When will Ireland have its freedom from the Catholic Church?

dilbert2 wrote: »

I believe that an atheist, or simply a non-religionist of any shade should not be forced to take an oath to a god they do not believe in just becuase they want to run for office. Why should they? As an atheist, I take great offence at such a concept.

Cause they want the money!! it's all about the money.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yes. Yerman, the Philosopher, of the Yerman tribe.

The very fellow...

petroltimer2 wrote: »

women mostly want to get married in a church and have babies baptised. Until they come to their senses the church will still have power.

And they are perfectly entitled to do so if the wish. Get over it.

yutta wrote: »

Taking a figurative oath to a higher power isn't the end of the world for non-believers (they are, after all, non-believers). There's both a historical precedence and constitutional continuity to be mindful of. Endless tinkering with the constitution based on the popular opinion of the day will ultimately render the broad thrust of the constitution to the grave.

Anyway, having to swear an oath before God is pretty serious business for believers and it's better to keep it in the constitution even if only 50% of the population identify with God. Public oaths before God are another layer of protection against evil acts. Should we remove these oaths, we'll be opening the flood-gates.

Snakeblood wrote: »

How do you know that it's not a big deal to nonbelievers?

Plus 1
You are advocating that the President of the country should start off his role of office with a hypocritical lie to the people of the nation? Just because we profess no religeon dosen't mean that we have no sense of integraty and as such lying under oath is a bit much to ask of anyone.

yutta wrote: »

Like I said in my post, the purpose of the public oath is to keep people in line. The public can hold the office-holder to their oath. To simply do away with oaths is to put a crack in the dam of corruption. Better to err on the side of caution.

I didn't see anyone ask to do away with the oath but I for one would be happy to see a non-secular oath in it's place.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I see your point. I'd encourage you to lobby your TD, write to newspapers, etc to have the constitution changed to better reflect your point of view. But don't blame the RCC because our constitution doesn't quickly change to reflect your particular, niche, point of view.

Or perhaps have a discussion on it in a public forum?
Niche? Really?

texidub wrote: »

Some commentators believe it will happen around tea time. I'm more inclined to think it will be after the cows have been milked in the morning. Either way Ireland will definitely be free from the yoke of oppression before lunch and --depending on which part of the country you are in-- after the postman comes.

I hope this helps.

nice effort but didn't work unfortunately (for you)

mcmoustache wrote: »

He's no Catholic.

Surf, Daz, Persil --- :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Different packs, same contents.:)

When we reform our Catholic pandering laws and then the schools and the form places for people to reflect, gather, connect, meditate, and avail of assistance without being threatened with hell.

It always struck me as strange how 100's of people could go to mass on a Sunday for years and not get to know anyone around them or not have that support outside of mass, or how many priests can act out a mass only actually talking to the people between the routine.

At least the mormon church seems to be more community orientated, but I think you have to pay a subscription to Jesus.. but I have heard they have a welfare system hmm *strokes chin*. Oh you'll have to circumcise your boy, wow harsh.