Should we protest against the pope's visit?

hatrickpatrick · 22-07-2018 11:49PM

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?

Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will.

Is cheating on a spouse ok?

By definition, cheating is not consensual, because you are breaking an emotional promise you made to someone. If it was totally consensual, AKA being in an open relationship, then it's not cheating and there's nothing wrong with it.

It is perfectly legal.

There are a lot of things which make a person an asshole and still aren't illegal.

Is degrading violent porn ok?

Absolutely, if the actors and actresses involved have consented to it.

What about computer generated violent rape porn?

Of course. There's literally no victim involved if it's CGI.

Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable

Source? Statistics?

because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.

I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again.

This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk.

And that's fine, if you choose to follow the church and believe in its teaching. What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up.

Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.

Bullsh!t. Catholicism literally teaches people that suffering is somehow a good thing because of the moronic concept of "original sin", that we all deserve unhappiness because some douchebag stole an apple a few million years ago. That is literally Catholic doctrine, and that's how the whole toxic embracing of spartanism and deliberate self-restriction / restrain from things which make people happy came about. Hell, if you don't believe in religion, the entire concept of Lent is f*cked up - it's literally based on the idea that self-denial of things which make you happy is something to be encouraged - not self-denial of things which are necessarily bad for you, not self-denial of things which harm others, just self-denial because somehow, not allowing yourself to enjoy your life to the fullest is a good thing.

Again, that's fine if you choose to subscribe to it, but teaching it in school to children and presenting it as "fact" is enormously f*cked up. If they grow up and decide for themselves to do it, that's cool, but no one, no matter what age, should be coerced or bullied into doing these things, or taught that suffering and going through hardship is a good thing somehow. It's not. And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids.

Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.

I don't have any problem with teaching kids about religion, and I never said that I did. I think that religion is such a big part of human civilisation that people should be taught about it - and all of it. Teaching someone about a belief system is totally distinct from teaching someone that it's a "fact" that one particular belief system is the "right" one. And you can teach people about religion without all the "sexual pleasure is a bad thing and is just an unfortunate side effect of reproduction, so try not to enjoy yourself sexually unless it happens to be within an extremely narrow framework which this organisation 'approves' of".

Here's one for you. Is it moral that a young boy going through puberty be told, by someone in authority or someone whose opinion they respect, that it's a "fact" that touching their genitals in the privacy of their own bedroom is "wrong", despite the fact that nobody is hurt and that it's one of the strongest, most basic urges people experience if they're undergoing normal puberty with normal adolescent hormone levels?

I believe that it is psychological abuse, pure and simple. No different than telling someone that scratching an itch is something they should resist, and just suffer the itching sensation just... "because". F*ck that.

work · 23-07-2018 01:42PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

i presume you meant 'now' is an apt time. Id say it's a bit late, but tomorrow morning would be perfect. Ten or twenty years ago is what you should be asking for.

And if this **** genuinely pisses you off, you'll continue protesting after he's left.

"Is it not an apt time..."....part of a rhetorical question, not sure if I understand what you are saying here but it sounds OK to me?

"continue protesting after he's left"......Absolutely I currently protest and will continue to until the indoctrination of our children is stopped as a matter of state policy (this is changing but too slow and we should complain until it is policy to have no religion in school other than from an educational view, how our society developed, all the mistakes made etc).

whisky_galore · 24-07-2018 10:10AM

Controversy already....

https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/singing-priest-father-kelly-takes-issue-with-nathan-carter-performing-for-the-pope-in-croke-park-857156.html

"Today singing priest Father Ray Kelly spoke to Joe Duffy about his disappointment on not being asked to sing and his surprise at seeing Nathan Carter being asked to sing."

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 10:24AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Controversy already....

https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/singing-priest-father-kelly-takes-issue-with-nathan-carter-performing-for-the-pope-in-croke-park-857156.html

"Today singing priest Father Ray Kelly spoke to Joe Duffy about his disappointment on not being asked to sing and his surprise at seeing Nathan Carter being asked to sing."

Given they're both utter shyte, the Holy Father was on a loser with the entertainment one way or another!

Timberrrrrrrr · 24-07-2018 10:35AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Controversy already....

https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/singing-priest-father-kelly-takes-issue-with-nathan-carter-performing-for-the-pope-in-croke-park-857156.html

"Today singing priest Father Ray Kelly spoke to Joe Duffy about his disappointment on not being asked to sing and his surprise at seeing Nathan Carter being asked to sing."

Isn't jealously a sin?

ohnonotgmail · 24-07-2018 10:37AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Isn't jealously a sin?

Do as i say, not as i do.

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 10:37AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Isn't jealously a sin?

Envy is one of the big seven, so I'd say the Father has a conversation to come yeah!!!

4068ac1elhodqr · 24-07-2018 01:45PM

5 days now, the Aussie PM (2nd highest authority in Australia) has waited for a request to the Pope, to sack a convicted criminal.
All it takes is a 10 second phone call (in the style of the Apprentice's Alan Sugar). Here's the int'l phone code it's (+61), fire away.

An_Toirpin · 26-07-2018 10:08PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.

This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated.

That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though.

I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives?

No that definition of hell applies to all Catholics.
Quantifying wellbeing and happiness is subjective, ranking it amongst different people is not.

Re hell - fair point, but I was saying a Catholic definition of hell is irrelevant to non Catholics.
Re happiness - then we can agree that there's no evidence of any alleged connection between happiness and religion.

The evidence that western religiooupractisese is associated with well being is overwhelming.

An_Toirpin · 26-07-2018 10:35PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?

Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will.

Is cheating on a spouse ok?

By definition, cheating is not consensual, because you are breaking an emotional promise you made to someone. If it was totally consensual, AKA being in an open relationship, then it's not cheating and there's nothing wrong with it.

It is perfectly legal.

There are a lot of things which make a person an asshole and still aren't illegal.

Is degrading violent porn ok?

Absolutely, if the actors and actresses involved have consented to it.

What about computer generated violent rape porn?

Of course. There's literally no victim involved if it's CGI.

Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable

Source? Statistics?

because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.

I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again.

This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk.

And that's fine, if you choose to follow the church and believe in its teaching. What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up.

Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.

Bullsh!t. Catholicism literally teaches people that suffering is somehow a good thing because of the moronic concept of "original sin", that we all deserve unhappiness because some douchebag stole an apple a few million years ago. That is literally Catholic doctrine, and that's how the whole toxic embracing of spartanism and deliberate self-restriction / restrain from things which make people happy came about. Hell, if you don't believe in religion, the entire concept of Lent is f*cked up - it's literally based on the idea that self-denial of things which make you happy is something to be encouraged - not self-denial of things which are necessarily bad for you, not self-denial of things which harm others, just self-denial because somehow, not allowing yourself to enjoy your life to the fullest is a good thing.

Again, that's fine if you choose to subscribe to it, but teaching it in school to children and presenting it as "fact" is enormously f*cked up. If they grow up and decide for themselves to do it, that's cool, but no one, no matter what age, should be coerced or bullied into doing these things, or taught that suffering and going through hardship is a good thing somehow. It's not. And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids.

Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.

I don't have any problem with teaching kids about religion, and I never said that I did. I think that religion is such a big part of human civilisation that people should be taught about it - and all of it. Teaching someone about a belief system is totally distinct from teaching someone that it's a "fact" that one particular belief system is the "right" one. And you can teach people about religion without all the "sexual pleasure is a bad thing and is just an unfortunate side effect of reproduction, so try not to enjoy yourself sexually unless it happens to be within an extremely narrow framework which this organisation 'approves' of".

Here's one for you. Is it moral that a young boy going through puberty be told, by someone in authority or someone whose opinion they respect, that it's a "fact" that touching their genitals in the privacy of their own bedroom is "wrong", despite the fact that nobody is hurt and that it's one of the strongest, most basic urges people experience if they're undergoing normal puberty with normal adolescent hormone levels?

I believe that it is psychological abuse, pure and simple. No different than telling someone that scratching an itch is something they should resist, and just suffer the itching sensation just... "because". F*ck that.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?

Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will.

Cheating on a spouse is by defintion is done between two consenting adults. To say it is not because of the third party is double speak. You are entitled to your absolutist view that everything done between two adults is ok but it is frankly bananas. If raping CGI people is morally ok, is a computer game based on the premise of committing hate crimes morally sound?

I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again.

Nope. You are mispresenting me. I didnt argue for copy cat behaviour actually.

What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up

That is an insane point of view tbf. Bringing up a child to believe that they are purposeless balls of meat flying in space is debased and totally debailiating to their development.

And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids.

You don't understand the concept at all. To claim the doctrine teaches we deserve unhappiness is absurd.We might not both believe in the traditional concept of sin but it is objectively true we are inherently flawed and predispotiioned to cause human suffering. Religious faith are a personal decision to undertake but the concept of original sin is profoundly relevent to all modern audiences of all faiths and none.

work · 02-08-2018 09:16PM

'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this month

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html

This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???

An_Toirpin · 02-08-2018 09:32PM

ork wrote: »

'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this month

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html

This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???

Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.

martyc5674 · 02-08-2018 10:19PM

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.

That’s right :rolleyes: in fact they couldn’t do much more really, a commendable effort.

Leroy42 · 02-08-2018 10:59PM

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.

If the pope was to take this opportunity to speak directly to the people of Ireland, to apologise for the past, to accept the evil that the CC had brought to this island and that they will ensure that those hurt will be looked after and that this outrage can never happen again.

To take this opportunity to promise to open up any records, both within the vatican itself and also within the CC, so that the full truth can come out, and that those effected can be heard.

He if takes the opportunity to be honest, to be open, to look for real forgiveness, and to say that any member of the CC that either took part of covered up will no longer be welcome in the organisation or indeed offered no protection.

Then we can start talking about them looking like they changed.

Oh, and promise to stop treating women as second class citizens and openly discriminating based on gender, then, then we might be into a new era.

4068ac1elhodqr · 02-08-2018 11:25PM

Mr Pope (or a representative thereof) is said to likely not have time for that (meeting and addressing victims) as reported here:

https://www.rte.ie/news/the-pope-in-ireland/2018/0802/982627-pope-francis-ireland-visit

Jennehy · 03-08-2018 12:21AM

Is he bringing his woman?

Seth Brundle · 03-08-2018 12:23AM

Jennehy wrote: »

Is he bringing his woman?

Oh? What's this about?

work · 03-08-2018 12:39AM

An_Toirpin wrote: »

ork wrote: »

'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this month

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html

This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???

Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.

Are you insane, All the guys in power are in their 70s and 80s and got there by being sycophantic ass kissers that toe the line no matter what. Society is splitting 3 ways. 1) The deluded that believe the evil and poisoned CC should be followed no matter what. Excuses can easily be derived at no matter how stupid....oh and they righted their wrongs, LAUGHABLE . 2) Probably the biggest group could not give a sh*t and 3) Those that are looking for real change.
The first and third group will never agree. Anyway enjoy kissing the papal "ring" in the park.

work · 03-08-2018 12:40AM

Oh yes guys (girls not allowed...lesser humans)..completely normal yes!!

Graces7 · 03-08-2018 12:59PM

https://www.rte.ie/news/the-pope-in-ireland/2018/0802/982627-pope-francis-ireland-visit/

Day and time set...

An_Toirpin · 03-08-2018 12:59PM

martyc5674 wrote: »

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.

That’s right :rolleyes: in fact they couldn’t do much more really, a commendable effort.

In fairness of course much more could have been done but look at the overall picture. When child rape or other abuse cases are unearthed like in the Indowhat you mean or the awful McCarrick case they typically happened 60-40 years ago. I could be wrong now but I haven't heard of any Irish cover ups in the last 30 years. In contrast there have been child rape cover ups in the HSE in the last 10 years. You have to compare the institution to other organisations.

An_Toirpin · 03-08-2018 01:15PM

work wrote: »

An_Toirpin wrote: »

ork wrote: »

'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this month

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html

This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???

Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.

Are you insane, All the guys in power are in their 70s and 80s and got there by being sycophantic ass kissers that toe the line no matter what. Society is splitting 3 ways. 1) The deluded that believe the evil and poisoned CC should be followed no matter what. Excuses can easily be derived at no matter how stupid....oh and they righted their wrongs, LAUGHABLE . 2) Probably the biggest group could not give a sh*t and 3) Those that are looking for real change.
The first and third group will never agree. Anyway enjoy kissing the papal "ring" in the park.

You are totally mispresenting the situation to make your position more justified. There are many different views points out there and everyone is entitled to their view. But freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and the muppets who rabbit on about separation of church and state, who then lecture Catholics on why they should change need to be called out as inconsistent.

jobbridge4life · 03-08-2018 01:16PM

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You are totally mispresenting the situation to make your position more justified. There are many different views points out there and everyone is entitled to their view. But freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and the muppets who rabbit on about separation of church and state, who then lecture Catholics on why they should change need to be called out as inconsistent.

How is that inconsistent?

Leroy42 · 03-08-2018 01:21PM

You have to compare that the CC stands itself up as the moral voice of humanity, the direct link to the one true God.

That they 'could have done more' is a pretty damning indictment in itself. They have got into positions of power, generated immense wealth and driven the moral agenda for hundreds of years on the basis of this link to God. This is not just any organisation. Yet when the time came to actually stand up for truth, to stand up for the 'little' people, to not let power get in the way of the life that God wants us to live, as an organisation they chose to protect themselves.

They have no moral authority.

When you set yourself up as God's messengers on earth, only priests for administer sacraments for example, then surely you must live to a higher standard than those not chosen by Christ.

Priests say that they are chosen by God, it was God that told them that was their calling. Not that they simply got enough points.

But fine, you want to place them on the same level as any other organisation, fine with me. Take them out of the schools, ensure that they adhere to equality laws like everyone else.

Was child rape not known by these moral guardians are a crime 60 years ago? What has changed in that time? It isn't the word or God, it is the word of man. The people have forced the CC to change, kicking and screaming. Now you want to paint them as some sort of paragons, when it is only by the virtue that they are closely watched and untrusted at this point that they have been forced to change in order to try to stay in any way relevant.

An_Toirpin · 03-08-2018 02:43PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You have to compare that the CC stands itself up as the moral voice of humanity, the direct link to the one true God.

That they 'could have done more' is a pretty damning indictment in itself. They have got into positions of power, generated immense wealth and driven the moral agenda for hundreds of years on the basis of this link to God. This is not just any organisation. Yet when the time came to actually stand up for truth, to stand up for the 'little' people, to not let power get in the way of the life that God wants us to live, as an organisation they chose to protect themselves.

They have no moral authority.

When you set yourself up as God's messengers on earth, only priests for administer sacraments for example, then surely you must live to a higher standard than those not chosen by Christ.

Priests say that they are chosen by God, it was God that told them that was their calling. Not that they simply got enough points.

But fine, you want to place them on the same level as any other organisation, fine with me. Take them out of the schools, ensure that they adhere to equality laws like everyone else.

Was child rape not known by these moral guardians are a crime 60 years ago? What has changed in that time? It isn't the word or God, it is the word of man. The people have forced the CC to change, kicking and screaming. Now you want to paint them as some sort of paragons, when it is only by the virtue that they are closely watched and untrusted at this point that they have been forced to change in order to try to stay in any way relevant.

I know you are well intentioned so I dont take any issue but it is worth pointing out that you are wrong some significant technical details. For example the church does not state it is the only moral voice of humanity. Lay Catholics and non Catholics are just as much the moral voice of humanity as priests. Also priests are not the only ones that are able to offer sacrements but I do agree they should live to a higher standard and in many cases they do. As sickening as abuse was, it was not the norm. It is a tricky issue to deal with as we dont have realiable hard data on the frequency of abuse but there is evidence priests committed less abuse than average in the general population.

An_Toirpin · 03-08-2018 02:45PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You are totally mispresenting the situation to make your position more justified. There are many different views points out there and everyone is entitled to their view. But freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and the muppets who rabbit on about separation of church and state, who then lecture Catholics on why they should change need to be called out as inconsistent.

How is that inconsistent?

If religion is something only done in private you have just as much right to comment on what I do in my bedroom as you do in church matters. You may comment but you just will look a doublespeak hypocrite like Josepha Madigan.

jobbridge4life · 03-08-2018 02:49PM

An_Toirpin wrote: »

If religion is something only done in private you have just as much right to comment on what I do in my bedroom as you do in church matters. You may comment but you just will look a doublespeak hypocrite like Josepha Madigan.

Firstly Josepha Madigan is an active member of the Church so surely she is entitled to comment on it?

Secondly you haven't actually pointed out why it would be inconsistent.

Leroy42 · 03-08-2018 02:55PM

An_Toirpin wrote: »

If religion is something only done in private you have just as much right to comment on what I do in my bedroom as you do in church matters. You may comment but you just will look a doublespeak hypocrite like Josepha Madigan.

Bu therein lies the rub.

You are perfectly correct in that religious matters should be private and left down to each individual. Sure there are some people that think all religion is evil and should be wiped out, but from my knowledge that is a very small minority.

Most people are content to let people believe whatever they want to believe.

The problem is that religion itself doesn't see it that way. All churches, not just the CC but that is the main culprit in Ireland, but Islam in some countries, Judaism in others, evangelicals in the South of the US etc, want religion not to be simply a personal belief, left alone. They want it to be front and center.

They want laws to be made based on their interpretation of morality. They want schools to teach their particular version of the 'truth'. It is only now, now that they are coming under increasing pressure from society, that they all of a sudden want everyone to be left alone and their views accepted.

Was peoples views on divorce accepted for years? What about people individual position on abortion? Only recently has society taken back the decision of those sorts of things from the church.

So by all means have a religion, religion can be a great and wonderful force. It can lead to great good and peace and serenity. But all that can also be achieved without it.

DickSwiveller Returns · 03-08-2018 03:03PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Bu therein lies the rub.

You are perfectly correct in that religious matters should be private and left down to each individual. Sure there are some people that think all religion is evil and should be wiped out, but from my knowledge that is a very small minority.

Most people are content to let people believe whatever they want to believe.

The problem is that religion itself doesn't see it that way. All churches, not just the CC but that is the main culprit in Ireland, but Islam in some countries, Judaism in others, evangelicals in the South of the US etc, want religion not to be simply a personal belief, left alone. They want it to be front and center.

They want laws to be made based on their interpretation of morality. They want schools to teach their particular version of the 'truth'. It is only now, now that they are coming under increasing pressure from society, that they all of a sudden want everyone to be left alone and their views accepted.

Was peoples views on divorce accepted for years? What about people individual position on abortion? Only recently has society taken back the decision of those sorts of things from the church.

So by all means have a religion, religion can be a great and wonderful force. It can lead to great good and peace and serenity. But all that can also be achieved without it.

Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself here? Someone who is in favour of abortion, and how actively campaigns to have it legalized is imposing their morality on the rest of society. You seem to think that one form of morality is bad and another good without explaining yourself.

Water John · 03-08-2018 03:06PM

See the film Spotlight a few nights ago on RTE. Very disturbing. If I was responsible in any way for the merry go round of moving paedophile priests, and the resultant broken lives of so many, I would have serious problems living with myself.
Whether people go to see the Pope or not is up to themselves, but the abuse issue in Ireland should be publicly addressed.

Should we protest against the pope's visit?

Comments