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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should religion be recognised by the state?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.
    That might be your interpretation but it’s not the one that is popularly accepted. People do get put ‘on the books’ on such occasions and most remain there throughout life, often for no better reason than habit and/or tradition. Just because you don’t personally accept that does not make you any less ‘on the books’.
    Rephrase what I said with "faith" in place of "religion".
    And re-read my response.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Perhaps he feels you're making a mountain out of a molehill?
    That's a fair analysis if the imposition of one section of society's religion upon all citizens isn't a big deal to a particular individual. In the case in point it's not a huge deal to me tbh, but it irks me enough to be interested in hearing others' opinions on it.
    After all, religious believers could make a very strong case that they're being denied free speech by your approach.
    I honestly don't see how. I don't recognise the church as a body with a right to take part in governance in any way shape or form. That's not to say that (as much as I'd disagree with it) I'd ever refuse someone's right to base their politics on their religious beliefs.
    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.
    Well, if you'll take it second hand, I've heard my housemate complain of it happening in her class.
    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.
    It's an opinion that I think would be interesting to examine further. Anecdotaly, most 'Catholics' I know disagree with such swathes of the teachings of their religion that their belief system could more accurately be considered to be that of the Anglican church. I believe it is the demonisation of Protestantism in this country (not entirely unjustified historically speaking) that has stopped some of these people from switching churches.
    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.
    Unless I'm mistaken, the Catholic church has never granted it's followers the right to form their own opinions on such matters. A 'Good Catholic' is supposed to take his opinion from his priest. This was one of the key theological aspects of Catholicism that lead to the Reformation.
    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.
    As an agnostic, I would consider Atheism to be a faith. It's a definite belief that there no a God. This is taking a premise as fact based on faith in one's own logical reasoning. While I'm inclined to agree that there almost certainly isn't a God, the fact that it's impossible to prove such a negative means I can't completely rule it out.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,105 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Sleepy wrote:
    As an agnostic, I would consider Atheism to be a faith. It's a definite belief that there no a God. This is taking a premise as fact based on faith in one's own logical reasoning. While I'm inclined to agree that there almost certainly isn't a God, the fact that it's impossible to prove such a negative means I can't completely rule it out.
    As an agnostic, I would not consider Atheism a faith.
    There is no need to disprove something that is not proven.
    Atheism isn't teh belief there is no god. It is the lack of belief in a God, there is no evidence.
    One is not defined by what they do not believe in. I have no belief in dragons. This is not faith. It is a lack of there being proof.
    God is just a concept created by man to me.
    I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. :)

    I would go along these lines somewhat...http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faith.htm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    To pull it back a little, I would prefer that any consitution contained two articles (worded similarly):

    1. The state recognises a person's right to choose a religion.

    2. The state will protect, by all practicable means, a person's right to practice religion without fear of physical attack or other offences which would hinder the person's ability to practice that religion.

    Nothing more, regardless of the number of practicing people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Assuming the phrase 'by all practicable means' allows for the state to rule things such as Female Genital Mutilation, Unnecessary Circumcision, Animal Sacrifice, etc. to being illegal regardless of religious beliefs I'd agree with that Seamus.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Sleepy wrote:
    Assuming the phrase 'by all practicable means' allows for the state to rule things such as Female Genital Mutilation, Unnecessary Circumcision, Animal Sacrifice, etc. to being illegal regardless of religious beliefs
    why?
    So long as its only carried out on adults who so choose, and the animals are sacrificed without unneccessary suffering.
    Torturing of children like this (or any other way) isn't on of course. Same applies to piercing a baby's ears.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sleepy wrote:
    Assuming the phrase 'by all practicable means' allows for the state to rule things such as Female Genital Mutilation, Unnecessary Circumcision, Animal Sacrifice, etc. to being illegal regardless of religious beliefs I'd agree with that Seamus.

    You solve that by putting "so long as this practice does not infringe on any law or civil right guarranteed by this constitution"

    Personally I think its a good idea, if the consititution treats all religions as equal then it would be illegal for the state to favor one over the other and the state would be forced to seperate from religion like it does in the USA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Pretty much what I was thinking of Wicknight.

    It's curious (and personally I find it somewhat scary), however, that the USA who have such seperation of church and state enshrined in their constitution are arguably one of the countries where religion holds the most sway in their governance (through the power of the religious right in terms of lobbying power etc.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sleepy wrote:
    Pretty much what I was thinking of Wicknight.

    It's curious (and personally I find it somewhat scary), however, that the USA who have such seperation of church and state enshrined in their constitution are arguably one of the countries where religion holds the most sway in their governance (through the power of the religious right in terms of lobbying power etc.)

    The way I look at it is that the US would be so much worse off if they didn't have the protection in the constitution


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


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

    That was a joke. He was clearly talking about Catholiscm but then sort of changed his argument.

    I could have easily used Buddhas, Hindus etc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20 JustAnother


    Sleepy wrote:
    That's a fair analysis if the imposition of one section of society's religion upon all citizens isn't a big deal to a particular individual. In the case in point it's not a huge deal to me tbh, but it irks me enough to be interested in hearing others' opinions on it.

    Well, that depends on the interpretation of "imposition". It is only two minutes out of the whole day and it could well be argued that opposing it is supporting censorship. I used to support the removal of it from RTE on the grounds that it was implicit state support for religion and I got replies ranging from "that's a pretty petty example" to implications that I was a West Brit.
    I honestly don't see how. I don't recognise the church as a body with a right to take part in governance in any way shape or form. That's not to say that (as much as I'd disagree with it) I'd ever refuse someone's right to base their politics on their religious beliefs.


    Well, if you'll take it second hand, I've heard my housemate complain of it happening in her class.
    Wouldn't it be covered by anti-bullying policies?

    It's an opinion that I think would be interesting to examine further. Anecdotaly, most 'Catholics' I know disagree with such swathes of the teachings of their religion that their belief system could more accurately be considered to be that of the Anglican church. I believe it is the demonisation of Protestantism in this country (not entirely unjustified historically speaking) that has stopped some of these people from switching churches.


    Unless I'm mistaken, the Catholic church has never granted it's followers the right to form their own opinions on such matters. A 'Good Catholic' is supposed to take his opinion from his priest. This was one of the key theological aspects of Catholicism that lead to the Reformation.
    True - the Catholic Church has a habit of doing this and also equivocating to interpret Church as hierarchy or including laity as they see fit.
    As an agnostic, I would consider Atheism to be a faith. It's a definite belief that there no a God. This is taking a premise as fact based on faith in one's own logical reasoning. While I'm inclined to agree that there almost certainly isn't a God, the fact that it's impossible to prove such a negative means I can't completely rule it out.
    It's such an odd definition of faith - it's so broad it could apply to dental hygene as much as atheism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Well, that depends on the interpretation of "imposition". It is only two minutes out of the whole day and it could well be argued that opposing it is supporting censorship. I used to support the removal of it from RTE on the grounds that it was implicit state support for religion and I got replies ranging from "that's a pretty petty example" to implications that I was a West Brit.
    You were right the first time. Just because something is an unpopular view, doesn't make it right. The assertion that being against such state support of religion makes one a 'west-brit' is ludicrous. Though, the kind of people who make these comments are the very ones that only describe themselves as catholic to differentiate themselves from "the tans" (i.e. ignorant twats).
    Wouldn't it be covered by anti-bullying policies?
    I'm sure it would but I see no reason for our schools to give children reasons to pick on each other. Conversely, I can see a few million things wrong with our schools being under such tight control of a religious organisation.
    It's such an odd definition of faith - it's so broad it could apply to dental hygene as much as atheism.
    Maybe it's odd to you but it's the only one faith stands up to logical questioning so I'll stick with it for now thanks.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement