Leaving the catholic church

magicbastarder wrote: »

good question. they have to divulge any records on you to you at your request, afaik, but deleting the information is another matter. you cannot ring your phone company or gas company and tell them to delete their records on you, but that is obviously going to be complicated by regulatory matters which don't apply to tesco.

That's quite true about the phone or gas company, but at least they must furnish you with a closing statement, with confirmation that your contract with them has now ceased so long as the balances are paid by you or refunded to you, as the case may be. If you were unfairly charged or suffered loss in the course of your contract with such a body, then you might justly be entitled to fair and just compensation, but these same rules don't apply to religions and their 'services' when they fail to deliver on promised contracts. Why not? Have they set themselves above justice and right thinking?

When it comes to the RCC, they do their utmost to prevent your explicit exit from their imposed contract of servitude and ownership granted to them by your parents when you had no choice in the matter. Unless you assert your will not to be associated with them, in writing, stating clearly that you do not hold to their ownership of your being, and that you choose, as a sovereign being, to reclaim title to your mind and body, you lend your name and authority to the RCC (or any other such body or society), and you are their property by way of association.

Article 4.1 of the Irish Constitution sates that "No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law."
If you are not free to exert your liberty by wilful disassociation from any society, church or other association previously claiming to own, rule, and enforce laws or other persuasions over you, then such a body is in breach of your rights under Article 4.1.
For example, what if a membership list should come to light with your name on it, wrongfully associating you with child abuse, theft, rape, slander or any other act or persuasion that is repugnant to your good conscience and sense of morality? Would you not make all reasonable effort to ensure that your good character is not tainted by such association? Therefore, why are the provisions of Article 4.1 not enforced by the State to make sure that your wish for acknowledged disassociation is ensured and enforced?

Article 44.2.1 states that "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen."

You have the right to exert your conscience, as you see fit, so you don't need to be religious to do this. In fact, if you actually work out and consciously choose to think outside any system of blind faith, you are more likely to draw your own conclusions rather than follow the habits of rote tradition that very often contradict themselves. Remember, the Article guarantees the right to both freedom of conscience and the practice of religion, and does not identify that both are in fact mutual or synonymous.

Article 44.2.2° states that, "The State guarantees not to endow any religion." Therefore, why should it grant rights of tacit or implicit ownership over your being by a church or organisation without your written and wilful consent?

Does it not then contradict itself, when it says in Article 44. 1. "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.” ?
This deity is clearly the Christian trinitarian deity, as the Constitution was referred to the Vatican on two occasions for 'review', therefore assigning the rulership of the State into the authority of the RCC by way of entering into a contract for permission or approval.

So one might wonder how can its avowed pledge to work under the authority of such an entity not contradict the claim not to endow any religion, as Christianity is any religion? Weird, isn't it? Based on this kind of mindset, is it any wonder that we have so much mental illness in our society, where the 'citizen-flock' are led to accept such contradiction by way of social norms that are propagated through the education system, the judiciary and the religious bodies that profit from them? It appears that following blind faith doesn't stop with a sprinkle of holy water as you leave the church, but that its pervasive odour taints the very mind of the nation, which must surely and eventually fall in the course of following the rules of false and subtly achieved coercion.

Well, in case you ever wondered about this sort of thing, that's where the politicians come in, closely followed by their attendant bankers, once the people are subdued and herded into following blindly by the priests of religion.

I have heard a number of people wondering recently why it is that countries like Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain, Mexico, along with other priest ridden countries like Argentina, repeatedly end up in more or less the way, as the broken and basket-case victims of corruption and bankruptcy? Surely, if God did exist and was guiding them, then they could not fail because of his 'mighty and outstretched hand', but maybe his hand was outstretched for the cash instead of giving assistance? People might also rightly ask why religions pay no taxes, even if Jesus spoke about 'rendering unto Caesar', and even if what they mainly do is sell promises of things that would be regarded as false advertising if they were to be treated in the same way as other products and services sold in a similar manner.

The lesson is, "He who snoozes, loses", so maybe we will wake up one day to find that the 'dream' was just that - an illusion, and belief. Welcome to the rabbit hole .

Monty. wrote: »

You may have received a Catholic baptism, and that’s recorded, but it does not make you a Catholic.

To be/remain a Catholic you have to observe the five precepts of the Church.

That's not what the RCC operates under, as they use a devious argument that you can't be 'un-baptised', which is yet another canard to try and avoid reality. I have wondered if Catholics who were baptised by a paedophile priest are actually properly christened, as God would presumably not operate through and intermediary who was a pervert? Anyone?