Should religion be recognised by the state?

Sleepy · 12-04-2006 12:13am #1

As the annual 'the pubs shouldn't be shut on Good Friday' debate has started in AH, I got to thinking about how religion intrudes in some other areas of governance. A handful of examples: the religious stranglehold on the Irish education system, religious hospitals, the Angelus being broadcast on state-owned radio and television stations, RTÉ's 'A Prayer at Bedtime' etc.

Should state-run organisations have any element of religion? Personally, the notion that any part of my taxes are being spent broadcasting religious rituals makes my blood curl. I understand that in the past the church provided services in the areas of education and health that our government could not provide but those days are long gone and the country has more than paid the price for them.

What disturbs me more are the seven references to 'God' in our constitution, most notably article 6:

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

Can a document of such importance referencing a deity of any religion be defended? Should any legislation imposing religious beliefs upon them be recognised as law by the citizens of that state?

For any non-christian, the mandatory closure of businesses selling a legal product on "Good Friday" is an imposition: should a publican wish to 'celebrate' his own religious beliefs that is his decision to do so, not for the state to dictate to him. For any non-judeo-christian, being expected to take an oath 'before God' or expecting him/her to belief his right to vote is derived 'under God' is insulting (as well as meaningless in the case of the oath).

Beyond allowing it's citizens to practice any religion they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, is there any reason for a state to recognise a religion at all?

Crucifix · 12-04-2006 7:26am

I don't mind RTE doing religious shows, because that's just programming for a certain audience, although whether it's fair to do this for just one religion, I suppose, is questionable. But to be honest I think RTE can still be secular while doing that.
But I definitely think the government should be secular in things. Get the church out of education, and God out of the constitution. And of course, there shouldn't be a legal obligation for places to close on Good Friday.

dbnavan · 12-04-2006 7:40am

Crucifix wrote:

I don't mind RTE doing religious shows, because that's just programming for a certain audience, although whether it's fair to do this for just one religion, I suppose, is questionable. But to be honest I think RTE can still be secular while doing that.
But I definitely think the government should be secular in things. Get the church out of education, and God out of the constitution. And of course, there shouldn't be a legal obligation for places to close on Good Friday.

Ditto, couldnt have said it better, the is far more then 1 religion in ireland now, and I doubt catholism is the main 1 if you include those who dont subscribe to anything, or at least dont practice

Dave! · 12-04-2006 7:56am

No, I think the state should be completely secular.

12-04-2006 8:02am

I'm not too pushed about the pubs on good friday because I don't go that often anyway and I'll be going home for the weekend.
I suppose it was just how things were that religion was part of everything. but listening to people on the radio and so on, it does seem christianity is still dominant. So if it's the majority of people, I suppose it's sort of fair they get to have the pubs closed. I mean, noone complains around Christmastime about being offended by the religion and it *is* everywhere - higher prices and decorations etc. And stuff closes on christmas day.
I don't think closing a pub for one day is going to kill anyone. People are going to the off licences, and maybe for once people can think about trying to socialise somewhere else.
I wonder if the same people complaining will be buying any easter eggs?

Generally speaking, I'm not too pushed about the state and religion as long as people aren't pushed about the fact I'm not christian. I do think the state should be secular, but since it's gradually phasing out in the society anyway (I think?) maybe it can be gradually phased out from the govt as well.

Gurgle · 12-04-2006 8:03am

Sleepy wrote:

Beyond allowing it's citizens to practice any religion they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, is there any reason for a state to recognise a religion at all?

You dangerous liberal you.
What are you trying to turn this country into ?
A democracy or something ?

Hobbes · 12-04-2006 8:23am

Sleepy wrote:

What disturbs me more are the seven references to 'God' in our constitution, most notably article 6:

It doesn't say what god though. Clearly they are referring to FSM.

Dades · 12-04-2006 9:10am

Many of the examples offered here of religious intrusion on Irish life are innocuous. A Prayer at Bedtime? The Angelus? Oh come on. Sure, lets pull those interludes and deny whole generations of folk their tradition because a new generation of agnostics are so insecure in their godlessness.

When we open the pubs on Good Friday, make sure we cancel the bank holidays, and Christmas, and Halloween. Are we that concerned about the publican's rights that we can't handle a day off the sauce? Sure it's the principle, but is it really that offensive?

From posts I've seen here on Boards, religion class in school is not the indoctrination suggested. Schoolkids aren't given enough credit for their ability to think for themselves. Ultimately parents are the role models that children will look to for religion.

We have a multicultural society that is already changing rapidly. The church's influence has thankfully waned dramatically, and will continue to do so. A change to the wording of the constitution will do little to further this, and probably would never be sanctioned in any of our lifetimes.

This years census results will be very interesting reading however.

Sleepy · 12-04-2006 9:49am

Hobbes wrote:

It doesn't say what god though. Clearly they are referring to FSM.

It wouldn't be any less ridiculous tbh, but I think it's fair to read 'God' to be a reference to be the Tetragrammaton.

The Atheist wrote:

Many of the examples offered here of religious intrusion on Irish life are innocuous. A Prayer at Bedtime? The Angelus? Oh come on. Sure, lets pull those interludes and deny whole generations of folk their tradition because a new generation of agnostics are so insecure in their godlessness.

If a commercial venture wants to provide those generations with their traditions, I'm not one for stopping them, it is not however, the role of the state broadcaster to provide this service. Why do you consider a believe in secular governance to be an insecurity?

When we open the pubs on Good Friday, make sure we cancel the bank holidays, and Christmas, and Halloween. Are we that concerned about the publican's rights that we can't handle a day off the sauce? Sure it's the principle, but is it really that offensive?

It's only offensive to me because it's an imposition of someone else's religious beliefs upon me. Should we force Ramadan on all our citizens when a certain percentage of the population are muslim? Bank Holidays are nothing to do with religion; Christmas is a pagan celebration that was originally hijacked by Christianity and has since been hijacked by commercialism and Halloween isn't a day off work for anyone other than schoolchildren.

From posts I've seen here on Boards, religion class in school is not the indoctrination suggested. Schoolkids aren't given enough credit for their ability to think for themselves. Ultimately parents are the role models that children will look to for religion.

Again, it's about the principal. Can you honestly tell me that a child not making their communion/confirmation in an Irish primary school won't end up being teased / ridiculed by the other children? My flatmate is a primary teacher who usually takes the first communion class and this is becoming a major issue for her.

We have a multicultural society that is already changing rapidly. The church's influence has thankfully waned dramatically, and will continue to do so. A change to the wording of the constitution will do little to further this, and probably would never be sanctioned in any of our lifetimes.

This years census results will be very interesting reading however.

I agree that the census results will be interesting alright. However, I can't agree about the significance of the wording of the Irish Constitution. This is the document on which our entire state is built!

Earthhorse · 12-04-2006 9:58am

The Atheist said what I was thinking far better than I ever could.

In principle I agree with Sleepy, but in practice I think references to God in the Constitution, a few public holidays (Christmas Day, Good Friday), the teaching of religion in the classroom impinge minimally on peoples' rights. No doubt these things will change over time but removing them all at once is a practical impossibility.

Dades · 12-04-2006 10:45am

Sleepy wrote:

Why do you consider a believe in secular governance to be an insecurity?

I think anyone (and I'm not saying you are one) that would demand a prayer at bedtime and the angelus be taken off our state run television has insecurity issues, yes. They are hardly the most threatening 5 minutes in television.

There comes a point when reason and result must come over principle. I can't see what is to be gained TBH with any of this. Only the upsetting of a lot of people and bad press for the godless. There have been intrusions of religion into public life, but not one negative one has been mentioned on this thread IMO.

The US has official separation of church and state - and look at the culture that has bred. Change is afoot - let it happen naturally rather than forcing it down peoples necks I say.

Sleepy · 12-04-2006 10:54am

Earthhorse wrote:

No doubt these things will change over time but removing them all at once is a practical impossibility.

Sure, changing the constitution would require a referendum, but it's not something that couldn't be achieved inside a year. Allowing pubs and off-licences to trade on 'Good Friday' or making it illegal for state-broadcasters to air religious rites could be changed inside a week judging from the speed with which the government out-lawed psilocybin mushrooms.

Removing the religious institutions from our Health and Education Systems would undoubtably be a lot more difficult but again, it's not unachievable inside a term of government.

Sleepy · 12-04-2006 11:06am

The Atheist wrote:

I think anyone (and I'm not saying you are one) that would demand a prayer at bedtime and the angelus be taken off our state run television has insecurity issues, yes. They are hardly the most threatening 5 minutes in television.

There comes a point when reason and result must come over principle. I can't see what is to be gained TBH with any of this. Only the upsetting of a lot of people and bad press for the godless. There have been intrusions of religion into public life, but not one negative one has been mentioned on this thread IMO.

The US has official separation of church and state - and look at the culture that has bred. Change is afoot - let it happen naturally rather than forcing it down peoples necks I say.

I can see your point that there's probably not a lot to be gained from this, other than the ability to say we live in a sane, modern democracy. I can't see how you would consider a desire for this to be the case to be an issue of insecurity though?

The US certainly is an interesting example of how to screw up seperation of church and state, though I think there are other factors at play than simply the enforcement of this seperation. The current polarisation of the religious and the secular stems imho from a chronic education problem and the use of fear to control a population. Religion will always thrive in a land of ignorance and fear. Another large factor in this is the influence of lobby groups in US politics.

TBH, I didn't intend this to be a discussion of the details of separation of church and state, rather more on the philosophy. Is it universally accepted at this stage that it is a good thing? Should a government even recognise a church as a lobby group?

Earthhorse · 12-04-2006 11:11am

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, changing the constitution would require a referendum, but it's not something that couldn't be achieved inside a year.

Do you honestly think that would pass? You have to time these things to coincide with how the culture really feels about them.

Sleepy wrote:

Allowing pubs and off-licences to trade on 'Good Friday' or making it illegal for state-broadcasters to air religious rites could be changed inside a week judging from the speed with which the government out-lawed psilocybin mushrooms.

I don't know about inside a week but it could probably be done within a term. Personally I don't have a problem with the state broadcaster airing religious rites, particularly when said religion is practised by a significant part of the population.

Sleepy wrote:

Removing the religious institutions from our Health and Education Systems would undoubtably be a lot more difficult but again, it's not unachievable inside a term of government.

Well, that's where I think you're wrong. I'm sure there are many instances where the actual school buildings are owned wholly or partially by the religion in question and the state can't just trample on their property rights. Neither could sufficient building space be erected within a term to compensate for this.

You'd also have to have the political will to achieve this and I doubt many within the system view the removal of all religious interference as the most pressing issue they are facing.

Earthhorse · 12-04-2006 11:14am

Sleepy wrote:

TBH, I didn't intend this to be a discussion of the details of separation of church and state, rather more on the philosophy. Is it universally accepted at this stage that it is a good thing? Should a government even recognise a church as a lobby group?

In that case you can ignore my last post!

I think it's universally accepted in the West, most of the East (not sure about the Middle East though).

I can't see any reason why the government shouldn't recognise the church as a lobby group. What makes them different, as an organisation, that they shouldn't?

Captain Trips · 12-04-2006 6:29pm

Sleepy wrote:

It's only offensive to me because it's an imposition of someone else's religious beliefs upon me. Should we force Ramadan on all our citizens when a certain percentage of the population are muslim? Bank Holidays are nothing to do with religion; Christmas is a pagan celebration that was originally hijacked by Christianity and has since been hijacked by commercialism and Halloween isn't a day off work for anyone other than schoolchildren.

WHy are you so easily offended? The majority of this country are Catholic. 300,000 Polish people have immigrated, and they are also Catholic.

If you don't like it, in this globalised world, why not move to some godless society? I have no problem with these RTE events or no drinking on Good Friday, especially as the most recent religious holiday is a yearly binge drinking festival (St. Patrick's Day).

If we are left with just the banks, is all that is sacred money?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 13-04-2006 1:34am

Captain Trips wrote:

WHy are you so easily offended? The majority of this country are Catholic. 300,000 Polish people have immigrated, and they are also Catholic.

If you don't like it, in this globalised world, why not move to some godless society? I have no problem with these RTE events or no drinking on Good Friday, especially as the most recent religious holiday is a yearly binge drinking festival (St. Patrick's Day).

If we are left with just the banks, is all that is sacred money?

No, the majority of people born in this country were born into Catholic families. Doesn't make them Catholics. Don't try and tell me I'm a Catholic.

Oh & yeah like the way you speak for every Polish person. Not one of them I've met has done anything to suggest they're Catholic. Generalising that much makes you seem really stupid. Just for future reference.

My opinion, the no drinking is ridiculous. I honestly believe it's a violation of our rights. But glad of the day off I must add

Aziraphale · 13-04-2006 4:21am

The state should recognise religion if a large majority of the population follow it. (85% at least.) The trouble is that the state doesn't keep up to date with what the population thinks.

It's just a matter of keeping interest groups out of government. As long as all religions are represented proportionally to the population, you can call it fair. When the population goes multicultural, the state should go secular.

The Atheist wrote:

From posts I've seen here on Boards, religion class in school is not the indoctrination suggested

My religion teacher didn't know about anything other than Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It was awful.

Gurgle · 13-04-2006 7:52am

Aziraphale wrote:

The state should recognise religion if a large majority of the population follow it. (85% at least.)

The state should recognize a religion if one person follows it.
The state should not be run in accordance with the laws or traditions of any religions. Fair enough to put the national/bank holidays on the holy days of the majority religion. I can't object to programming on the state broadcaster to appeal to that audience.
These things have no effect on non-catholics. Nobody is forced to watch the angelus / a prayer at bedtime / sunday morning mass etc.

But theres a world of difference between that and forcing one particular sector of the economy to shut down on a couple of days a year that are sacred to one particular religion.

That is interfering with our rights.
(Its just the principle btw. I only visit a pub half a dozen times a year anyway, and usually just when I'm abroad)

Bottle_of_Smoke · 13-04-2006 8:49pm

Aziraphale wrote:

The state should recognise religion if a large majority of the population follow it. (85% at least.) The trouble is that the state doesn't keep up to date with what the population thinks.

Bullsh|t

85% of people are not Catholic. They may have been born into a family that was Catholic by default. Does not make them Catholic.

Aziraphale · 13-04-2006 11:20pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Bullsh|t

85% of people are not Catholic.

Did I try to make out they were?

Rev Hellfire · 14-04-2006 9:25am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Bullsh|t

85% of people are not Catholic. They may have been born into a family that was Catholic by default. Does not make them Catholic.

Pure speculation on your part, fancy backing up your claims.

While 85% of the population may not be practicing catholic using the last census we find that 88% identify themselves as catholic as of 2002. Or have been identified as catholic by those who fill out the form to be more precise.

http://www.eirestat.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=2361

This will almost certainly be lower in the upcoming census but not so much that we are not dealing with a very large majority.

Sleepy · 14-04-2006 9:58am

Rev Hellfire, if 88% of the country identify themselves as attractive does this mean we live in a country of beautiful people?

By the laws of Catholicism, if you are non-practicing, you are not a Catholic. It's not a religion that allows it's followers to pick and choose which elements of it's Dogma they will follow. If you remember, the facility for the layman to interpret the Bible himself was one of the central tenets of the reformation and the establishment of the Protestant strains of Christianity.

Of course, us Irish resent the English too much to even consider the notion that our own beliefs mirror theirs and so cling to the title of 'Catholic' simply because it means 'We're not like them'. But lets look at things: we have divorce in this country, most Irish 'Catholics' don't believe in transubstantiation, believe they can interpret the bible as they see fit, that homosexuals aren't inherently evil, that priests should be allowed marry, that eating meat on Fridays won't damn their 'eternal soul' etc. etc. etc.

So, lets be honest, the majority of this country aren't Catholic. They might want to be (I can't imagine why) but they're not.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 14-04-2006 10:03am

Aziraphale wrote:

Did I try to make out they were?

Yes, see

"The state should recognise religion if a large majority of the population follow it. (85% at least.)"

Or were you referencing Wicca?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

]Pure speculation on your part, fancy backing up your claims.

While 85% of the population may not be practicing catholic using the last census we find that 88% identify themselves as catholic as of 2002. Or have been identified as catholic by those who fill out the form to be more precise.

Even when people ask me what religion I am I usually go to say "Catholic", then stop & say "I was born into a Catholic family, mostly a Darwinist myself". Religious beliefs don't come into it it's just a classification thing.

So yes you're right the census will say we're a country full of Catholics but I'm not going to accept that as accurate until 85% of people attend church every Sunday. If 85% of people were Catholic you'd think they'd follow more of the rules and stop "sinning"
Catholic Hell doesn't sound all that great.

It's a good point though, if more people were honest about their beliefs on paper we might get rid of prohibition nonsense. The chart in your link is pretty encouraging. The increase in "no religion" stated has been increasing the fastest since 1946. There must justn't have been an option to choose before that, because there'd always be at least someone who'd fill it out by mistake!

The Corinthian · 14-04-2006 10:41am

Sleepy wrote:

By the laws of Catholicism, if you are non-practicing, you are not a Catholic.

That is incorrect.

Sleepy · 14-04-2006 2:04pm

Care to correct me so TC? It was my understanding that Catholic canon put it that unless you were following the laws of the church you were living outside a 'state of grace' in which condition you were destined for hell unless you received the sacrament of confession. Am I confusing the idea of not going to heaven with not being a Catholic?

Because surely if one were Catholic, living outside this state of grace would be an intolerable place to be?

Aziraphale · 14-04-2006 7:27pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Yes, see

"The state should recognise religion if a large majority of the population follow it. (85% at least.)"

Note the word 'if.'

The Corinthian · 14-04-2006 11:08pm

Sleepy wrote:

Care to correct me so TC? It was my understanding that Catholic canon put it that unless you were following the laws of the church you were living outside a 'state of grace' in which condition you were destined for hell unless you received the sacrament of confession. Am I confusing the idea of not going to heaven with not being a Catholic?

Yes, you're confusing the idea of not 'going to heaven' with not being a Roman Catholic.

Zombrex · 14-04-2006 11:55pm

The Atheist wrote:

We have a multicultural society that is already changing rapidly. The church's influence has thankfully waned dramatically, and will continue to do so. A change to the wording of the constitution will do little to further this, and probably would never be sanctioned in any of our lifetimes.

YOu are assuming these things will eventually happen naturally, but forgetting that it is often only because people call for them that they happen.

No one is saying (I think) that they are hugely offended by Catholic schools getting state funding, or teh Angelas at 6 o'clock.

But they are pointing out that a seperation of church and state is needed, and will come. You can't just expect everyone to be quiet on the subject but still expect it to eventually happen. Who is going to make it eventually happen if everyone is staying quiet?

Gurgle · 15-04-2006 11:43am

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, you're confusing the idea of not 'going to heaven' with not being a Roman Catholic.

I find myself in the unprecedented and unenviable position of actually agreeing with TC :eek:

Technically, I think I'm a Roman Catholic on the road to hell

For any statistics based decision, the government must go with a person's recorded religion and cannot take into account whether its practised a) by going to mass, b) at home c) in school or d) at all.

If you don't want to be counted towards the catholic statistic you have to actually have yourself taken off the books. Despite being a long term athiest myself, I was baptised, communioned and confirmed and am still a statistic that says Ireland is Catholic.

Actually, theres a question for TC, how do you get off the books?

Wicknight wrote:

No one is saying (I think) that they are hugely offended by Catholic schools getting state funding, or teh Angelas at 6 o'clock.

How can you refer to those two in the same sentence?
I couldn't give a flying fcuk if the angelus is bonged out at 6 or if they swap it for 'Allah o akbar'.
I am hugely offended by Catholic schools getting state funding. All state funded schools should be non-denominational and all the lies, dogma and fairy tales should be taught outside of school hours.

The Corinthian · 15-04-2006 12:36pm

Gurgle wrote:

Actually, theres a question for TC, how do you get off the books?

Traditionally apostasy is the means by which people leave a faith, although as it tends to be for another, so I don’t know where Atheism (which is arguably a faith in itself) would stand - in short, you get ‘off the books’ when you are put on another set of books.

Even then, unless you are publicly apostate, most religions will ‘turn a blind eye’ in the hope that you will come be saved (or simply come to your senses) on a later date. Islam and Christianity will typically work this way, also because they are salvitic in nature, while Judaism, which is not salvitic, will simply argue, “you’re born a Jew so call yourself what you like, but we’re still going to see you as one”. However, excommunication (or equivalent) does exist in all three. I have no idea how other faiths work.

It’s probably not a bad approach to ignore private apostasy from their perspective as a lot of apostates ‘repent’ when the social respectability that their faith affords becomes useful to them. After all, there are a lot of angry young people who will swear blind that they want to leave their faith, only to get married a few years later in a church / mosque / temple of that same faith.

Naturally, when they do that we’ll often hear the claim that it was done ‘just to keep the parents happy’ :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion · 15-04-2006 1:04pm

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Pure speculation on your part, fancy backing up your claims.

While 85% of the population may not be practicing catholic using the last census we find that 88% identify themselves as catholic as of 2002. Or have been identified as catholic by those who fill out the form to be more precise.

http://www.eirestat.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=2361

This will almost certainly be lower in the upcoming census but not so much that we are not dealing with a very large majority.

I will be very interested in the results of ths census in the religion section.
How long does it tak for the results to be tabulated?

As for that huge catholic majority, at the age of 19, I know of just one friend who calls himself a catholic and his view are so far from catholic views, it is laughable. I haven't come accross many people that believe in it,
do you think this is a standard accross the country or just with poeple I know?
I think there will be much fewer catholics as the older generation die out.

My parents filled out the last census so I'm sure I'm marked down as Catholic. I'm sure this happened to a lot of people.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-04-2006 1:57pm

Aziraphale wrote:

Note the word 'if.'

I did. In that sentence the word "if" implies "should" due to the statistic you added at the end. You'll surely agree what I originally quoted most certainly implied you thought it was true\were making a false statement

Gurgle · 15-04-2006 2:08pm

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s probably not a bad approach to ignore private apostasy from their perspective as a lot of apostates ‘repent’ when the social respectability that their faith affords becomes useful to them.

Um yes, and they can claim to represent x% of the people even though half of their flock want and have nothing to do with them.

The Corinthian wrote:

After all, there are a lot of angry young people who will swear blind that they want to leave their faith

Anger isn't the only reason to want to leave a faith.
Maybe lack of faith?

The Corinthian wrote:

only to get married a few years later in a church / mosque / temple of that same faith.
Naturally, when they do that we’ll often hear the claim that it was done ‘just to keep the parents happy’ :rolleyes:

While I kind of agree with the :rolleyes: (and got married in a registry office myself), try to look at it from their point of view.
Why would a RC/athiest not get married in a church?
Whats the harm?
It allows them to have the traditional white wedding and to keep the parents' reputation intact in the parish (:rolleyes: again).

The Corinthian · 15-04-2006 3:57pm

Gurgle wrote:

Um yes, and they can claim to represent x% of the people even though half of their flock want and have nothing to do with them.

Except as you’ve already admitted, that’s not entirely true as they will quite often have something to do with them. They’ll get married through them, baptise their kids through them and so on. This is because, like it or not, religions do represent demographic groups because they’re often as much part of the ethnic identity as anything supernatural.

Anger isn't the only reason to want to leave a faith.
Maybe lack of faith?

Realistically no. Lack of faith tends to be a reason to lapse from predication, not to actively reject that faith. Actively seeking to leave is more about making a statement of rejecting that other faith, not that you’ve simply lost faith in it. This can be because you’ve found anther faith to take its place or, as is often the case in the West, you’ve got some anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind.

While I kind of agree with the :rolleyes: (and got married in a registry office myself), try to look at it from their point of view.
Why would a RC/athiest not get married in a church?
Whats the harm?
It allows them to have the traditional white wedding and to keep the parents' reputation intact in the parish (:rolleyes: again).

Oh, I don’t think there is any harm in people who are de facto of no faith doing that. That’s their business. However if they make a song and dance about rejecting that faith and then do that it’s called hypocrisy. And there’s no shortage of those about I’ve observed over the years.

Hobart · 15-04-2006 4:26pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Even then, unless you are publicly apostate, most religions will ‘turn a blind eye’ in the hope that you will come be saved (or simply come to your senses) on a later date. Islam and Christianity will typically work this way, also because they are salvitic in nature, while Judaism, which is not salvitic, will simply argue, “you’re born a Jew so call yourself what you like, but we’re still going to see you as one”. However, excommunication (or equivalent) does exist in all three. I have no idea how other faiths work.

I know that this is slightly OT, but. Does what you say TC actually mean that the Rabbi's (or whomever the religious head(s) of Judaism are), actually believe that we are all Jews? i.e. “you’re born a Jew so call yourself what you like, but we’re still going to see you as one” or is that to oversimplify it?

Secondly how does one become a jew, if one is not already a jew?

Tar.Aldarion · 15-04-2006 4:29pm

Hobart wrote:

I know that this is slightly OT, but. Does what you say TC actually mean that the Rabbi's (or whomever the religious head(s) of Judaism are), actually believe that we are all Jews? i.e. “you’re born a Jew so call yourself what you like, but we’re still going to see you as one” or is that to oversimplify it?

I believe it means that...
If you are born into a jewish family and become agnostic then you will still be jewesh in their books and you can still be saved!

Secondly how does one become a jew, if one is not already a jew?

I think you have to go through a lot of study and prove yourself.

Hobart · 15-04-2006 4:38pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I believe it means that...
If you are born into a jewish family and become agnostic then you will still be jewesh in their books and you can still be saved!

I think you have to go through a lot of study and prove yourself.

Cheer's, so basically it's "Juadism, a religon for the non-ignorant."

Gurgle · 15-04-2006 5:05pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Except as you’ve already admitted, that’s not entirely true as they will quite often have something to do with them. They’ll get married through them, baptise their kids through them and so on.

True for many but an increasing number of people are either getting married in registry offices or not at all. They(we) are also having children and not baptising them. And yet we're still counted in the numbers the RC leaders claim to represent.

The Corinthian wrote:

you’ve got some anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind.

... or because you'd like to have the option to send your children to a non-denominational state school. The church retains it's stranglehold on the education system, in part at least, through being able to say 'we represent 85% of the country'.

The Corinthian wrote:

However if they make a song and dance about rejecting that faith and then do that it’s called hypocrisy.

Couldn't agree more.

The Corinthian · 15-04-2006 5:29pm

Gurgle wrote:

True for many but an increasing number of people are either getting married in registry offices or not at all. They(we) are also having children and not baptising them. And yet we're still counted in the numbers the RC leaders claim to represent.

That there is such an increasing number I don’t dispute. However, you should not confuse that with the numbers who are classified as non-practicing. They don’t believe in the rituals or take part in them, but they still put themselves down as Roman Catholic when asked in a census. That’s where those numbers come from.

... or because you'd like to have the option to send your children to a non-denominational state school. The church retains it's stranglehold on the education system, in part at least, through being able to say 'we represent 85% of the country'.

Cue ‘anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind’ rant...

rsynnott · 15-04-2006 9:46pm

Sleepy wrote:

Care to correct me so TC? It was my understanding that Catholic canon put it that unless you were following the laws of the church you were living outside a 'state of grace' in which condition you were destined for hell unless you received the sacrament of confession. Am I confusing the idea of not going to heaven with not being a Catholic?

You are strictly speaking still a catholic, albeit a naughty catholic, assuming you believe the tenets of the faith.

Crucifix · 15-04-2006 9:48pm

rsynnott wrote:

You are strictly speaking still a catholic, albeit a naughty catholic, assuming you believe the tenets of the faith.

So if you don't believe in Transubstantiation, can you still be considered a catholic?

rsynnott · 15-04-2006 10:25pm

Crucifix wrote:

So if you don't believe in Transubstantiation, can you still be considered a catholic?

I'd think that not doing so, or at least telling people you don't, counts as apostasy. (That said, apostasy doesn't actually exclude you from being catholic.)

Gurgle · 16-04-2006 2:18pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Cue ‘anti-religious, anti-establishmentarian axe to grind’ rant...

*me throws Corinthian dirty look and hides axe behind my back.

JustAnother · 19-04-2006 7:20pm

Sleepy wrote:

If a commercial venture wants to provide those generations with their traditions, I'm not one for stopping them, it is not however, the role of the state broadcaster to provide this service. Why do you consider a believe in secular governance to be an insecurity?

Perhaps he feels you're making a mountain out of a molehill?

After all, religious believers could make a very strong case that they're being denied free speech by your approach.

Again, it's about the principal. Can you honestly tell me that a child not making their communion/confirmation in an Irish primary school won't end up being teased / ridiculed by the other children? My flatmate is a primary teacher who usually takes the first communion class and this is becoming a major issue for her.

I'm a bit skeptical about claims regarding this issue - I used to argue it was the case, but I've realised that I didn't even have anecdotal evidence.

I agree that the census results will be interesting alright. However, I can't agree about the significance of the wording of the Irish Constitution. This is the document on which our entire state is built!

JustAnother · 19-04-2006 7:25pm

Sleepy wrote:

Of course, us Irish resent the English too much to even consider the notion that our own beliefs mirror theirs and so cling to the title of 'Catholic' simply because it means 'We're not like them'.

Do you have any evidence for this or is it just speculation? My late father practiced his faith not because it meant 'not being English' but because he believed in it. I don't follow in his footsteps: I'm an atheist.

But lets look at things: we have divorce in this country, most Irish 'Catholics' don't believe in transubstantiation, believe they can interpret the bible as they see fit, that homosexuals aren't inherently evil, that priests should be allowed marry, that eating meat on Fridays won't damn their 'eternal soul' etc. etc. etc.

So, lets be honest, the majority of this country aren't Catholic. They might want to be (I can't imagine why) but they're not.

I'll grant you the bible interpretation and that people aren't as homophobic as the Church and that eating meat is considered OK. I'm not sure about the percentages on transubstatiation and the issue of priests marrying.

JustAnother · 19-04-2006 7:26pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Yes, see

"The state should recognise religion if a large majority of the population follow it. (85% at least.)"

Or were you referencing Wicca?

Wiccans are polytheists aren't they?
It could be argued that the reference in the preamble to the Constitution discriminates against them.

JustAnother · 19-04-2006 7:29pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Traditionally apostasy is the means by which people leave a faith, although as it tends to be for another, so I don’t know where Atheism (which is arguably a faith in itself) would stand - in short, you get ‘off the books’ when you are put on another set of books.

I don't think there is a literal 'set of books' for most religions, so this is moot. As for atheism being a religion, isn't that like calling bald a hair colour?;)

The Corinthian · 19-04-2006 7:39pm

JustAnother wrote:

I don't think there is a literal 'set of books' for most religions, so this is moot.

Actually there are literal 'sets of books' in many religions. For example, in Christianity baptisms were and are recorded and are even often used in cases of historical and heraldic research.

As for atheism being a religion, isn't that like calling bald a hair colour?;)

I never suggested it was a religion, I suggested it could be seen as a faith. And given humanity’s well documented predisposition towards explaining the universe in terms of the supernatural, one could argue that the opposite is akin to a faith in it’s opposition to this.

Tar.Aldarion · 19-04-2006 7:46pm

Atheism could be seen as a faith but much more accurately it is not.
It is not the belief in something, it is just a lack of belief in something much as you can't define my lack of belief in unicorns as a faith.
Just because a lot of humans have believed in god's over the millenia does not change this.

JustAnother · 19-04-2006 8:02pm

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually there are literal 'sets of books' in many religions. For example, in Christianity baptisms were and are recorded and are even often used in cases of historical and heraldic research.

My interpretation was a list of books of active members of the faith - more than just baptisms. I didn't have to make any declaration to become an atheist - my baptismal certificate just wasn't relevant.

I never suggested it was a religion, I suggested it could be seen as a faith. And given humanity’s well documented predisposition towards explaining the universe in terms of the supernatural, one could argue that the opposite is akin to a faith in it’s opposition to this.

Rephrase what I said with "faith" in place of "religion".

Should religion be recognised by the state?

Comments