Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

1…2425272930…70

Comments

  • #782
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Could you please explain the difference between illustrative and comprehensive?
    Go Google.
    Could you also please share this top-secret evidence you have that lets you know how individuals have responded in two separate confidential surveys.

    I'm pretty sure we covered this already. Everyone is included in the census, including those participating in the survey for the BC. Only the BC survey covers questions as to actual belief. The only possible discrepancy is if someone told the census they were Catholic, and the BC survey that they were not, or vice versa. As you're so fond of asking when playing burden-of-proof-shifting games with others, please explain your basis for assuming such disparities, and provide numeric analyses as to their respective rates of occurrence.

    No? Thought not.

    The evidence is that 84% of people have declared themselves (or at least, been declared to be) Catholic, and that 10.1% of people declaring themselves Catholic have expressed non-belief in god. That evidence stands uncontroverted. (I'm almost a little disappointed you've not trotted out the anticipated "some of our finest Catholics are atheist!" line of "defence" yet.)


  • #783
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    catallus wrote: »
    No, it's not helping at all I'm afraid. It really is a one string bow around here, sadly.

    You probably don't want to try to combine the roles of participant in a discussion, and reviewer/critic of its quality. Or at least, not without doing a considerably better job of each.


  • #784
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    You can't even read your own propaganda properly! Why should I get involved in this charade? It is bizarre that this know-nothingness keeps going.


  • #785
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    IRLConor wrote: »
    In general when people say "Ireland is a Christian/Catholic country" the subtext is usually "... and hence Ireland opposes abortion/equal marriage rights/etc.". This is clearly nonsense, if as the survey results above suggest that 10% of the self-reported Catholics are actually apostates (and hence excommunicated latae sententiae) then we can't really expect them to obey the letter of the church law and hence we can't make assumptions about what they want.
    Well, it implies that 10% are atheists. That and other data would imply that rates of apostasy are much higher overall. You have to believe in right god, in the right context of other belief. If you add in other causes of "have excommunicated yourself, but no-one's quite noticed yet" (including heresy, which pretty much includes anyone sounding too much like a CoIer, much less any of the reincarnation stuff, and so on), that category is probably more like (and yes, this is a very rough estimate, before anyone complains about the roughness of this estimate) 50%.
    So how about we all stop making sweeping generalisations about what Ireland wants based on what people say they are? In other words, could those justifying arguments on the strength of "X% of the population are Catholic" please stop? It doesn't actually mean anything unless you strengthen it to a statement of the form of "Y% of people follow the Catholic Church's teaching with respect to Z". If you make statements like that, then perhaps we can have a meaningful debate.

    In general, a very good plan. I nominate the Iona Institute to kick off the ball rolling! In the context of this thread, where arguing the toss about that percentage is the starting point... I fear it's a lost cause.


  • #786
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    The fact is that you make broad sweeping statements about what people believe and criticise them because it doesn't chime with what you would like them to believe and then to bolster your own position you accuse them of being deluded hypocrites ("catholics").

    Your inability or unwillingness to accept that people can believe in a set of moral and intellectual rules is indicative of shallow thinking.

    .....'with what the church demands that they believe'.

    My statements are based on fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Nodin, you are so hard-line and fundamentalist in your definition of what is and what is not a catholic!

    You'd get on very, very well amongst the most fundamentalist, "not-an-inch", wing of the catholic church...probably in the US, where other hardline Christians would like you too for your no-surrender attitude.

    The RCC is a huge tree, with many, many branches stretching in all directions. Some fall off the tree, some are hanging on by their fingernails, some sit at the top of the tree shouting, some are barely off the ground, yet more are on neighboring trees but within touching distance and think they're on the original tree.

    They all, for better or worse, whether you or I like it or not, can call themselves catholic (universal) if they like. I think that's, broadly, a good thing.


  • #788
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Nodin, you are so hard-line and fundamentalist in your definition of what is and what is not a catholic!

    You'd get on very, very well amongst the most fundamentalist, "not-an-inch", wing of the catholic church...probably in the US, where other hardline Christians would like you too for your no-surrender attitude.

    The RCC is a huge tree, with many, many branches stretching in all directions. Some fall off the tree, some are hanging on by their fingernails, some sit at the top of the tree shouting, some are barely off the ground, yet more are on neighboring trees but within touching distance and think they're on the original tree.

    They all, for better or worse, whether you or I like it or not, can call themselves catholic (universal) if they like. I think that's, broadly, a good thing.

    people may call themselves Catholics, but that doesn't mean the catholic church see's them as such and will deal with the as equal to a person that goes to mass every week.

    Taken from prime time in December 2013.
    Miriam O’Callaghan: “Let me ask you about “Cultural Catholics” so because it’s interesting, are they Catholics within your meaning of the word – the fact that if they only go to mass at Christmas, or if you know they use contraception, as many people do in Ireland, if they live in sin, they say they have partners – are they…..?”

    Bishop Denis Nulty: “Of course they are Catholic – there’s no doubt about it, they may not be as committed as I myself may like them to be, but they are Catholics.”

    MO’C: “Are they welcome to have sacraments within the Church?”

    Bishop Nulty: “They are welcome to… the Church is an open door, and welcomes all people – sacraments are a slightly different area….because of issues… some people may not be (able) to go to sacraments – but that teaching is clear enough. The Church welcomes everyone with an open door.”

    MO’C: “Are they welcome to have sacraments within the Church?”

    Bishop Nulty: “They are welcome to… the Church is an open door, and welcomes all people – sacraments are a slightly different area….because of issues… some people may not be (able) to go to sacraments – but that teaching is clear enough. The Church welcomes everyone with an open door.”

    MO’C: “Simple question, I suppose Fintan O’Toole addressed it there as well – if you had a gay couple living in your area, and you knew that they were living together – would they be allowed to take the sacraments in your church?”

    Bishop Nulty: “A gay couple, and I knew they were living together? I woud be encouraging them not to – I would be saying it’s the same way that a couple who are remarried outside of the church, outside of the sacrament, I’d be encouraging them not to, but to still to come to church.”

    MO’C: “But would you give a gay couple Communion – I suppose a simple question?”

    Bishop Nulty: “…I wouldn’t, but I think you’re {interrupted}…narrowing something.. …which Pope Francis says…you shouldn’t”

    Diarmaid Ferriter: That doesn’t sound like an open door, does it?


    ...later in the show....

    Ciaran Ó Mathúna: “I represent a group called Gay Catholic Voice Ireland and we set ourselves up to represent gay and lesbian people who have felt not welcomed and who have felt excluded and we want to be a positive voice because there are lots of gay people in parishes participating and want to participate in their faith and want to give expression to their faith something that is very important – but yet again tonight we’ve heard we’re not really welcome. And all these nice words – like I mean, we welcomed Pope Francis’ interview that he gave from Brazil when he used the word ‘gay’, instead of ‘homosexual’, and he was the first Pope to do that – and we welcomed this tone and this openess and you know, it’s a nice challenge to other church leaders and organisations to be more inclusive – and yet you know we are told that, yes you are loved and you’re made in the image and likeness of God and you’re welcome and you’re part of our church and you’re welcome with open doors with equality – but we don’t experience equality, we don’t experience those open doors – and yet, week after week, we want to be part of our parish, and yet members have been told they can no longer read at mass, they can no longer be in the choir, they can no longer be a minister for the Eucharist – because they are gay.”

    So they are catholic, but they can't take part in the sacraments which are seriously important to Catholics. They can't do readings, they can't be a minister for the Eucharist.

    I'd take your example that the catholic church is a huge tree. But in this case the tree is alive and for some weird reason the tree has a chainsaw and its cutting off some of its own branches...because thats what the RCC is doing to its followers, its forcing them away.

    With situations like how it handles child sex abuse, its disconnect with the majority of people who don't see divorce as wrong, don't see being gay as a sin and don't see abortion in rape or incest cases as wrong.

    In my personally view each day that the RCC remains backwards in its thinkings is a very good thing because it allows more and more people from the ages of 5 to 95 to realise that the catholic church is incompatiable with their morals and lifes.

    I know many people in their 60's and 80's who no longer see the church as representing them from a moral and spiritual standpoint, when the church can't connect with people in their 60's and 80's how the heck can it hope to get the support of 30 year old's?


  • #789
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    The RCC is a huge tree, with many, many branches stretching in all directions. [...] They all, for better or worse, whether you or I like it or not, can call themselves catholic (universal) if they like. I think that's, broadly, a good thing.
    So, you're saying that people can believe what they like regardless of the Catechism of the RCC and still call themselves "catholic", and the RCC not only can't do a blessed thing about it, but actually shouldn't do a blessed thing about it?


  • #790
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    Is 100% of you self-identifying, or just 90%?

    I'm thinking tip-of-Egyptian-nose south, though I'll concede on delicious-ankle-north too.








    (*) Hey, us mods can post - nyah, nyah, nyah!

    The percentage of Spartacusness is not relevant nor is the fact that I am á la carte in my observation of the rules associated with being a Roman slave. I Self-Identified.


  • #791
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I'd take your example that the catholic church is a huge tree. But in this case the tree is alive and for some weird reason the tree has a chainsaw and its cutting off some of its own branches...because thats what the RCC is doing to its followers, its forcing them away.

    If it is "cutting off it's own branches" (which I don't accept it is) then that is a matter for the church and does not affect the "exact population of the population that is "christian"" - In fact, by your logic, the RCC is actively trying to alienate and reduce it's numbers.
    robindch wrote: »
    So, you're saying that people can believe what they like regardless of the Catechism of the RCC and still call themselves "catholic", and the RCC not only can't do a blessed thing about it, but actually shouldn't do a blessed thing about it?

    The RCC is a teaching church. So yes, it CAN do something about it. It can teach better. The RCC should, of course (and does) worry about every soul that strays.

    But teaching and persuading is better than kicking people out or "cutting off branches".

    Pope Benedict (the last guy), who many regard as "hardline", etc has spoken of how priests should be "generous with the sacraments" - specifically giving communion, baptism, etc, etc to children of people who never darken the door of a church. It all boils down to hope. The hope that people who have strayed will return as a result of a good experience.

    I should point out that while Cabaal is bemoaning the cutting loose of shoddy catholics, robindch is wondering why the RCC isn't doing more to crack down on them to mend their ways! Seems they can't win.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,375 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    If it is "cutting off it's own branches" (which I don't accept it is) then that is a matter for the church and does not affect the "exact population of the population that is "christian"" - In fact, by your logic, the RCC is actively trying to alienate and reduce it's numbers.
    I don't think anyone was talking about no of Christians being wrong in regards to the RCC, the RCC decide the parameters for Catholics. All Catholics are Christian (except for the self identified bunch like myself who are there in name only) but not all Christians are Catholics. Excluding those who are not even Christian by definition, a number of those calling themselves Catholic are clearly Christian and not Catholic when you ask any sort of a probing question.


  • #793
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The percentage of Spartacusness is not relevant nor is the fact that I am á la carte in my observation of the rules associated with being a Roman slave. I Self-Identified.
    Actually you didn't. Not in the census at least. You are just being facetious. You don't respect the right of the individual to self-identify as they see fit themselves. Though it doesn't matter if you respect this personal freedom or not, your opinion changes nothing.


  • #794
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    So, you're saying that people can believe what they like regardless of the Catechism of the RCC and still call themselves "catholic", and the RCC not only can't do a blessed thing about it, but actually shouldn't do a blessed thing about it?

    Yep. The RCC has absolutely no jurisdiction over what people choose to call themselves. If people choose to call themselves Catholic, they help prop up the RCC, which seems to suit the RCC just fine. I wouldn't expect an inquisition any time soon ;)

    Whether the people that call themselves Catholic should question their own judgement in this decision is a different matter. As a moniker it carries rather a lot of unpleasant baggage.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #795
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Go Google.
    Actually I was hoping you would and then the penny would drop for you. I'll rephrase. Do you know the difference between illustrative (Bishop's survey) and comprehensive (census)?

    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure we covered this already. Everyone is included in the census, including those participating in the survey for the BC. Only the BC survey covers questions as to actual belief. The only possible discrepancy is if someone told the census they were Catholic, and the BC survey that they were not, or vice versa. As you're so fond of asking when playing burden-of-proof-shifting games with others, please explain your basis for assuming such disparities, and provide numeric analyses as to their respective rates of occurrence.
    If this is your so-called "direct evidence" then you don't have direct evidence I am afraid. You have speculation.


  • #796
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,179 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @Brown Bomber: are there any instances where you would say a person is wrong to self-identify as Roman Catholic?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #797
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Fascinating. So, not only do you fancy that you know better than a couple of rugby teams' worth of bishops how to interpret answers to the question "do you believe in God?", you're now telling us that "don't know what to think" may well actually mean that they have a completely orthodox belief in the personal god of Catholicism, they just didn't realize they believed it?

    And to a different question, in a different survey -- who was it that was cherry-picking, remind me?

    It's strawman after strawman with you.


    "Don't know" means unsure or undecided. Not "yes" or "no". This is getting ****ing ridiculous now.


  • #798
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    If it is "cutting off it's own branches" (which I don't accept it is) then that is a matter for the church and does not affect the "exact population of the population that is "christian"" - In fact, by your logic, the RCC is actively trying to alienate and reduce it's numbers.
    No, I'm trying to see if the RCC has any interest in being what it claims to be, namely, a church with a single catechism believed by all its members. Or the flip side: whether the self-identifying members have any interest in being what the RCC tells them to be.

    I'd have thought that this was a simple question -- what else does moral and dogmatic absolutism mean in practice? -- but I'm completely fascinated to see that religiously-inclined posters simply don't care what people believe, so long as people say they're catholic.

    I'm used to religious foolishness on a grand scale, but this brings it to a whole new level of silliness.


  • #799
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Drop the sanctimony, you aren't fooling anyone. The people surveyed were given a number of different positions re:god and asked which best described their beliefs. They had the choice of either an interventionist god or a general life force/spirit. Therefore choosing "I don't know" is a damn sight closer to not believing in god than it is to believing god. And that's besides the point I made about how the people who chose life spirit are also not catholics, given how the god of the catholic bible is so specifically interventionist.

    Want to drop the childishness and engage with the debate? I'd point out that your posts are haemorrhaging credibility at this stage, but given your history in this forum it's not like you started with much.

    Ah I see you are resorting to personal attacks now too. Desperate stuff.


    "I don't know" means" I "don't know". How you've dreamed up that it somehow means "No" is your own business.


  • #800
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    robindch wrote: »
    No, I'm trying to see if the RCC has any interest in being what it claims to be, namely, a church with a single catechism believed by all its members. Or the flip side: whether the self-identifying members have any interest in being what the RCC tells them to be.

    I'd have thought that this was a simple question -- what else does moral and dogmatic absolutism mean in practice? -- but I'm completely fascinated to see that religiously-inclined posters simply don't care what people believe, so long as people say they're catholic.

    I'm used to religious foolishness on a grand scale, but this brings it to a whole new level of silliness.

    Do you think it's a trivial matter to get 1,200,000,000 or so people to believe exactly the same thing on every question of faith and morals. It's impossible, that's what it is.

    Catholic means (something like) "universal". The name reflects the history and current state of the RCC - a myriad of local churches (dioceses) all over the world.

    I'm not interested in what people say they are any more than you are. I take people as I find them.

    But I respect people's right to say they are pretty much whatever they like, just becasue they can. Live and let live. Yeah, sure, some people will be fooling themselves, but so what. If all that does is anger pedantic people with a chip on their shoulders about the RCC, that's no biggie.


  • #801
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Actually you didn't. Not in the census at least. You are just being facetious. You don't respect the right of the individual to self-identify as they see fit themselves. Though it doesn't matter if you respect this personal freedom or not, your opinion changes nothing.

    How do you know I am being facetious? So what if I am?
    Someone who self-identifies as a Roman Catholic but doesn't actually believe in the existence of God is ok with you but I am being 'disrespectful'. Hmmmmmm - double standards m'thinks.

    I absolutely do respect the rights of others to self-identify as what ever they want however I do not respect the right of any one to use these self-identifications as justification for State funding of indoctrination or for the purposes of lobbying government to legislate according to this self-identification.

    Have you forgotten how a midwife tried to explain to the Halappanavars why Savita could not have a termination 'because this is a Catholic Country' ?

    It is not .

    It is a country with a lot of Catholic. So are Spain, France and Italy yet none of them feel the need to have the RCC strut on their national stage or influence their laws.

    If you do not understand the difference between 'this is a Catholic country' and 'this is a country with a lot of Catholics' then, again, some one with more patience then I might be willing to explain it to you.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,375 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Actually you didn't. Not in the census at least. You are just being facetious. You don't respect the right of the individual to self-identify as they see fit themselves. Though it doesn't matter if you respect this personal freedom or not, your opinion changes nothing.
    I think your missing the point, no one cares about the self identification, even if it is way off the mark. The concern is that this self identification may skew policy and direction. That is my concern anyway.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If this is your so-called "direct evidence" then you don't have direct evidence I am afraid. You have speculation.
    Speculation? alas no, it is indicative if the group is large enough, statistically speaking. It is speculation if it is just your opinion, or the group from which the opinion is formed is not large enough to be statistically viable.


  • #803
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    .......because this is a Catholic Country' ?

    It is not .

    Most people know that.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It is a country with a lot of Catholic. So are Spain, France and Italy yet none of them feel the need to have the RCC strut on their national stage or influence their laws.

    Eeemmmm, I think you'll find that the RCC and it's members are pretty active in the society and politics of all three of those countries. As is their right. Have you ever been to these places?


  • #804
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Most people know that.



    Eeemmmm, I think you'll find that the RCC and it's members are pretty active in the society and politics of all three of those countries. As is their right. Have you ever been to these places?

    Do they?

    Missed every single debate on abortion, same-sex marriage, adoption by gay couples and removal of religious patronage in schools have you?


    Separation of Church and State is official policy in those countries and they adhere to it. It lovely to see - you should go and have a look yourself.


  • #805
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Do they?

    Missed every single debate on abortion, same-sex marriage, adoption by gay couples and removal of religious patronage in schools have you?

    Separation of Church and State is official policy in those countries and they adhere to it. It lovely to see - you should go and have a look yourself.

    This is madness!

    Only the most simple of Joe Duffy listeners don't realise that this is a country with no established/state religion.

    In NONE of the debates that you mentioned did ANYONE (that I recall hearing) say that "we should outlaw X because Ireland is a catholic country." The arguments from catholics and the RCC in these debates were based on their beliefs but DID NOT assume that the RCC had any special place to argue their point of view. Next you'll be telling me that this is a socialist state because unions are on telly all the time and there are lots of union members in businesses and that loads of civil servants are in unions. Damn them Reds!! damn them all to hell!!

    You are labouring under a tragic misconception, one that makes me immediately distrust anyone who used the phrase, "seperation of church and state."

    Seperation of church and state /= no churches in the state, no interaction between church and state, no members of churches in the public sector, no lobbying of the state by churches, no right for churches and members to debate issues in society, no involvement of churches in schools/hospitals/charities, etc, etc.

    I suspect that what you want when you say "seperation of church and state" is for churches to have no visibility in any public discourse, to have no right to private property, no right to put their point of view into public debate, no right to function as genuine civil society organisations.

    Basically: "It's a message I don't like. Shut it down."


  • #806
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robindch wrote: »
    I'd have thought that this was a simple question -- what else does moral and dogmatic absolutism mean in practice? -- but I'm completely fascinated to see that religiously-inclined posters simply don't care what people believe, so long as people say they're catholic.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Do you think it's a trivial matter to get 1,200,000,000 or so people to believe exactly the same thing on every question of faith and morals. It's impossible, that's what it is.
    We're speaking entirely at cross-purposes here.

    The RCC claims to have a set of indisputable truth-claims -- can we agree on even that very simple thing? They're listed in the catechism. And people are supposed to believe them.

    Far as I can see, it turns out that lots of people don't believe them. Now, that's obviously fine with me as I think they're rubbish anyway. But -- as above -- what I find fascinating is not only that religiously-inclined posters like yourself don't believe what the RCC tells them to believe, but that you don't actually care that you don't believe. And that you don't care what others don't believe either. And that the RCC doesn't seem to care what people believe either. And you don't care that the RCC doesn't care. And so on. The only thing that people do seem to care about is that people call themselves catholic, regardless of whether they meet any of the RCC's criteria for the term.

    It reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of schoolkids who've just set up some playground ingroup and whose only worry is that they're a member.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    If all that does is anger pedantic people with a chip on their shoulders about the RCC, that's no biggie.
    When looked at from the RCC's perspective and the perspective of the believers who are all grandly fooling themselves, the RCC and each other, and knowingly so, it's sad and dishonest - why not put all this time and effort to something worthwhile they actually believe in?

    But as above, I find it fascinating. And while it certainly is sad and dishonest, it's very funny too.


  • #807
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    This is madness!

    Only the most simple of Joe Duffy listeners don't realise that this is a country with no established/state religion.

    In NONE of the debates that you mentioned did ANYONE (that I recall hearing) say that "we should outlaw X because Ireland is a catholic country." The arguments from catholics and the RCC in these debates were based on their beliefs but DID NOT assume that the RCC had any special place to argue their point of view. Next you'll be telling me that this is a socialist state because unions are on telly all the time and there are lots of union members in businesses and that loads of civil servants are in unions. Damn them Reds!! damn them all to hell!!

    You are labouring under a tragic misconception, one that makes me immediately distrust anyone who used the phrase, "seperation of church and state."

    Seperation of church and state /= no churches in the state, no interaction between church and state, no members of churches in the public sector, no lobbying of the state by churches, no right for churches and members to debate issues in society, no involvement of churches in schools/hospitals/charities, etc, etc.

    I suspect that what you want when you say "seperation of church and state" is for churches to have no visibility in any public discourse, to have no right to private property, no right to put their point of view into public debate, no right to function as genuine civil society organisations.

    Basically: "It's a message I don't like. Shut it down."

    I take it you have never listened to either the Iona Institute or Youth Defence then - the former, in particular, seems to have free access to our airwaves - if you had it may have tempered your faux-outrage.

    As for your polemic on the 'meaning' of Separation of Church and State - care to provide evidence of where I said any of that? Or indeed, anyone in this thread?

    Socialism is a religion now? Oh - no it isn't. So your 'comparison' is utterly meaningless.


  • #808
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Ah I see you are resorting to personal attacks now too. Desperate stuff.


    "I don't know" means" I "don't know". How you've dreamed up that it somehow means "No" is your own business.

    No, desperate is ignoring all of the post that already debunks your point, as if I'm going to forget that I posted it or something. So, again:
    "The people surveyed were given a number of different positions re:god and asked which best described their beliefs. They had the choice of either an interventionist god or a general life force/spirit. Therefore choosing "I don't know" is a damn sight closer to not believing in god than it is to believing god. And that's besides the point I made about how the people who chose life spirit are also not catholics, given how the god of the catholic bible is so specifically interventionist."


  • #809
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I take it you have never listened to either the Iona Institute or Youth Defence then - the former, in particular, seems to have free access to our airwaves - if you had it may have tempered your faux-outrage.

    I have never ever heard the Iona Institute say that we should listen to them because Ireland is a catholic country. I've rarely heard Youth Defence speak but again, their message doesn't seem to be - you must believe we are right because this is Ireland and Ireland is a catholic country.

    Sorry I was outraged. I don't bite, honest.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As for your polemic on the 'meaning' of Separation of Church and State - care to provide evidence of where I said any of that? Or indeed, anyone in this thread?

    I was generalising (for dramatic effect). It is not unknown for people to decry bishops appearing on tv or quoted in newspaper reports, the catch-cry of "the church should have all their schools taken off them" is another (in some circles) populist mantra.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Socialism is a religion now? Oh - no it isn't. So your 'comparison' is utterly meaningless.
    It's a philosophical and political position. One that formalises itself into organisations with members, meetings, etc. In that sense it is no different to most religions.


  • #810
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    hmmm...

    288900.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I have never ever heard the Iona Institute say that we should listen to them because Ireland is a catholic country. I've rarely heard Youth Defence speak but again, their message doesn't seem to be - you must believe we are right because this is Ireland and Ireland is a catholic country.

    And why exactly do you think they think people should listen to them? Why are they making submissions to the UN and ICHR to maintain the status quo in Ireland under the guise of 'freedom of religion' .
    Sorry I was outraged. I don't bite, honest.

    I do.


    I was generalising (for dramatic effect). It is not unknown for people to decry bishops appearing on tv or quoted in newspaper reports, the catch-cry of "the church should have all their schools taken off them" is another (in some circles) populist mantra.

    'Generalising'? No. That was pure hyperbole.

    It's a philosophical and political position. One that formalises itself into organisations with members, meetings, etc. In that sense it is no different to most religions.

    So are all political parties but I have yet to hear of any political party in Ireland claim that failure to be a member will result in eternal damnation...not even Fianna Fáil have gone that far.


Advertisement