Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

robindch · 14-01-2014 12:54AM

Piliger wrote: »

And yet no one can show us where these rules are set out. As I said earlier there is no where anyone has referenced to where the pope or the vatican has stated a set of rules where if you do not stick to these rules, you are no longer a catholic. No where.

The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (CCC) is available from the Vatican's website here. The second link on that page points to the "Apostolic Constitution", the final point of which includes the following:

John Paul II wrote:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine [...] I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. [...] This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine [...] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual [...] who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

Note the language used here and elsewhere. The language is detailed, legalistic and specific and requires you to understand the various religious states dreamed up by the church, and the rules for moving from one state to another. Unfortunately, I don't have the time now to enumerate these fully, nor to explain the nonsensical religious terminology, but here's a summary.

You start off by undergoing three religious ceremonies, each one of which "binds" the person more closely to the church. These ceremonies are:

Baptism, doctrine 1280 "Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship."
Eucharist, doctrine 1322, "The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist."
Confirmation, doctrine 1285, "Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace."

So, a fully initiated member of the catholic church has had all three ceremonies. If you haven't had all three initiation rites, then you're not a full catholic. The ceremonies cannot be undone, so once you've had all three ceremonies, that's it, you're a fully-initiated catholic until the end of time, regardless of your wishes.

The church also defines a further state of "being in communion with the church" which is referred to in the first quote above. This further state can be entered into by somebody who agrees with all the church's dogmas, rituals, beliefs etc as set out in the CCC, including the belief that the CCC defines what are the necessary beliefs for being a member of the church -- see the bold text above. This state is the one thing that is under your control, so you can declare that you agree with the CCC and be considered a "catholic in full communion with church teaching", or you can repudiate the CCC it and be considered a "catholic, not in full communion with church teaching". Repudiation of the CCC imples, as per the second quote above, that you are no longer a member in full communion and that's as close as you're going to get when it comes to "if you don't believe this, then you're not a catholic". And to reiterate one final time, what you cannot do is stop being a catholic, once you've had all three initiation rites.

These various levels of initiation and communion, and the subtle gradations from one to the other, people's general cluelessness about what they are and what they mean, not to mention their general conflation of nation, identity and religion, all indicate that it's effectively impossible to know exactly what people actually mean when they tick "catholic" in response to the question "What religion are you". The one thing that it almost certainly does not mean is that they are in full communion with the teaching of the RCC, since almost nobody is.

Piliger · 14-01-2014 01:40AM

robindch wrote: »

The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (CCC) is available from the Vatican's website here. The second link on that page points to the "Apostolic Constitution", the final point of which includes the following:Note the language used here and elsewhere. The language is detailed, legalistic and specific and requires you to understand the various religious states dreamed up by the church, and the rules for moving from one state to another. Unfortunately, I don't have the time now to enumerate these fully, nor to explain the nonsensical religious terminology, but here's a summary.

You start off by undergoing three religious ceremonies, each one of which "binds" the person more closely to the church. These ceremonies are:
Baptism, doctrine 1280 "Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship."

Eucharist, doctrine 1322, "The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist."

Confirmation, doctrine 1285, "Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace."

So, a fully initiated member of the catholic church has had all three ceremonies. If you haven't had all three initiation rites, then you're not a full catholic. The ceremonies cannot be undone, so once you've had all three ceremonies, that's it, you're a fully-initiated catholic until the end of time, regardless of your wishes.

The church also defines a further state of "being in communion with the church" which is referred to in the first quote above. This further state can be entered into by somebody who agrees with all the church's dogmas, rituals, beliefs etc as set out in the CCC, including the belief that the CCC defines what are the necessary beliefs for being a member of the church -- see the bold text above. This state is the one thing that is under your control, so you can declare that you agree with the CCC and be considered a "catholic in full communion with church teaching", or you can repudiate the CCC it and be considered a "catholic, not in full communion with church teaching". Repudiation of the CCC imples, as per the second quote above, that you are no longer a member in full communion and that's as close as you're going to get when it comes to "if you don't believe this, then you're not a catholic". And to reiterate one final time, what you cannot do is stop being a catholic, once you've had all three initiation rites.

These various levels of initiation and communion, and the subtle gradations from one to the other, people's general cluelessness about what they are and what they mean, not to mention their general conflation of nation, identity and religion, all indicate that it's effectively impossible to know exactly what people actually mean when they tick "catholic" in response to the question "What religion are you". The one thing that it almost certainly does not mean is that they are in full communion with the teaching of the RCC, since almost nobody is.

So. No such statement from the vatican or the pope is available but you spend an hour research this BS above that adds up to a load of old hot air proving nothing and doing nothing whatsoever to back up your claims.

And to remind you yet again ... quote here directly where the pope or the vatican says that if you don't follow these rules you repeatedly quote, then you are not a catholic.

NONE of your references quote either the pope or the vatican saying that you are not a catholic if you do not follow rules x,y and z.

if you have one then bring it on.

Turtwig · 14-01-2014 01:54AM

Quoting the Cathechism IS quoting the Vatican.

Piligier, at what point is a person not a Catholic? Is it possible for them to self identify as a Catholic and not actually be Catholic? Or are you literally taking the black and white stance that a person is whatever they claim to be regardless of their attitude and actions.

Brown Bomber · 14-01-2014 03:02AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you ask someone "Do you believe in god?" (not exactly what was asked, but you get my point) and they say anything but yes (or "yes, but..."), then they don't believe in god. It may be very slight, as close to pure agnostic as you can get, but given the option to describe their beliefs, these people did not describe themselves as holding a believe in any kind of god.

So now that we have that out of the way, go back to the rest of my post.

I'm afraid not. It's nothing personal but you can't honestly expect me to hold a discussion with someone who fabricates definitions out of thin air to suit their own needs.

Brown Bomber · 14-01-2014 03:20AM

Piliger wrote: »

So ... no reference again. If it is there why not cut and paste it here ? Because it doesn't exist.

I am not going to follow you down to personal abuse.

And to remind you yet again ... quote here directly where the pope or the vatican says that if you don't follow these rules you repeatedly quote, then you are not a catholic.

NONE of your references quote either the pope or the vatican saying that you are not a catholic if you do not follow rules x,y and z.

if you have one then bring it on.

Here is quotations from Pope Francis.
http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview

“The image of the church I like is that of the holy, faithful people of God...Belonging to a people has a strong theological value. In the history of salvation, God has saved a people. There is no full identity without belonging to a people."

“This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people. In turn, Mary loved Jesus with the heart of the people, as we read in the Magnificat. We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all.

The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials.

“Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads, that is able to step outside itself and go to those who do not attend Mass, to those who have quit or are indifferent

In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

The proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives

smacl · 14-01-2014 07:24AM

Jernal wrote: »

At what point is a person not a Catholic? Is it possible for them to self identify as a Catholic and not actually be Catholic? Or are you literally taking the black and white stance that a person is whatever they claim to be regardless of their attitude and actions.

I would assume up to the point at which the church tells the self identified Catholic that they are no longer a member of that church. If we take the RCC hierarchy as being cynical, this is never going to happen to lay members, as they do not want their membership numbers eroded further than has already happened. I don't think the situation in Ireland is in any way unique. If you look at Catholicism in Hong Kong for example, all the Chinese Catholics I met also held to a number of other religious traditions, but no ones going to get excommunicated for praying to the kitchen god that the cake rises properly.

I don't believe the RCC will ever tell someone who self identifies as Catholic that they are not a Catholic, just as others have pointed out that they are a 'bad Catholic'. Like the Man U supporters club, this is a relationship between the RCC and their members. The supporters club won't throw anyone out for wearing a spurs t-shirt once they keep paying their dues; the church won't tell anyone they're no longer a Catholic just as long as they keep referring to themselves as Catholic.

What will and is happening is that as individuals become ever less staunch in their Catholicism, and have less and less to do with the church, their children simply stop considering themselves Catholic.

CramCycle · 14-01-2014 09:13AM

Jernal wrote: »

Piligier, at what point is a person not a Catholic?

Screw it, I am a Catholic. I don't believe in God, I don't believe that if Mary existed she was a virgin (and by Mary I mean the one referred to as the virgin Mary, not my Mother, who is or should be), I don't go to church except for at the invitation of friends and family eg weddings and funerals and when I look back over the last 10 yers I have spent more time in the grounds of my local Mosque than on the grounds of the RCC. I do not think the pope is chosen by God or acts as his actual voice, he might "act" as a voice but in my eyes it is akin to me impersonating Doctor Who, just because I can do it, doesn't mean I am his voice and it certainly does not mean he exists in reality (although I give more credence to his existence than the God of the Catholic church). I don't believe in eternal life (although I would like the option). Jesus may have existed but if he did, he was a preacher or a charlaton and certainly not the son of a mythical being. I am of the firm belief that religion of any sort should have no influence on the decisions of the state, that all decisions should be in the interests of the people not of an organisation not affiliated with the state.

I am still Catholic though, because, you know, I said so.

smacl · 14-01-2014 10:06AM

CramCycle wrote: »

I am still Catholic though, because, you know, I said so.

If you say so... :pac:

I Heart Internet · 14-01-2014 10:19AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Which religious group (if any) best reflects your religious beliefs and opinions on issues like abortion, gay marriage, access to contraception etc."

That's based on the assumption that that is why the question is asked.

That's not why the question is asked. Why do you feel the need to shoe-horn specific social issues into a question and make it even more unlikely that you would get a sensible answer.

The census is not a series of mini-referendums on social issues.

What sex are you?
What age are you?
What type of job do you have?
What religion are you?
How do you feel about abortion?

Can you spot the odd one out?

eyescreamcone · 14-01-2014 10:41AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not why the question is asked. Why do you feel the need to shoe-horn specific social issues into a question and make it even more unlikely that you would get a sensible answer.

The census is not a series of mini-referendums on social issues.

What sex are you?
What age are you?
What type of job do you have?

What religion are you?
Do you have a religion?
If you answered yes to the above then what religion are you?
Please tick from the following list of religions (list religions in alphabetical order - instead of putting RCC on top of the list every time)

How do you feel about abortion?

Can you spot the odd one out?

Fixed your post

CramCycle · 14-01-2014 10:53AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

How do you feel about abortion?

Feel?
Surely the question should be
A)Do you have an opinion on abortion in the Republic of Ireland?
Yes - go to part B
No - go to next question

Part B. Do you think it should be legal?
Yes
No
Only in specific cases where the life of the mother is at risk
No applicable answer present

Again this question should not be related to religion, it should help influence policy.

smacl · 14-01-2014 10:54AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What religion are you?
How do you feel about abortion?

So what you're saying here is that while you identify yourself as Catholic, this does not determine whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. As such, I'd consider you nominally rather than strictly Catholic, as strictly speaking, Catholic dogma would require you to be anti-abortion. I've no problem with this whatsoever. Not being a Catholic or even a Christian myself, what people choose or not to believe, and what religious dogma they follow or not is IMHO very much their own business.

What I do have a huge problem with though, is that the census figure of 87% Catholic being used to influence that we should run our society according to the whims of the church. For example, if the 87% nominal Catholics don't follow the teachings of their church, why on earth should that church be allowed to influence the education system? Given that as with abortion, there isn't a question on the census asking if the church should be allowed to run schools on behalf of the state, and that nominal religious affiliation does not correspond with following the teachings of that religion, the census does not actually provide us with any useful information for this purpose.

smacl · 14-01-2014 10:56AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Again this question should not be related to religion, it should help influence policy.

The census is going to get awfully long if it is to address policy issues at this level. Think of your poor mammy's wrists. They'll be knackered after having to fill in a half dozen copies.

CramCycle · 14-01-2014 11:02AM

smacl wrote: »

The census is going to get awfully long if it is to address policy issues at this level. Think of your poor mammy's wrists. They'll be knackered after having to fill in a half dozen copies.

Completely agree. I only am replying to the idea of asking people how they FEEL about abortion? Rather than an actually viable question. This is why we have polls, to get a snapshot of the general publics views, these help guide policy at this level. Questions like the above are out of place as the census also serves a purpose of tracking trends over time. According to some here, polls don't seem to be a viable source of data.

On a sort of separate note, it does take time to feel out a census, I wonder if Christian was put at the top of the religious choices, and Roman Catholic at the bottom, would you see a change from RCC members to just Christian members?

smacl · 14-01-2014 11:11AM

CramCycle wrote: »

On a sort of separate note, it does take time to feel out a census, I wonder if Christian was put at the top of the religious choices, and Roman Catholic at the bottom, would you see a change from RCC members to just Christian members?

Clearly the options should be sorted alphabetically;

Agnostic
Atheist
Baha'i
Buddhist
.
.

Brown Bomber · 14-01-2014 11:11AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Completely agree. I only am replying to the idea of asking people how they FEEL about abortion? Rather than an actually viable question. This is why we have polls, to get a snapshot of the general publics views, these help guide policy at this level. Questions like the above are out of place as the census also serves a purpose of tracking trends over time. According to some here, polls don't seem to be a viable source of data.

On a sort of separate note, it does take time to feel out a census, I wonder if Christian was put at the top of the religious choices, and Roman Catholic at the bottom, would you see a change from RCC members to just Christian members?

Which part of Pope Francis' statement did you not understand?

"We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

Or should we rely on the statements of Pope Mark Hamill or Pope Nodin etc to dictate who can consider themselves Catholic?

eyescreamcone · 14-01-2014 11:13AM

smacl wrote: »

Clearly the options should be sorted alphabetically;

Agnostic
Atheist
Baha'i
Buddhist
.
.

Are atheism and agnosticism religions now?

Brown Bomber · 14-01-2014 11:15AM

smacl wrote: »

Clearly the options should be sorted alphabetically;

Agnostic
Atheist
Baha'i
Buddhist
.
.

Yeah, but what about the racist question on ethnicity? Clearly this is an attempt to keep the Chinese numbers down.

CramCycle · 14-01-2014 11:15AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which part of Pope Francis' statement did you not understand?

"We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

Or should we rely on the statements of Pope Mark Hamill or Pope Nodin etc to dictate who can consider themselves Catholic?

Are you responding to my post or did you quote it by accident?

smacl · 14-01-2014 11:18AM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Are atheism and agnosticism religions now?

Nope, nor did I refer to them as such, even indirectly. And if we're being pedantic, Cramcycle referred to religious choices, not religions.

Brown Bomber · 14-01-2014 11:21AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Are you responding to my post or did you quote it by accident?

yeah, should have been post 728, sorry

Brown Bomber · 14-01-2014 11:26AM

smacl wrote: »

I would assume up to the point at which the church tells the self identified Catholic that they are no longer a member of that church. If we take the RCC hierarchy as being cynical, this is never going to happen to lay members, as they do not want their membership numbers eroded further than has already happened. I don't think the situation in Ireland is in any way unique. If you look at Catholicism in Hong Kong for example, all the Chinese Catholics I met also held to a number of other religious traditions, but no ones going to get excommunicated for praying to the kitchen god that the cake rises properly.

I don't believe the RCC will ever tell someone who self identifies as Catholic that they are not a Catholic, just as others have pointed out that they are a 'bad Catholic'. Like the Man U supporters club, this is a relationship between the RCC and their members. The supporters club won't throw anyone out for wearing a spurs t-shirt once they keep paying their dues; the church won't tell anyone they're no longer a Catholic just as long as they keep referring to themselves as Catholic.

What will and is happening is that as individuals become ever less staunch in their Catholicism, and have less and less to do with the church, their children simply stop considering themselves Catholic.

I agree with you, but surely it would be better to have sub-categories then?

To separate the fundamentalists from the regular Catholics, in a similar way that an Orthodox Jew is distinct from a more secular Jew? You need to have sub-categories for everything then though, including atheism. As far as I can tell most Catholics are indifferent towards religion, as are most atheists. You need to have a sub-category of militant atheists as in those who are vehemently opposed to religion.

CramCycle · 14-01-2014 11:31AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which part of Pope Francis' statement did you not understand?

"We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

Or should we rely on the statements of Pope Mark Hamill or Pope Nodin etc to dictate who can consider themselves Catholic?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

yeah, should have been post 728, sorry

In that case, I have no idea what statement you are on about, you have given me a one line quote with no context. Why would I care what Pope Francis says, the Pope has nothing to do with me and has no influences over what it is to be a Catholic. So long as I say I am a catholic that is all that matters. If the Pope does come out and say to be a Roman Catholic you must do a, b and c. I will call Shenanigans, being a Catholic is a matter of opinion. My son is a Catholic as well while we are at it, never baptised, christened, or any other ceremony involving the RCC but I will put him down on the census as one because, that's my right as the guy with the census and pen, my sons opinions on such things are pointless although he does like getting splashed with water so he probably has leanings. He might step into church in a few years for a day out and to make sure he gets into our local national school, it is the done thing but I can assure you, he will believe Santa is real for the next few years, he will never believe in God while I fill in the Census for him and he will be a Catholic because he can and because I said so.

smacl · 14-01-2014 11:34AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree with you, but surely it would be better to have sub-categories then?

To separate the fundamentalists from the regular Catholics, in a similar way that an Orthodox Jew is distinct from a more secular Jew? You need to have sub-categories for everything then though, including atheism. As far as I can tell most Catholics are indifferent towards religion, as are most atheists. You need to have a sub-category of militant atheists as in those who are vehemently opposed to religion.

Too confusing perhaps (spare a thought for all those poor mammys filling out the household census form). I tend to agree that most people are largely indifferent to religion, and as such the percentage of self-identifying Catholics on the census is not a pertinent figure for policy making at any level. It would be more useful to know what percentage of the population would prefer that the country was entirely secular.

shruikan2553 · 14-01-2014 11:41AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Screw it, I am a Catholic. I don't believe in God, I don't believe that if Mary existed she was a virgin (and by Mary I mean the one referred to as the virgin Mary, not my Mother, who is or should be), I don't go to church except for at the invitation of friends and family eg weddings and funerals and when I look back over the last 10 yers I have spent more time in the grounds of my local Mosque than on the grounds of the RCC. I do not think the pope is chosen by God or acts as his actual voice, he might "act" as a voice but in my eyes it is akin to me impersonating Doctor Who, just because I can do it, doesn't mean I am his voice and it certainly does not mean he exists in reality (although I give more credence to his existence than the God of the Catholic church). I don't believe in eternal life (although I would like the option). Jesus may have existed but if he did, he was a preacher or a charlaton and certainly not the son of a mythical being. I am of the firm belief that religion of any sort should have no influence on the decisions of the state, that all decisions should be in the interests of the people not of an organisation not affiliated with the state.

I am still Catholic though, because, you know, I said so.

But because you say you are catholic we will assume that you want your children in a catholic school and youre against abortion etc. You dont need to believe these things to be a catholic supposedly but we will just assume you do as we claim its a catholic country so we should get rid of all these uncatholic things. I feel like a missing a step of logic but hey, religion.

CramCycle · 14-01-2014 11:59AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

But because you say you are catholic we will assume that you want your children in a catholic school and youre against abortion etc. You dont need to believe these things to be a catholic supposedly but we will just assume you do as we claim its a catholic country so we should get rid of all these uncatholic things. I feel like a missing a step of logic but hey, religion.

But, but, I only said I was a Catholic, I wouldn't want my child in a Catholic school if there was a choice, and well I'm not even going down the abortion conversation, that's another thread entirely.

Let me get this straight though, what your saying, is that despite converting to Catholicism yesterday by calling myself a Catholic, even though I have nothing in common with the accepted viewpoints of that religion, you can make assumptions about me. Its almost as if, and correct me if I am wrong, you are implying that if I don't follow the teachings of the RCC, or there instructions/directions. I should not put myself down as a Catholic as if alot of people do it, it could skew the census results.

Well, as other posters have pointed out, who cares,... :pac:

shruikan2553 · 14-01-2014 12:34PM

CramCycle wrote: »

But, but, I only said I was a Catholic, I wouldn't want my child in a Catholic school if there was a choice, and well I'm not even going down the abortion conversation, that's another thread entirely.

Let me get this straight though, what your saying, is that despite converting to Catholicism yesterday by calling myself a Catholic, even though I have nothing in common with the accepted viewpoints of that religion, you can make assumptions about me. Its almost as if, and correct me if I am wrong, you are implying that if I don't follow the teachings of the RCC, or there instructions/directions. I should not put myself down as a Catholic as if alot of people do it, it could skew the census results.

Well, as other posters have pointed out, who cares,... :pac:

Its as if not all catholics agree on everything so the numbers from the census should be ignored as if it was the number of people with an AMD processor in their computer as we cant claim 90% of the population wants something because they are Christian. Mystery solved gang!

I Heart Internet · 14-01-2014 12:42PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Feel?
Surely the question should be
A)Do you have an opinion on abortion in the Republic of Ireland?
Yes - go to part B
No - go to next question

Part B. Do you think it should be legal?
Yes
No
Only in specific cases where the life of the mother is at risk
No applicable answer present

Again this question should not be related to religion, it should help influence policy.

The census shouldn't be a referendum or opinion poll. It really shouldn't. Where would one end with that approach?

Brian Shanahan · 14-01-2014 12:52PM

CramCycle wrote: »

me impersonating Doctor Who, just because I can do it,

Which incarnation?

smacl · 14-01-2014 12:54PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Its as if not all catholics agree on everything so the numbers from the census should be ignored as if it was the number of people with an AMD processor in their computer as we cant claim 90% of the population wants something because they are Christian. Mystery solved gang!

You casting asparagus on my beautiful shiny new AMD 8350-fx 8 core 4.5ghz CPU complete with 64gb of RAM and all the trimmings? Sheesh. There truly is no goddamn respect in this forum. :rolleyes:

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments