro-secularism ;)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2740
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    So why should secularists get to impose their beliefs in Catholic schools and hospitals? This is not a secular country as per our constitution.
    They want to change that ... that's what most of the anti-catholic rhetoric was all about over the past 20 years.


  • #2741
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    If you're arguing for all religions to be equal before the law, you're pro-secularism ;)
    I'm not arguing that ... why should religious people be singled out to be 'equal before the law' ... why shouldn't it simply be everyone.
    ... and why should religious institutions (it used be churches) be singled out to be 'strictly separated' from the state?


  • Advertisement
  • #2742
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,738 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Can any of the religious posters tell me what specific aspects of Catholicism you feel should have legal protection and be given active participation in the running of the country? Aspects that would be removed by the adoption of secularism.

    Further, how do you propose other religions should have equal input - to give a very small example, should the Dail have a separate prayer proposed by every different religious group before they get to work? Would they each be supplied with prayer mats and kippahs?


  • #2743
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Wouldn't that very much depend on what your notion of 'adoption of secularism' entails? I mean arguably we've adopted secularism already; the State may not endow religions, it can't discriminate between religious education providers, and I can't think of any service that the State provides which differs depending on one's religion, save at one's own request. If the idea of adopting secularism were extended to suppressing religion, say by withdrawing funding from religious schools, or preventing members of religions from having a say in State or public affairs, then I'd guess those are the legally protected things that religious (and even irreligious libertarian) people would want to see continue to be protected?


  • #2744
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, I can't speak for most people in general myself, but I can say that that's simply not true of most people in my experience. My observation is not that the changes in the Church have caused them to lose interest, but they were simply never interested. If anything, regardless of your opinion of the Church's rightful position, it would seem its changes garner it more interest rather than less, certainly if A&A is anything to go by.

    I would imagine most atheists post on here out of idle curiosity. I wouldn't take this forum as a benchmark for interest in the Catholic church. For almost all of the people I know, their enforced engagement with the church was not positive and they left because they found it a negative experience and/or its teachings were no longer relevant to them. I engage in conversation with a lot of people socially and through my work. I rarely hear Catholicism being discussed. If you do, then maybe that's because we move in different circles.
    Oh, I think we can confidently say that the way most adults behaved towards children back then would be construed as physical and mental abuse these days, they didn't need to be 'within Catholicism' to do it.

    Perhaps within the home. Different times as you say. But that doesn't excuse the mental, physical and sexual abuse by the teaching orders, clergy and orphanages towards children placed in their care. And the subsequent attempts at cover up.
    Though it seems a bit of a non sequitur to harp about blaming children for it.... it doesnt really seem to follow from the idea that atheists aren't interested in the Church.

    I don't understand this.
    Trying to slide in a bit of an agenda item there?

    Am I? Pray tell.


  • #2745
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    Can any of the religious posters tell me what specific aspects of Catholicism you feel should have legal protection and be given active participation in the running of the country? Aspects that would be removed by the adoption of secularism.
    As taxpayers, everyone should be entitled to lobby the state on how it spends their money and makes the laws under which we all have to live. This should be allowed individually or collectively via institutions to which individual citizens belong, such as churches, trades unions, etc.
    A definition of secularism as something that grossly discriminates against religious institutions and those who belong to them is a rather 'toxic' definition of secularism IMO. It smacks of something approaching totalitarianism rather than something approriate to a liberal inclusive democracy.
    looksee wrote: »
    Further, how do you propose other religions should have equal input - to give a very small example, should the Dail have a separate prayer proposed by every different religious group before they get to work? Would they each be supplied with prayer mats and kippahs?
    Obviously, it should be allowed that each TD pray in accordance with his/her religion and for those who have no religion, they could try meditating or reciting something that is meaningful to them as they prepare to start their day as legislators.
    There is no real difficulty with achieving proper respect for all religions and none ... where there is a will there is a way.


  • #2746
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,738 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Absolam wrote: »
    Wouldn't that very much depend on what your notion of 'adoption of secularism' entails? I mean arguably we've adopted secularism already; the State may not endow religions, it can't discriminate between religious education providers, and I can't think of any service that the State provides which differs depending on one's religion, save at one's own request. If the idea of adopting secularism were extended to suppressing religion, say by withdrawing funding from religious schools, or preventing members of religions from having a say in State or public affairs, then I'd guess those are the legally protected things that religious (and even irreligious libertarian) people would want to see continue to be protected?

    Sorry Absolam, I am not going to take your bait to repeat a lot of arguments that have been done before, or to go off down your side path.

    Just because you say 'arguably we have adopted secularism already' does not mean that we have. If we are already secular why have their been so many arguments 'this is a Catholic country and the majority prefer...(to maintain the status quo)'? That is a rhetorical question.

    I would be interested in an answer to the actual question, not your attempt at diversion.


  • #2747
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I would imagine most atheists post on here out of idle curiosity. I wouldn't take this forum as a benchmark for interest in the Catholic church.
    Gosh, neither would I, hence my saying that most people of my acquaintance have never been interested. The prurient attention hereabouts I think is more evident of the small minority I mentioned earlier.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Perhaps within the home. Different times as you say. But that doesn't excuse the mental, physical and sexual abuse by the teaching orders, clergy and orphanages towards children placed in their care. And the subsequent attempts at cover up.
    Well of course; nothing excuses any abuses by anyone, regardless of their religious affiliations, does it?
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I don't understand this.
    You decided to weigh in on an observation about atheist views of religion with a rather heavy handed swipe at blaming children abused by members of the Church for having a biased view of it when they are adults. Since nobody was blaming them, it seems oddly out of place.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Am I? Pray tell.
    I was rather hoping you'd tell us; hence the question.


  • #2748
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Absolam wrote: »
    Gosh, neither would I, hence my saying that most people of my acquaintance have never been interested. The prurient attention hereabouts I think is more evident of the small minority I mentioned earlier.

    It's a pity that you are selectively quoting me. Anyway, your use of 'prurient' makes no sense. Why would people with an excessive interest in sexual matters be posting on a thread about atheism????
    Well of course; nothing excuses any abuses by anyone, regardless of their religious affiliations, does it?

    Absolutely not.
    You decided to weigh in on an observation about atheist views of religion with a rather heavy handed swipe at blaming children abused by members of the Church for having a biased view of it when they are adults. Since nobody was blaming them, it seems oddly out of place.

    You said this:

    My own experience is that most atheists hold an agnostic view of religion; any religion. I've noticed that those (whom I've met and discussed with) who are active anti-theists, particularly anti-Catholic (generally an Irish thing to be fair) tend to be either teenagers being teenagers or people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up. I'd say it's far from many atheists; I reckon it's a very small minority indeed, since the majority of people I know take no interest in religious matters at all.

    That's not to say there aren't genuine crusaders on either side, dedicated to the promulgation or suppression of religion, true believers in the righteousness of their cause which they feel more than justifies the specious nonsense they come up with.

    I was just clarifying your very ambiguous statement above. Note the piece in bold. Here, I'll repeat what I said so that we are both clear: Based on personal experience and the experiences of almost everyone of my generation, authority figures within Catholicism, usually the teaching orders, physically and mentally abused most children. It would be wrong to blame those children for having a biased view of the Catholic church when they are adults. The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.

    Glad we cleared any possible ambiguity up.
    I was rather hoping you'd tell us; hence the question
    .

    I'll tell you as it was only you who asked the question. No agenda. Just passing idle time pleasurably. Any agenda yourself?


  • #2749
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    looksee wrote: »
    Sorry Absolam, I am not going to take your bait to repeat a lot of arguments that have been done before, or to go off down your side path. Just because you say 'arguably we have adopted secularism already' does not mean that we have. If we are already secular why have their been so many arguments 'this is a Catholic country and the majority prefer...(to maintain the status quo)'? That is a rhetorical question. I would be interested in an answer to the actual question, not your attempt at diversion.
    You may well think it's a diversion to ask you to set out your premise if you truly expect an actual answer, but I can't help but suspect that when you don't get the answers you like, you're more likely to tell us it's the fault of those who couldn't answer it....

    If it helps at all though, I think we've only had one single poster offer the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in well over a year; it tends to be a phrase far more often used by anti-theists on behalf of those they are attacking. So there haven't been so many of those arguments put forward really....


  • #2750
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    So why should secularists get to impose their beliefs in Catholic schools and hospitals? This is not a secular country as per our constitution.

    Because it is what most Catholics in this country want perhaps? Those who declare as Catholic in this country would long since appear to have shown two fingers to Rome, as can be seen with attitudes to contraception, abortion, same sex marriage, taking vocations and even regularly attending church. As recently evidenced in the National Maternity Hospital debacle, the people of this country have become very wary of church involvement in any state bodies.


  • #2751
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think we've only had one single poster offer the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in well over a year

    Whoaa there Hoss, we've just had Frostyjacks do just that in the last post I quoted.


  • Advertisement
  • #2752
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    It's a pity that you are selectively quoting me. Anyway, your use of 'prurient' makes no sense. Why would people with an excessive interest in sexual matters be posting on a thread about atheism????
    If you'd like to add anything to the quote, feel free, I don't mind. Pruriance isn't just related to sexual matters, it denotes something marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire. For instance, a person fixated to the point of obsession with the activities of an organization they're not involved with but feel compelled to counter might be said to have a prurient interest.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    You said this: <..>I was just clarifying your very ambiguous statement above. <...>The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.Glad we cleared any possible ambiguity up.
    I think maybe you missed the point. I wasn't restricting myself to those for whom the Church was the authority figure (hence the fact that they would use religion/the Church as a substitute in later life). Unambiguously not a word at all about blame because I'm not saying anything about blaming people at all. I said that some people may need something to rail against, and the Church serves that purpose for them, even if it isn't why they need to do so in the first place.


  • #2753
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    Whoaa there Hoss, we've just had Frostyjacks do just that in the last post I quoted.
    Oddly enough Frostyjacks is indeed the single poster who I believe has offered the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in the last year, though in that particular post he said this is not a secular country as per our constitution, so I think he may have been more implying this is a notionally Christian country, much like the USA in that regard. One way or the other... yep Frostyjacks is the single poster I've noticed offer that argument. Though Pherekydes, MrP, Hotblack etc etc have often offered counters to it nonetheless.


  • #2754
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Absolam wrote: »
    If you'd like to add anything to the quote, feel free, I don't mind. Pruriance isn't just related to sexual matters, it denotes something marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire. For instance, a person fixated to the point of obsession with the activities of an organization they're not involved with but feel compelled to counter might be said to have a prurient interest.

    'Prurience'

    Oxford Dictionaries full definition : Having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others.

    Merriam Webster full definition: Marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire

    It is confined to sexual matters only. Which is why I asked you about your strange use of the word on the context of the discussion.
    I think you may ahve found it ambiguous because you missed the point. When I said people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up, obviously I wasn't restricting myself to those for whom the Church was the authority figure (hence the fact that they would use religion/the Church as a substitute in later life). Less ambiguous than broad, and obviously not a word at all about blame; I'm not saying anything about blaming people at all. I'm saying that some people may need something to rail against, and the Church serves that purpose for them, even if it isn't why they need to do so in the first place.

    I agree. When the Church was coming under fierce and valid criticism in recent decades, it also became the lightning rod for many societal wrongs for which it wasn't culpable. I think that has greatly lessened in very recent years.


  • #2755
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    'Prurience'
    Oxford Dictionaries full definition : Having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others.
    Merriam Webster full definition: Marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire
    It is confined to sexual matters only. Which is why I asked you about your strange use of the word on the context of the discussion.
    This is rather off topic, so I'll just point out the word 'especially' in your MW definition which demonstrates it is not confined to, but particularly applies to, sexual desire, and leave it at that.


  • #2756
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Absolam wrote: »
    This is rather off topic, so I'll just point out the word 'especially' in your MW definition which demonstrates it is not confined to, but particularly applies to, sexual desire, and leave it at that.

    Agreed. We'll leave it to the lexicographers.


  • #2757
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Absolam wrote: »
    Oddly enough Frostyjacks is indeed the single poster who I believe has offered the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in the last year, though in that particular post he said this is not a secular country as per our constitution, so I think he may have been more implying this is a notionally Christian country, much like the USA in that regard. One way or the other... yep Frostyjacks is the single poster I've noticed offer that argument. Though Pherekydes, MrP, Hotblack etc etc have often offered counters to it nonetheless.

    FrostyJacks for sure, J C has also used this argument as can be seen here, I don't doubt there are others were one to have the patience to wade through the past years posts.


  • #2758
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    getting back on topic ... here is a video that explores the (lack of) evidence for Darwinian Evolution.





    This is your second warning for dumping videos JC.


  • #2759
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    getting back on topic ... here is a video that explores the (lack of) evidence for Darwinian Evolution.


    What did you find the most compelling part of the video?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2760
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    What did you find the most compelling part of the video?
    The change in attitiude as each conversation proceeded.
    The people interviewed were mostly self-professed atheists and science post grads or eminent scientists. They mostly changed from total confidence in both Evolution and the non-existence of God ... to much lower confidence in both ideas.


  • Advertisement
  • #2761
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    smacl wrote: »
    FrostyJacks for sure, J C has also used this argument as can be seen here, I don't doubt there are others were one to have the patience to wade through the past years posts.
    Well, JC certainly said there that most of the population claim to be Christian, so I suppose if we completely diminish the argument "there been so many arguments that this is a Catholic country" to the rather broader "a couple of posters occasionally allude to how many people claim to be religious" we'd certainly be looking at a more honest assessment of the facts, though the honest rendition lacks the polemic quality I think looksee was trying to deliver; if in fact there have not been so many such arguments, then maybe we are indeed already secular, and everyone can go for tea and buns.

    Personally, I'm of the opinion that Ireland is a State which is secular (bar the odd bit of lip service here and there) in how it operates, influenced of course by a history that is primarily Christian and a population that continues to be largely Christian though significantly less religiously observant than in previous centuries, like most western nations. We're becoming more multicultural, pantheistic, and libertarian which seems to generally be an enriching experience all round.


Advertisement