Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

joseph brand · 24-01-2014 12:44PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They would say that those issues concern them. Who are you to say differently? Does the IFA get a say on hunting? Maybe. Does SIPTU get a say on social welfare? Maybe. Does the GAA get a say in health promotion policy? Maybe. Do petrol station operators get a say in public transport? Maybe.....

Isn't the church tax-exempt, as long as it doesn't interfere in politics? As far as I am aware, if they want a voice, they need to start paying up. Can't have it both ways.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 12:45PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's a very, very close minded attitude. The RCC is (justifiably, often) criticised for its negative labelling of homosexual people as "disordered" but you're totally cool with saying that people, who happen to live their sexual life different from how you would, are freaks and weirdos and "repressing normality".

Really closed-minded.

If we look at species around the planet we can see all have a urge for sex (many just for the pleasure just like our species does), many even are known to have same sex relationships.

Now look around and you won't find too many many manuals for example that choose never to have sex and form bonds with another in their species,

Well maybe there was at one time but they are long gone now,

So yes priests and bishops repress normality, they repress all that is natural about basically every species on the planet. Thats not healthy.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 12:45PM

joseph brand wrote: »

Isn't the church tax-exempt, as long as it doesn't interfere in politics? As far as I am aware, if they want a voice, they need to start paying up. Can't have it both ways.

So charities can't have a say in public policy? Right so......

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 12:48PM

Cabaal wrote: »

If we look at species around the planet we can see all have a urge for sex (many just for the pleasure just like our species does), many even are known to have same sex relationships.

Now look around and you won't find too many many manuals for example that choose never to have sex and form bonds with another in their species,

Well maybe there was at one time but they are long gone now,

So yes priests and bishops repress normality, they repress all that is natural about basically every species on the planet. Thats not healthy.

Interesting (if-sex-centred) point of view.

Even if we accept all you say as fact - why do abnormal people not get a say in the democratic process? Do you have any other groups of people you'd like to add to the "Abnormal/No Voice" list?

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 12:50PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Everyone encourages TDs to vote as they would like. Votes are their currency and everyone is free to "blackmail" a TD with the promise of their vote.

Both you and me know that's not how the Vatican tried to blackmail the TD's,

They had tried that already but the TD's didn't care because the religious people in Ireland who were against the legislation formed a very small amount of votes, the majority of Ireland (and as such the majority of Catholics in Ireland) wanted the legislation passed.

So the Vatican decided to blackmail the TD's with their faith in an attempt to force the TD's to vote the way the Vatican wanted and to ignore the majority voice of Ireland, an utterly despicable and pathetic attempt to interfere with our legislative process.

The fact you see nothing wrong with this blackmail attempt is extremely worrying,

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 12:52PM

Cabaal wrote: »

So the Vatican decided to blackmail the TD's with their faith, an utterly despicable and pathetic attempt to interfere with our legislative process.

The fact you see nothing wrong with this blackmail attempt is extremely worrying,

If the church wishes to remind its members of their duty of care to other humans then I'm fine with that. It seems the RCC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They're criticised for their laisez-faire approach to discipline on here but when they crack a whip they're alledged to be blackmailing.

I'm more concerend with your desire to silence all of these abnormal people polluting our democracy.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 12:54PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Interesting (if-sex-centred) point of view.

Well I though it was fitting, after all the Vatican is obsessed with sex and never stops ranting on about it and its affects yet they can never have it.

Odd really.

Delirium · 24-01-2014 12:56PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If the church wishes to remind its members of their duty of care to other humans then I'm fine with that. It seems the RCC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They're criticised for their laisez-faire approach to discipline on here but when they crack a whip they're alledged to be blackmailing.

I'm more concerend with your desire to silence all of these abnormal people polluting our democracy.

They went beyond that and actively blackmailed/coerced RCC politicans. That isn't acceptable behaviour by any group towards elected officials who represent more than just one sub-group in society.

24-01-2014 12:56PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Interesting (if-sex-centred) point of view.

Even if we accept all you say as fact - why do abnormal people not get a say in the democratic process? Do you have any other groups of people you'd like to add to the "Abnormal/No Voice" list?

Do you think that Atheist Ireland or any other lobby group have the same sort of influence or position as the catholic church?

Or should the Catholic Church have a special position because Ireland has so many Catholics?

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 12:58PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Well I though it was fitting, after all the Vatican is obsessed with sex and never stops ranting on about it and its affects yet they can never have it.

Odd really.

It would appear, listening to the media, that the RCC talks of nothing BUT sex and sexuality.

The reality is far less spicy.

Have you ever viewed the speeches, encylicals, letters on the Vatican website (for example)? 95% has less thatn zero to do with sex.

No, the church says a lot about a lot of things. But her critics only talk wbout sex related issues because that is where there interest lays (which is entirely fair and reasonable).

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 12:59PM

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that Atheist Ireland or any other lobby group have the same sort of influence or position as the catholic church?

They should and they do. The only thing holding them back is their man-power and resources.

King Mob wrote: »

Or should the Catholic Church have a special position because Ireland has so many Catholics?

Absolutely not. Never.

Penn · 24-01-2014 01:02PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They would say that those issues concern them. Who are you to say differently? Does the IFA get a say on hunting? Maybe. Does SIPTU get a say on social welfare? Maybe. Does the GAA get a say in health promotion policy? Maybe. Do petrol station operators get a say in public transport? Maybe.....

Just because they say it concerns them, doesn't mean it does. Do petrol station operators get a say on hunting? Does the GAA get a say in public transport?

If something is against the religion of the church leaders, matters of civil legislation does not concern them unless it brings in something which will have an affect on the religion or the church. It does not concern them just because they disagree with it for religious reasons.

Abortion or Same-sex marriage may be against their religion, but it does not actually affect their religion. As such their opinions should be held to have no more weight than mine when it comes to influencing legislation.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 01:04PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If the church wishes to remind its members of their duty of care to other humans then I'm fine with that. It seems the RCC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They're criticised for their laisez-faire approach to discipline on here but when they crack a whip they're alledged to be blackmailing.

The church is cracking the whip when it suits them,

Now remember, they wanted to influence a decision affecting a country made up of numerous faiths and no faiths...pathetic.

There's plenty of other times they have refused to do anything even though they could even stop the jailing and killing of people in other countrys. Instead they even bless one of the people involved.

Peace with one hand, hatred with the other.

I'm more concerend with your desire to silence all of these abnormal people polluting our democracy.

Priests and bishops make the free choice to be the way they are...it is their decision it is not due to a birth defect or genetics,

For them to then lecture people that decide to not repress nature is farcical.

Not sure what other abnormal people you might be referring to? I really hope your not using this word for what i think you are using it for.

24-01-2014 01:12PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They should and they do. The only thing holding them back is their man-power and resources.

Absolutely not. Never.

So do you not think that they already do?

weisses · 24-01-2014 01:13PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Bishops and priests are effectively freaks and weirdo's as they ignore one of the most natural normal urges of our species and thousands of other species on our planet....to have sex, they also ignore another important urge within our species which is to form a loving bond with another human.

And you are all upset about people leaving the church being character assassinated by a religious organization and yet have no issues doing it from an atheist point of view ??

robindch · 24-01-2014 01:20PM

weisses wrote: »

There is an nuance in that as well

Interesting point -- even for its own "absolute" rules, it seems the church adopts quite a flexible approach.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 01:22PM

weisses wrote: »

And you are all upset about people leaving the church being character assassinated by a religious organization and yet have no issues doing it from an atheist point of view ??

Scientology go after a named person, they try and undermine them by following them, taping them etc. Very different to what I said.

I made a comment that priests and bishops make a decision that is in such a manner as to achieve a desired result of being a freak or weirdo because they go against basic urges that exist and our ingrained in our species and hundred and thousands of other species on our planet.

They then lecture those that act out these natural and perfectly normal desires and call some of their acts unnatural (gay sex, wanting to form a bond with a same sex partner).

These types of actions make them freaks and weirdo's in my view.

In some cases these priests and bishops have been known call for actions to be taken against people that carry out these perfectly normal acts, infact history shows us that priests and bishops ripped children away from mothers because they saw what the women had done as wrong.

You think these actions make them sane, normal and well adjusted people?

vibe666 · 24-01-2014 01:22PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I believe anyone can call themselves a catholic if they like and no one should feel they have the right to tell them they've chosen incorrectly.

AND

Everyone is free to decide for themselves how much of the RCC's beliefs they share.

Again it comes back to the "all-or-nothing" point of view. The RCC does not cast people aside because they can't believe in 100% or everything 100% of the time.

so, given that, you would be perfectly happy with me calling myself Catholic and calling my son a Catholic even though neither of us have ever taken part in any Catholic rituals?

To be fair, I do believe in being nice to people and helping everyone out and a good few of the 10 commandments, so I do have a more "christian" attitude than a lot of christians do, so I am fairly catholic aside from that whole "god" thing.

Also, (and this is the important part for me) just to confirm that despite us not being *officially* catholic there will be no problems declaring my son catholic in order to get him into a catholic "ethos" school without a baptism cert?

vibe666 · 24-01-2014 01:28PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If the church wishes to remind its members of their duty of care to other humans then I'm fine with that.

If the church wants to have a say in steering the political process in this country then they can start paying tax like the rest of us.

weisses · 24-01-2014 01:49PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Sorry, would you like to point out were I specially named a bishop or priest and called them names?

Scientology go after a named person, they try and undermine them by following them, taping them etc. Very different to what I said.

I made a comment that priests and bishops make a decision that is in such a manner as to achieve a desired result of being a freak or weirdo because they go against basic urges that exist and our ingrained in our species and hundred and thousands of other species on our planet.

They then lecture those that act out these natural and perfectly normal desires and call some of their acts unnatural (gay sex, wanting to form a bond with a same sex partner).

These types of actions make them freaks and weirdo's in my view.

In some cases these priests and bishops have been known call for actions to be taken against people that carry out these perfectly normal acts, infact history shows us that priests and bishops ripped children away from mothers because they saw what the women had done as wrong.

You think these actions make them sane, normal and well adjusted people?

Calling all priests freaks and weirdo's to me would be character assassination.

If any given priest walks up to you, then you would/could use these remarks

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/character+assassination

Of course you are free to your views (and i agree with you about it being ridiculous)

My issue is that in one discussion you are worried about Scientology and character assassination, and in another thread you basically doing it yourself

weisses · 24-01-2014 01:56PM

robindch wrote: »

Interesting point -- even for its own "absolute" rules, it seems the church adopts quite a flexible approach.

They had to come up with something because not voting wasn't an option, to me it only shows the hypocrisy of the church in this matter

It also shows there is no definite answer in at what point you will be kicked out.

swampgas · 24-01-2014 02:00PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You say interfere, I say participate in. Everyone and every organisation is free to participate in democracy. Does Atheists Ireland not speak to Govt about matters? More power to them.

I did say (or meant to imply, at least) that the Church should be able to influence or lobby in the normal way, but they should not be given any special privileges by the government to do so.

Interference is when the church uses its position to try to dictate legislation so that it agrees with RCC doctrine, despite the fact that the law applies to everyone regardless of religion. Trying to impose RCC doctrine onto everyone is theocracy, and I don't want to live in one, thanks very much.

The RCC shouldn't care what non-Catholics do, but they can't help sticking their very much unwanted nose in.

I don't want the government passing laws that affect me being based on Catholic values - I'm not a Catholic!

(Why does it seem like every single thread in this forum comes back to trying to explain the basic concept of a secular state?)

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 02:34PM

AerynSun wrote: »

What about people who are not voting for abortion, but are voting for freedom of choice instead?

According to the link weisses provided here

weisses wrote: »

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured abortion.

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons strictly defined.

They say 'abortion', others say 'Right to Choose' and we have argued the semantics on many a thread in this and other forums but my reading of the above is that it is not permissible for a Roman Catholic to vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate because they are a Pro-Choice candidate... they can, however, vote for them if good old 'context' applies...

Penn · 24-01-2014 02:36PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They say 'abortion', others say 'Right to Choose' and we have argued the semantics on many a thread in this and other forums but my reading of the above is that it is not permissible for a Roman Catholic to vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate because they are a Pro-Choice candidate... they can, however, vote for them if good old 'context' applies...

Homer voting for Sideshow Bob as Mayor: "Hmm... I don't agree with his Bart-killing policy... but I do agree with his Selma-killing policy"

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 02:37PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They would say that those issues concern them. Who are you to say differently? Does the IFA get a say on hunting? Maybe. Does SIPTU get a say on social welfare? Maybe. Does the GAA get a say in health promotion policy? Maybe. Do petrol station operators get a say in public transport? Maybe.....

Oh yes - an organisation which is led by celibates should absolutely have a say in marriage, child rearing etc etc.

Just like miners should have an input into aviation and shopkeepers should be consulted by Coillte.

swampgas · 24-01-2014 02:37PM

AerynSun wrote: »

What about people who are not voting for abortion, but are voting for freedom of choice instead?

It's funny how all those people who bang on about how God gave us Free Will are so loathe to actually let us use it.

gaynorvader · 24-01-2014 02:38PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh yes - an organisation which is led by celibates should absolutely have a say in marriage, child rearing etc etc.

Just like miners should have an input into aviation and shopkeepers should be consulted by Coillte.

I think that may be one of the problems with democracy, they all do.

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 02:44PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think that may be one of the problems with democracy, they all do.

Which is why the Head Shopkeeper told TDs that they would no longer be welcome to make purchases if Coillte was sold off??

Oh...wait...

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:21PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Just because they say it concerns them, doesn't mean it does. Do petrol station operators get a say on hunting? Does the GAA get a say in public transport?

They do if they want one. Everyone and anyone is free to take an interest in any aspect of our democracy. That's a beautiful thing.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:23PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Priests and bishops make the free choice to be the way they are...it is their decision it is not due to a birth defect or genetics,

For them to then lecture people that decide to not repress nature is farcical.

Not sure what other abnormal people you might be referring to? I really hope your not using this word for what i think you are using it for.

So far you've only included celibates on the list of those who shouldn't be allowed a voice.

I don't have a list of those who shouldn't have a voice.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments