Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:17AM

SW wrote: »

How would the christened child be punished? If the parents register the child after the non-religious child was registered, why should it get to skip the queue for being the right religion?

It's not the "right" religion. It's simply the same religion as the community who operate the school for their community.

Whether you like it or not, schools are established under a patronage model to allow religious communities to educate their children. Schools are/can also be established under other - non-religious patrons. But haven't been, in any great numbers, for some reason.

Delirium · 16-01-2014 11:20AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's not the "right" religion. It's simply the same religion as the community who operate the school for their community.

Semantics. The point stands.

Whether you like it or not, schools are established under a patronage model to allow religious communities to educate their children. Schools are/can also be established under other - non-religious patrons. But haven't been, in any great numbers, for some reason.

Why should a tax-payer who funds the building and staffing of the school be denied access for their child to a public school based on religion?

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2014 11:21AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They would both have to tick the agnostic box on the census Brown Bomber, I suppose. Those agnostic terrorists are a curse alright.

It'll get sorted in the future though. Seems the only solution is for any religious person to justify their own self-identification in the census is to hand in their mass-attendance logto the CSO , give a public loyalty oath and answer a series of questions on their religion written by hardliners - either religious fundamentalists or atheists. Seems be no distance between them on this at all.

Probably should have DNA tests as well to make sure people aren't answering the ethnicity question "wrong" as well.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:23AM

robindch wrote: »

Which people on here?

If you're going to make an snide accusation about people you're discussing an issue with, then you should either be brave enough to name names, or withdraw it if you're not brave enough.

Anyone who feels the need to correct people when they describe what religion they are on a census. That's who I'm refering to. I'm not going to trawl the last 900 posts to pick them out - it seems to be a overarching themes of this thread.

In real-life it would go:

"So what religion are you."
"Ah, I'm Roman Catholic, for better or for worse, like."
"Ah c'mere, you're not one of those. I saw you playing golf Sunday morning while your wife was at Mass."
"Heh!! It was a charity, event. I'm at Mass most weekends, I even help out with the newsletter."
"NO! You're not a Catholic!! Why are you kidding yourself? You've failed. You're not a catholic!!!"

smacl · 16-01-2014 11:24AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, schools are established under a patronage model to allow religious communities to educate their children. Schools are/can also be established under other - non-religious patrons. But haven't been, in any great numbers, for some reason.

A patron would normally be considered a person or organisation that supports another. The patron of any state funded religious schools is actually the state. The church have been allowed a say in the running of many schools for largely historical reasons. They no longer contribute much in any meaningful way, other than to discriminate against those that disagree with their dogma. If the church want to run schools where they discriminate against those that are not members of their church, they should do so privately and foot all the bills.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:26AM

SW wrote: »

Why should a tax-payer who funds the building and staffing of the school be denied access for their child to a public school based on religion?

We're all tax payers. That doesn't mean that we are all entitled to every service at every location and at every time throughout the country.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:29AM

smacl wrote: »

The patron of any state funded religious schools is actually the state.

However much you would like that to be the case, it is not. It just isn't.

smacl wrote: »

If the church want to run schools where they discriminate against those that are not members of their church, they should do so privately and foot all the bills.

When the people, government and constitution of our state agrees with you, this may become a reality for you. But it's not the reality at the moment.

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 11:29AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As opposed to punishing children who have been christened, which is what the writer would seem to prefer. Bottom line - build more schools where more schools are needed.

How is it punishing children who have been christened?

If a non-christened gets top of the list ahead of all other children for a tax payer funded school then they should be enrolled regardless of how many christened children are behind them.

Instead we have a situation where a non-christened kid can be top of the list (first) and all christened kids will first be enrolled before allowing any non-christened.

This is discrimination,

If it was non-tax payer funded school I'd agree with you that the school could do what it wants with its enrollment policy, but while it receives tax payer money it should not be discriminating against any child.

These are state funded schools, it makes far more sense to make them non-catholic ethos and allow all faiths the same priority then for the tax payer to shell out to build more schools, this would be a utter waste of tax payer money.

Delirium · 16-01-2014 11:29AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

We're all tax payers. That doesn't mean that we are all entitled to every service at every location and at every time throughout the country.

Condoning religious discrimination with regards to public schools is something that we definitely do without though.

16-01-2014 11:33AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's not the "right" religion. It's simply the same religion as the community who operate the school for their community.

But these religious communities evidently do not share much of anything. Polls show that they have a wide range of opinions on all topics including on whether or not they should actually adhere to any of the defining characteristics of their community.
If we are to go by what you are saying, the only thing that they do share is the name they call themselves. Nothing else.

Yet you say that some one who identifys themselves (or more accurately, whose parents do so) as part of this group should have preferential treatment even if they don't adhere to the tenets of that group anymore than an outsider of that group.

Whould you have any issue with atheist parents baptising their kid to get into one of these schools?

Whether you like it or not, schools are established under a patronage model to allow religious communities to educate their children. Schools are/can also be established under other - non-religious patrons. But haven't been, in any great numbers, for some reason.

What makes you say that? The idea that 90% of people are Catholic?

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 11:37AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

When the people, government and constitution of our state agrees with you, this may become a reality for you. But it's not the reality at the moment.

You must have missed this in the constitution i guess,

2.2°: The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2.4°: Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Giving priority to a catholic over a non-catholic for enrollment for a tax payer funded catholic ethos school affects the right of a child to attend a school,

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:38AM

King Mob wrote: »

Whould you have any issue with atheist parents baptising their kid to get into one of these schools?

If that was the sole reason, I'd think it was not a great idea. But the sacrament of baptism brings grace, even if it is done for less than ideal reasons, so that would be a plus (for the child). It really wouldn't be my place to tell parents what to do though.

King Mob wrote: »

What makes you say that? The idea that 90% of people are Catholic?

No. The fact that there is (according to most reports) a shortage of spaces for children who's parents want them to go to non/multi-denominational schools such as educate together schools.

smacl · 16-01-2014 11:41AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

However much you would like that to be the case, it is not. It just isn't.

Ok, so how exactly does the church patronise the schools which they supposedly run. In some cases, though not all, they have title to the property. They don't provide staff or really teach per se. They don't provide funding. They simply occupy a strong position on the boards of management, and are in a position to prop up discriminatory behaviour on that basis.

When the people, government and constitution of our state agrees with you, this may become a reality for you. But it's not the reality at the moment.

Quite so, there is a clear injustice in the system which is being addressed, albeit painfully slowly. That the church enjoys a position of privilege that allows them to foster discrimination at the expense of the taxpayer is hardly something to be proud of.

16-01-2014 11:41AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, I'm still waiting to find out from the all-or-nuttin'ers if the Boston Bombings and 9/11 were acts of Islamic terrorism.

Specifically if Jahar Tsarnaev, the drug-dealer & user was a Muslim and if the hard-drinking Mohammed Atta was a Muslim.

Anyone...?

Hold up. Don't you argue that because these guys supposedly do these things it means they aren't proper Muslims, therefore aren't devout enough to commit terrorism, therefore it indicates a conspiracy?

So as an all-or-nuttin'er, do you think they were Muslim?

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 11:43AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Anyone who feels the need to correct people when they describe what religion they are on a census. That's who I'm refering to. I'm not going to trawl the last 900 posts to pick them out - it seems to be a overarching themes of this thread.

In real-life it would go:

"So what religion are you."
"Ah, I'm Roman Catholic, for better or for worse, like."
"Ah c'mere, you're not one of those. I saw you playing golf Sunday morning while your wife was at Mass."
"Heh!! It was a charity, event. I'm at Mass most weekends, I even help out with the newsletter."
"NO! You're not a Catholic!! Why are you kidding yourself? You've failed. You're not a catholic!!!"

Hmmmm...had a few free minutes so I rang my sister and conducted a real-life interview with a self-identified Catholic.

Q 'What Religion are you?'
A 'Catholic'.

Q Did you put that down on the Census?
A Of Course.

Q When was the last time you were at Mass?'
A 'Uncle's funeral 6 months ago.'

Q And before that?
A 'Aunt's funeral 4 years ago'

Q Do you use contraception?
A. Not any more as I have gone through the menopause but I used to use a contraceptive implant and before that the Pill.

Q When did you first begin using contraception?
A 1980

Q Are you married?
A Yes.

Q Were you married in a Church?
A First time yes. Second time no.

Q Why not the second time?
A Divorced.

Q Did you have sex when unmarried?
A Yes.

Q What are your views on Abortion?
A Pro-Choice.

Q Do you know any one who had an abortion?
A Yes.

Q Did you facilitate their abortion?
A You know I did. Sure I stayed with you while **** was in the clinic.

Q What are your views on Same-Sex Marriage?
A Pro. When are you and **** getting married?

Q Do you believe in Transubstantiation?
A Wha?

Q When was the last time you went to Confession?
A Ummmm....ahhhhh... 1982ish.

Q When at Mass do you take Communion.
A Yes.

Q Do you pray?
A Does saying 'Jesus *ucking Christ!' count?

Q. Do you pay Parish Dues to your local church.
A I do in me hole!

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:44AM

Cabaal wrote: »

"cough"

2.2°: The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2.4°: Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

You should quote the full Article 44. And also note that nothing you've quoted there, is in any way contrary to what goes on, on a day-to-day basis in schools around the country.

Quite frankly, if the Articles you've quoted above is the "smoking gun" that you think it is, then this discussion would have been brought to the courts long ago.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:46AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hmmmm...had a few free minutes so I rang my sister and conducted a real-life interview with a self-identified Catholic.

This is all interesting stuff, but is your point that you can now claim that your sister is not a Catholic because you say so??

That's the point here.

People saying on the census (or any other forum) that they are X and busy-bodies saying "Oh no! You're not X. You're Y."

16-01-2014 11:47AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If that was the sole reason, I'd think it was not a great idea.

Why not? Many "Catholic" families do the same with exactly the same intention of raising their kids in the "community" as these scamming atheists would.
What's the difference?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But the sacrament of baptism brings grace, even if it is done for less than ideal reasons, so that would be a plus (for the child). It really wouldn't be my place to tell parents what to do though.

But we, and most Catholics don't believe baptism is magic.

What about people who identify as Catholic but don't believe in baptism. They are part of the community you imagine, but they would be excluded.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. The fact that there is (according to most reports) a shortage of spaces for children who's parents want them to go to non/multi-denominational schools such as educate together schools.

So there's not enough spaces for chlidren to attend these schools, but that there isn't much demand?

vibe666 · 16-01-2014 11:47AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As opposed to punishing children who have been christened, which is what the writer would seem to prefer. Bottom line - build more schools where more schools are needed.

why would children who have been christened be punished by everyone being treated equally?

it's yet another strawman argument. making all children equally entitled to be educated in state funded schools is exactly that, equality.

it no more 'punishes' christened children than marriage equality for gay people makes marriage any less enjoyable for straight people. it's also exactly the same argument that was made against equality for non-whites in the 60's, and we know how that turned out. :rolleyes:

of course if when the human rights violations that are currently still being perpetrated to keep this 'ethos' alive in state (i.e. taxpayer) funded schools in the Irish Republic (note, not Theocracy) are finally stopped, expect to see christening rates plummet as all those people who ticked that 'catholic' box on the census who don't actually practice catholicism in any way won't have to get their kids christened for no other reason than in order to get them into a decent school.

we all know where this is going just as I'm sure the church does, which is why they are holding on for dear life.

irish church attendance is at an all time low (by the church's own admission) and more and more people are turning away from religion than ever in ireland, so not (effectively) forcing people to baptise theirs kids in order for them to get a decent education, will likely be the start of the end of catholicism in one of the most catholic countries in the world.

The Irish State has been repeatedly castigated for allowing this discrimination against children to continue, by the United Nations in 2006, 2008 and again in 2011, when its Human Rights Committee noted with concern that the dominance of denominational education was “depriving many parents and children who so wish to have access to secular primary education”.
In 2011 the Irish Human Rights Commission called on the Department of Education to end schools’ religious discrimination against children in admission policies.

In no other area of society, where a public service is funded by taxpayers is such discrimination permitted. One can only imagine the outcry if a public hospital announced it would only treat ill Catholics; or if the local Garda station announced it was only going to investigate crimes committed against people of faith.

the solution is very simple. the state sponsored mass indoctrination of children in this republic stops.

the state should withdraw funding for any school that discriminates against any child for any reason relating to ethnicity or religion. give each school a primary (close) and secondary (wider) catchment area based on location, those nearest get first pick, those in the secondary catchment area (which will overlap with others) get second choice and anyone else outside of that gets 3rd dibs until each school fills all it's placements.

just as in the educate together schools, religious studies should be taught as a subject encompassing all religions and everyone is free to celebrate each religions holidays (christmas, ramadan, hanukkah etc.) as they wish with all given equal importance and let kids make their own choices and if parents really want to indoctrinate them into a particular faith then they can take them to their churches/mosques etc. as they wish as it currently is for everyone EXCEPT catholics.

16-01-2014 11:48AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This is all interesting stuff, but is your point that you can now claim that your sister is not a Catholic because you say so??

That's the point here.

People saying on the census (or any other forum) that they are X and busy-bodies saying "Oh no! You're not X. You're Y."

So what you saying is that being a catholic is nothing more than ticking a box on a form once every five years?

robindch · 16-01-2014 11:49AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not going to trawl the last 900 posts to pick them out - it seems to be a overarching themes of this thread.

You weren't asked for an excuse. You were asked you to name names or withdraw your snide remark -- not your first either -- about other posters here in A+A.

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 11:53AM

Going on Bannasidhe's post, I've asked the most religious person I know a few questions, didn't have time to ask them all but none the less i think this paints a clear picture on what even a very religious young person agree's with.

For the record this person is under 30!

Q 'What Religion are you?'
A 'Catholic'.

Q Did you put that down on the Census?
A without a doubt.

Q When was the last time you were at Mass?'
A 'As you know i go every Sunday and I go every holy day'

Q Do you use contraception?
A. Yes, before and after marriage.

Q Are you married?
A Yes.

Q Were you married in a Church?
A Yes of course

Q Did you have sex when unmarried?
A Yes.

Q What are your views on Same-Sex Marriage?
A they should be allow marry

Q When at Mass do you take Communion.
A Yes, of course

Q Do you pray?
A Yes

Q. Do you pay Parish Dues to your local church.
A Yes

So there we have it, very religious but clearly doesn't agree with no sex before marriage, church's view on contraception or church's view on same sex marriage.

People like this are the future of the church and even they don't agree with the church,

To be honest this persons view is no different to all catholics views, they pick and choose what they want to believe, nothing more.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 11:53AM

King Mob wrote: »

Why not? Many "Catholic" families do the same with exactly the same intention of raising their kids in the "community" as these scamming atheists would.
What's the difference?

But we, and most Catholics don't believe baptism is magic.

What about people who identify as Catholic but don't believe in baptism. They are part of the community you imagine, but they would be excluded.

You're assuming a lot about why "most families" have they're child christened. I think you might find the reasons are far more nuanced - tied up with belief, tradition, community, family, fun, rites of passage, hope, schools place, etc.

King Mob wrote: »

So there's not enough spaces for chlidren to attend these schools, but that there isn't much demand?

When did I say there isn't much demand? There seems to be significant demand in parts of the country (bigger urban centres) and low-level, but real demand scattered all around the country.

vibe666 · 16-01-2014 11:54AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This is all interesting stuff, but is your point that you can now claim that your sister is not a Catholic because you say so??

That's the point here.

People saying on the census (or any other forum) that they are X and busy-bodies saying "Oh no! You're not X. You're Y."

so despite having a penis, i could put down that i'm a woman on the census and that could be fine because i've decided that i self identify as a woman?

what if 90% of the population all decided they were women too and the state based it's policies on those figures and skewed a lot of things in favour of women even though it's nearer to 50%? would you be okay with that?

what if you then couldn't get your male children into decent schools because 90% of schools were female only because the census figures showed that only 10% of the population were male?

would you be happy with that or would you want people to be honest on the census based on what they actually were in reality, rather than what they 'self identified' as and ticked on the census?

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 11:58AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This is all interesting stuff, but is your point that you can now claim that your sister is not a Catholic because you say so??

That's the point here.

People saying on the census (or any other forum) that they are X and busy-bodies saying "Oh no! You're not X. You're Y."

No.

I asked a series of questions some of which demonstrate that although my sister identifies as a Catholic she does not adhere to the Tenets of The Roman Catholic Church at all and holds beliefs which are in direct contravention of RCC Doctrine. In fact, she has participated in activities which could earn her an Excommunication (facilitating abortion)

I made no statement as to what 'I' consider her to be so step away from the drama (if you can).

I simply responded to your fictional scenario by conducting a real-life interview. Not my fault you didn't like the answers.

I should add that her 31 year old Atheist son is, however, very annoyed that his 'Catholic' mother had him baptised into a religion she has not participated in since before his birth.

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 11:59AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You're assuming a lot about why "most families" have they're child christened. I think you might find the reasons are far more nuanced - tied up with belief, tradition, community, family, fun, rites of passage, hope, schools place, etc.

Having asked numerous people I know who have had kids, including family members, the vast majority did it as its the done thing, they wanted a day out, they wanted to secure school places. Only one out of 9 familys did it for the sky fairy.

The sky fairy is the only valid reason for doing this event, anything else is very much so the wrong reason. It also means that you lied to the church during the ceremony.

robindch · 16-01-2014 12:02PM

^^^ Shoulda asked:

Describe transubstantiation.
Distinguish between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth
Distinguish between homoiousios and homoousios (explained in the Creed you say every Sunday)
When did the Assumption of Mary become dogma?
Name the three initiation rites necessary to become a fully-bound catholic?

I suspect that very self-identifying catholics indeed could answer even one of those questions without some serious thought and the vast majority could probably answer only one of them even then.

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 12:03PM

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Shoulda asked:
Describe transubstantiation.

Distinguish between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth

Distinguish between homoiousios and homoousios (explained in the Creed you say every Sunday)

When did the Assumption of Mary become dogma?

Name the three initiation rites necessary to become a fully-bound catholic?

I suspect that very self-identifying catholics indeed could answer even one of those questions without some serious thought and the vast majority could probably answer only one of them even then.

Might try these at the weekend if I remember

16-01-2014 12:08PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You're assuming a lot about why "most families" have they're child christened. I think you might find the reasons are far more nuanced - tied up with belief, tradition, community, family, fun, rites of passage, hope, schools place, etc.

You've ignored my point. I'm not assuming anything, just showing you how your position is 1. flawed and 2. leads to problems such as endorsing discrimination.

You define Catholicism as a community. But you also say that you don't need to adhere to any definitions to be part of that community.
So for example we take two families, one who identifies as Catholic and has their kid baptised and one that does not.
Both families attend the same amount of church (be it not at all or non catholic churches) and share the same amount of interaction with the community.
Additionally, both families have no intend of actually raising the kid as Catholic.

So they are equal in every way, but you think it would be ok to chose one over the other. That's discrimination.

Additionally, your logic fails because: what if both families identify as catholic or if the non-baptising family was more involved in the catholic community?
The one who baptised gets preference, meaning that it has nothing to do with community at all, but rather a piece of paper.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

When did I say there isn't much demand? There seems to be significant demand in parts of the country (bigger urban centres) and low-level, but real demand scattered all around the country.

Sorry, I misread you a few posts back.

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 12:11PM

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Shoulda asked:
Describe transubstantiation.

Distinguish between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth

Distinguish between homoiousios and homoousios (explained in the Creed you say every Sunday)

When did the Assumption of Mary become dogma?

Name the three initiation rites necessary to become a fully-bound catholic?

I suspect that very self-identifying catholics indeed could answer even one of those questions without some serious thought and the vast majority could probably answer only one of them even then.

I suspect there would have been a lot of 'praying' of the 'Jesus *ucking Christ will you feck off!' in her responses.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments