Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:24PM

King Mob wrote: »

So do you not think that they already do?

No.

What special lobbying/influencing rights do the RCC have?

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:28PM

vibe666 wrote: »

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?

I'd be perfectly happy to defend your right to do it. Whether I feel it's right or not is none of my business.

vibe666 wrote: »

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?

Like I say, I'll happily defend your right to do precisely what you wish. Go you!

What the school makes of it is a different matter.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:31PM

vibe666 wrote: »

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.

So all charities are barred from influencing the political process. Again, retrograde, anti-democratic step.

I prefer to hear all points of view, regardless of whether I personally agree with those presenting the view or not. That's the best form of democracy right there.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 03:34PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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.

Oh they can have a voice,
They can talk about it all they want at mass or in their booklets,

But they have no place lecturing or trying to advise the government on whats best when it comes to sex and abortion related topics, especially when these decisions impact none Catholics.

Last time the church got it its say on stuff like this, condoms were made illegal and women had their new borns taken away from them. Like it or not the RCC STRONGLY influenced these actions/laws.

Unless you think those were good idea's?

Maybe you'll claim the RCC has changed, but we've seen no meaningful actions from them yet when it comes to correcting their most recent deepest, darkest decisions.

24-01-2014 03:38PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No.

What special lobbying/influencing rights do the RCC have?

You mean besides control of the schools and some hospitals?

And besides, what influence do they need exactly?
Why do they need to influence the laws of the country? Why try to illegalise homosexuality, divorce, contraception and abortion for non-catholics?

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:41PM

swampgas wrote: »

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.

What is "the normal way" and what are these special privileges?

swampgas wrote: »

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..

Imposing a religious view on everyone in a country is theocracy.
Seeking to influence legislation so that it is compatible with ones point of view (whether you be a private individual, business, trade union, ngo, charity or church) is Democracy 101. Just because one doesn't like the messanger doesn't mean one can ignore it in a democracy.

swampgas wrote: »

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

"Trade unions shouldn't care what non union members do"
"Employers shouldn't care what students do"
"Muslims shouldn't care about child-care for non-muslims"
"Atheists shouldn't care about heritage buildings that are churches/convents/monasteries"
"The IFA shouldn't have a role in motorway maintenance"

etc, etc.....it gets us nowhere. Just as individuals are free to describe themselves as they wish, organisations (and individuals) are free to decide for themselves what interests them.

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 03:42PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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.

What they do not have the right to do is attempt to coerce/threaten/blackmail legislators to try and force the State to continue to discriminate against those citizens who do things the RCC disapproves of.

Perhaps the RCC should focus on getting 'Catholics' to abide by the rules of the Catholic Church (Ha!) and stop trying to impose those rules on Non-Catholics via civil legislation.

The State can allow all of those who identify as 'Catholics' a choice then they can use their Free-Will to decide if they want to have pre-marital sex, use contraception, Divorce, be a sexually active homosexual, have a same-sex marriage etc etc. If the RCC doesn't like it - that is an internal matter and they can deal with it on an individual basis as they wish.

If an elected representative finds their religion conflicts with their political duties - they can resign from the Dáil, run in the subsequent by-election and clearly state to the voters that their religion prevents them from supporting certain pieces of legislation. Then it is up to the Voters to decide...

I would have respect for a candidate who clearly says 'I am a practising Roman Catholic (Muslim/Jew/Presbyterian/Hindu/Muslim etc etc) and I will only support legislation which does not conflict with my religion.'

Respect their honesty that is - even as I vote for someone else...

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:44PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh they can have a voice,
They can talk about it all they want at mass or in their booklets,

But they have no place lecturing or trying to advise the government on whats best when it comes to sex and abortion related topics, especially when these decisions impact none Catholics.

The highlight sections above are entirely anti-democratic.

It doesn't matter how much you hate the RCC or how badly you think Ireland has been served by them and by Governments influenced by them, in a functioning democracy, EVERYONE gets a say.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 03:47PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Imposing a religious view on everyone in a country is theocracy.
Seeking to influence legislation so that it is compatible with ones point of view (whether you be a private individual, business, trade union, ngo, charity or church) is Democracy 101. Just because one doesn't like the messanger doesn't mean one can ignore it in a democracy.

So you think its a'ok for the RCC to try get TD's in Ireland to vote against the abortion legislation.

I suppose this shows they care about unborn?

Shame they choose not to threaten people in Uganda when it came to the "kill the gays" bill and instead the pope actually blessed the politician pushing the kill the gays bill.

Strange that,

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

You mean besides control of the schools and some hospitals?

That's not special influencing/lobbying rights. That's simple stating a matter of fact.

King Mob wrote: »

And besides, what influence do they need exactly?
Why do they need to influence the laws of the country? Why try to illegalise homosexuality, divorce, contraception and abortion for non-catholics?

(I don't believe "illegalising homosexuality" is on the cards King)

The matters you mention above are matters affecting the whole of society. The RCC, like everyone else has a right to comment and lobby Govt on these issues. The RCC would suggest (like others who do similar lobbying) that they are striving to change society for the common good. You may claim that what they propose does not do that, but banning them from speaking is anti-democratic nonsense.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 03:50PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The highlight sections above are entirely anti-democratic.

It doesn't matter how much you hate the RCC or how badly you think Ireland has been served by them and by Governments influenced by them, in a functioning democracy, EVERYONE gets a say.

They get a special say because they are the RCC, nobody invited me to go upto Dublin and speak about my views on the bill.

So I'm afraid that your statement that everyone gets a say is more like, everyone gets a say by sending e-mails or letters but some get more of a say then others.

The Catholic Bishops were given microphone time, this is special treatment. Should we also give shopkeepers mic time when it comes to abortion legislation?

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What they do not have the right to do is attempt to coerce/threaten/blackmail legislators to try and force the State to continue to discriminate against those citizens who do things the RCC disapproves of....

Like it or not, they actually do have that right. You might find it repulsive, but I don't remember anyone suggesting that the RCC telling catholics not to support abortion was illegal.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps the RCC should focus on getting 'Catholics' to abide by the rules of the Catholic Church (Ha!) and stop trying to impose those rules on Non-Catholics via civil legislation.

The above paragraph contradicts your 1st paragraph to almost comic effect.

To summarise: "The RCC shouldn't threaten (catholic) politicians. But they should focus on getting catholics to abide by the rules."

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The State can allow all of those who identify as 'Catholics' a choice then they can use their Free-Will to decide if they want to have pre-marital sex, use contraception, Divorce, be a sexually active homosexual, have a same-sex marriage etc etc. If the RCC doesn't like it - that is an internal matter and they can deal with it on an individual basis as they wish.

Again, totally contradicting your first paragraph on (catholic) politicians.

weisses · 24-01-2014 03:57PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Should we also give shopkeepers mic time when it comes to abortion legislation?

If shopkeepers would represent a majority of the population who would have possible concerns regarding abortion I don't see why not

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 03:58PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

(I don't believe "illegalising homosexuality" is on the cards King)

But it was, lets not forget that, up until the 1990's all thanks to the catholic church, Oh and guess who lobbied against it being made legal?

The difference now is the RCC just want discrimination to continue towards gay couples when it comes to marriage because its against god and unnatural in their view.

They don't accepting gay couples that have sex into the faith so it doesn't affect them if gay people get married, so why lobby against it?

These are all the same bigoted arguments that were used when it came to blacks marrying whites in 1950's America,

You can dress it up anyway you like but the RCC position on gay people and gay marriage is homophobic, just like any people against equal black rights were and are racist.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 03:59PM

Cabaal wrote: »

So you think its a'ok for the RCC to try get TD's in Ireland to vote against the abortion legislation.,

Of course. Just as it's 100% ok for any pro-choice person or organisation to lobby in favour. Why is this a problem?

Cabaal wrote: »

Shame they choose not to threaten people in Uganda when it came to the "kill the gays" bill ,

The Ugandan Bishops Conference and the Papal Nuncio in Uganda (the Popes voice in Uganda) have both spoken out against this bill.

Cabaal wrote: »

and instead the pope actually blessed the politician pushing the kill the gays bill.

Strange that,

As pointed out previously, the above is not true.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 04:00PM

weisses wrote: »

If shopkeepers would represent a majority of the population who would have possible concerns regarding abortion I don't see why not

We've already covered the very fact that the RCC doesn't represent the majority of Ireland when it comes to their stance on abortion.

Majority of Ireland think abortion in rape or incest cases should be allowed, the RCC say its wrong no matter what.

So your statement is inaccurate,

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 04:02PM

Cabaal wrote: »

They get a special say because they are the RCC, nobody invited me to go upto Dublin and speak about my views on the bill.

So I'm afraid that your statement that everyone gets a say is more like, everyone gets a say by sending e-mails or letters but some get more of a say then others.

The Catholic Bishops were given microphone time, this is special treatment. Should we also give shopkeepers mic time when it comes to abortion legislation?

The Health Committee requested submissions and took requests to present to them as I recall. Many people took them up on that...taking part in the democratic process.

Penn · 24-01-2014 04:03PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not special influencing/lobbying rights. That's simple stating a matter of fact.

The matters you mention above are matters affecting the whole of society. The RCC, like everyone else has a right to comment and lobby Govt on these issues. The RCC would suggest (like others who do similar lobbying) that they are striving to change society for the common good. You may claim that what they propose does not do that, but banning them from speaking is anti-democratic nonsense.

You're exaggerating what people are saying. No-one is claiming that the RCC shouldn't get a say. What we are saying that in matters not pertaining to the Church or something which they are directly involved in, they should have no more of a say than everyone else.

Hypothetical example, for abortion legislation they should not be granted any more ability to have their say than the employees of McDonald's on Kilkenny Street, Kilkenny. That is democracy. Everyone having an equal say. But do you think the Government would allow the staff of that McDonalds to speak at a meeting held by the Government on the issue? Do you think they'd allow John-Joe FitzCulchie to have his say? Do you think they'd allow you?

Special privilege has been given to the Church in the past. That, by your own standards, is not democratic.

24-01-2014 04:04PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not special influencing/lobbying rights. That's simple stating a matter of fact.

So it doesn't give them any influence at all?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

(I don't believe "illegalising homosexuality" is on the cards King)

The matters you mention above are matters affecting the whole of society. The RCC, like everyone else has a right to comment and lobby Govt on these issues. The RCC would suggest (like others who do similar lobbying) that they are striving to change society for the common good. You may claim that what they propose does not do that, but banning them from speaking is anti-democratic nonsense.

But why? Surely they, being the beneificent and pure organisation you seem to thing they are, understand that their religious views are not shared by everyone, even the people they claim to represent.
So why do they want to change laws that effect everyone? Why is providing the guidelines they want their adherents to stick to if they choose to not good enough?

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 04:05PM

Cabaal wrote: »

But it was, lets not forget that, up until the 1990's all thanks to the catholic church, Oh and guess who lobbied against it being made legal?

The difference now is the RCC just want discrimination to continue towards gay couples when it comes to marriage because its against god and unnatural in their view.

They don't accepting gay couples that have sex into the faith so it doesn't affect them if gay people get married, so why lobby against it?

These are all the same bigoted arguments that were used when it came to blacks marrying whites in 1950's America,

You can dress it up anyway you like but the RCC position on gay people and gay marriage is homophobic, just like any people against equal black rights were and are racist.

So you want to fight the perceived bigotry with denying people access to the democratic process?? Mmmmm

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 04:10PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Of course. Just as it's 100% ok for any pro-choice person or organisation to lobby in favour. Why is this a problem?
.

You trying to claim the RCC and a Pr-Choice are the same, they are not.

A pro-choice group can't blackmail the TD with their religious beliefs by refusing to allow the TD to practice them (unless they perhaps blocked an entrance in which case the Gardai could get involved).

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 04:11PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

You're exaggerating what people are saying. No-one is claiming that the RCC shouldn't get a say. What we are saying that in matters not pertaining to the Church or something which they are directly involved in, they should have no more of a say than everyone else..

When you prescribe (or seek to) what issues relate to people/organisations or not, you are effectvely telling them that they cannot have a voice. People/Organisations should be allowed to have a say in whatever area interests them.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 04:16PM

King Mob wrote: »

So it doesn't give them any influence at all?

As school Patrons - loads. But then, surely, this (schooling) would fall under one of the catagories that the RCC would be deemed suitable to speak to government on?

King Mob wrote: »

But why? Surely they, being the beneificent and pure organisation you seem to thing they are, understand that their religious views are not shared by everyone, even the people they claim to represent.
So why do they want to change laws that effect everyone? Why is providing the guidelines they want their adherents to stick to if they choose to not good enough?

Because some issues are greater than issues relevant to particular religious adherents.

I would, for example, suggest that civil gay marriage should be something of a non-issue for the RCC. On the other hand, the death penalty (for example) is a gross injustice that merits a campaigning stance to save lives.

gaynorvader · 24-01-2014 04:16PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What is "the normal way" and what are these special privileges?
{...}

The only ones I've seen mentioned on this thread are:

Being allowed to run schools of their ethos with public money (though I think this is more of a general religious thing than a Catholic-specific thing).
Being invited to the Dáil to give their views as opposed to having to write in when they hear about an upcoming bill to submit their opinions/ideas.

Delirium · 24-01-2014 04:17PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As school Patrons - loads. But then, surely, this (schooling) would fall under one of the catagories that the RCC would be deemed suitable to speak to government on?

Because some issues are greater than issues relevant to particular religious adherents.

I would, for example, suggest that civil gay marriage should be something of a non-issue for the RCC. On the other hand, the death penalty (for example) is a gross injustice that merits a campaigning stance to save lives.

But why should they be given more consideration (which is what people have a problem with) that any other group in society?

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 04:20PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

The only ones I've seen mentioned on this thread are:
Being allowed to run schools of their ethos with public money (though I think this is more of a general religious thing than a Catholic-specific thing).

Being invited to the Dáil to give their views as opposed to having to write in when they hear about an upcoming bill to submit their opinions/ideas.

No. 1 is a right of all citizens and groups of citizens as far as I know.

No. 2 I think you'll find this is the case for other civil society actors (ICTU, IFA, IBEC).....that the RCC is very good at lobbying and making itself heard is not a crime.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 04:21PM

SW wrote: »

But why should they be given more consideration (which is what people have a problem with) that any other group in society?

They shouldn't, but if they are it is, perhaps, that they're damn good at lobbying and getting their voice heard.

Delirium · 24-01-2014 04:22PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They shouldn't, but if they are it is, perhaps, that they're damn good at lobbying and getting their voice heard.

Glad we're in agreement.

Cabaal · 24-01-2014 04:24PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So you want to fight the perceived bigotry with denying people access to the democratic process?? Mmmmm

We've already seen that the RCC don't believe in a democratic process, they believe in blackmail to get their way.

The Vatican want to interfere in the running of the Irish state, this is not very democratic. They should instead be allowing the people in Ireland to decide for ourselves.

Finally, we've also seen that the RCC in Ireland get special treatment when it comes to the government and media,

24-01-2014 04:25PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As school Patrons - loads. But then, surely, this (schooling) would fall under one of the catagories that the RCC would be deemed suitable to speak to government on?

No. they shouldn't have control of state schools at all let alone have such influence on education.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Because some issues are greater than issues relevant to particular religious adherents.

But they want to enforce their rules on other, non catholic people.

Why do they think that everyone should not be allowed access to contraception when only Catholics are forbidden from using them? If the people who choose to be Catholic don't use them, why do they care about what other people do?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I would, for example, suggest that civil gay marriage should be something of a non-issue for the RCC. On the other hand, the death penalty (for example) is a gross injustice that merits a campaigning stance to save lives.

Yet they seem to think one is as a pressing concern as they other.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments