Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

24-01-2014 05:19PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm fine with a church reminding adherents that they risk their salvation if they do things such as support abortions. It is not the church who is putting these people's salvation at risk - they are - because they are supporting the killing of unborn humans.

Again, not the question I asked you.

Do you not see how this could be considered to be a bad, undemocratic thing?

Or is it ok to be undemocratic sometimes?

Brian Shanahan · 24-01-2014 06:47PM

swampgas wrote: »

I really can't see why religious people want state law to reflect their own religious morality, which is effectively wanting to impose their religion on everyone else.

Because organised religion is about the hierarchy of power and that alone. Religions organise because those at the top want dictatorial power resting solely in their own hands, and of all the religious organisations the most consistent and insistent of them in this matter is the rcc.

Scratch the surface of every religious leader and you'll find a murderous dictator.

Brian Shanahan · 24-01-2014 06:52PM

AerynSun wrote: »

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

According to the church there is no freedom of choice in this matter because every abortion since 1869 is automatically wrong in their eyes, and a vote to allow abortion is therefore a vote for the devil, and thus verboten.

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 09:39PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's not about voting. He is making a mockery of the democratic process. He is betraying the oath he made upon being sworn in as a TD.

Do TDs take an Oath?

Too tired to google...:o

AerynSun · 24-01-2014 09:48PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

According to the church there is no freedom of choice in this matter because every abortion since 1869 is automatically wrong in their eyes, and a vote to allow abortion is therefore a vote for the devil, and thus verboten.

According to which document of the Church? Because surely the 'since 1869' bit is pure nonsense? If the argument against abortion stands, it stands for ALL abortions, not just the ones post that date?

But apart from that digression... 'in their eyes' - whose eyes exactly are we talking about here? Because I'm wondering whether they've read St Augustine on free will at all?

Free will is the 'God-given elective power' whereby people have the ability to make their own choices. Hence my enthusiasm in voting for pro-choice candidates - everybody gets to make their own choice and make their peace with that. Nobody gets to choose for anyone else... and in the matter of abortion, men definitely don't get to choose on behalf of women!

AerynSun · 24-01-2014 09:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do TDs take an Oath?

Too tired to google...:o

Too tired for a biscuit either? Alas I would use an expletive oath to mark this solemn occasion, but apparently that old chestnut was reserved for pledging allegiance to the king of England rather than to g-d and has long since retreated into the rubbish bin of history?

:P

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 09:54PM

AerynSun wrote: »

According to which document of the Church? Because surely the 'since 1869' bit is pure nonsense? If the argument against abortion stands, it stands for ALL abortions, not just the ones post that date?

But apart from that digression... 'in their eyes' - whose eyes exactly are we talking about here? Because I'm wondering whether they've read St Augustine on free will at all?

Free will is the 'God-given elective power' whereby people have the ability to make their own choices. Hence my enthusiasm in voting for pro-choice candidates - everybody gets to make their own choice and make their peace with that. Nobody gets to choose for anyone else... and in the matter of abortion, men definitely don't get to choose on behalf of women!

As a matter of interest, how many of those who self-identify as Roman Catholics have the foggiest notion who St Augustine was never mind read him?

I wouldn't be surprised if one asked one would get responses like 'patron saint of pasta makers?' or 'patron saint of summer holidays?'

AerynSun · 24-01-2014 10:00PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how many of those who self-identify as Roman Catholics have the foggiest notion who St Augustine was never mind read him?

I wouldn't be surprised if one asked one would get responses like 'patron saint of pasta makers?' or 'patron saint of summer holidays?'

I'd say you're right about that, where the general Catholic population is concerned. But the ones making the church law and writing the catechism and promoting the faith and rallying the troops to sanction anyone who dares oppose the 'official church teaching' and villify evil politicians for daring to uphold people's freedom of choice... well I'd ruddy hope those ones had read St Augustine. If they haven't, they shouldn't be in those jobs. And if they have... then they're being rather evil themselves to just not mention the inconvenient truth to the unsuspecting minions...

Also... I'd say the Pastafarians wouldn't be at all pleased now to know that people think Augustine is in anyway connected to pasta makers!

Turtwig · 24-01-2014 10:05PM

The normal quip with St Augustine for awkward questions was "Before God made heaven he made hell for people like you who ask these type of questions". Or some variant. Maybe that's a bit too much of a Catholic joke for this forum though.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 10:23PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you really ok with that?

In this case, I'm fine with that as the alternative is supporting legislation which allows for the deliberate killing of unborn children.

Brian Shanahan · 24-01-2014 10:23PM

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.

Not directly, hunting groups get to have a say on hunting, and while the IFA does have a lot of overlap with the hunting groups they don't directly interact on hunting issues with the government.

Does SIPTU get a say on social welfare? Maybe.

No they do not, not even the representative group for the unemployed the INOU has a line with the relevant department.

Does the GAA get a say in health promotion policy? Maybe.

No they don't, they even have trouble getting heard over the alcahol sponsorship issue (though personally I think the GAA is wrong to oppose the ban)

Do petrol station operators get a say in public transport? Maybe.....

Now you're just getting ridiculous.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 10:28PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how many of those who self-identify as Roman Catholics have the foggiest notion who St Augustine was never mind read him?

I wouldn't be surprised if one asked one would get responses like 'patron saint of pasta makers?' or 'patron saint of summer holidays?'

Those silly little catholics, huh? They're all so ignorant, not like us.

I Heart Internet · 24-01-2014 10:34PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's not about voting. He is making a mockery of the democratic process. He is betraying the oath he made upon being sworn in as a TD.

TDs don't swear an oath.

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 10:40PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In this case, I'm fine with that as the alternative is supporting legislation which allows for the deliberate killing of unborn children.

You do realise that is treason?

You are 'fine' with the Roman Catholic Church urging elected representative to commit treason?

You are 'fine' with a Vatican sponsored coup?

What will replace it?

An Iona Junta?

Really???

Where is your belief in democracy now?

By the way - it wouldn't be the first time the RCC has advocated treason in a sovereign state: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5regnans.htm

Bannasidhe · 24-01-2014 10:43PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Those silly little catholics, huh? They're all so ignorant, not like us.

Have you read St Augustine?

I have. But only because it was part of my job so technically I got paid for it. He also had some interesting things to say about the Irish. If memory serves he said we were all cannibals with a particular preference for buttock meat.

Or that might have been the other St Augustine....

Brian Shanahan · 24-01-2014 11:01PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The RCC attempted to subvert the will of the electorate by publicly applying pressure on elected representatives.

Are you really ok with that?

What's worse the rcc attempted to suvbert the law of the land in order to get their own way. If they tried doing that with the US for examples you'd soon see marines toppling the statues to former popes and setting up a puppet government in the Lateran.

weisses · 24-01-2014 11:50PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

There was the referendum where the majority did support it. Much more accurate than a poll, no? :rolleyes:

You should make a game of it but instead of rock, paper, scissors use poll census, referendum

I Heart Internet · 25-01-2014 12:04AM

Jernal wrote: »

The normal quip with St Augustine for awkward questions was "Before God made heaven he made hell for people like you who ask these type of questions". Or some variant. Maybe that's a bit too much of a Catholic joke for this forum though.

Augustine mentions that others use this response but that he doesn't approve of it as he thinks people should seek the truth.

I Heart Internet · 25-01-2014 12:10AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have you read St Augustine?

I have. But only because it was part of my job so technically I got paid for it. He also had some interesting things to say about the Irish. If memory serves he said we were all cannibals with a particular preference for buttock meat.

Or that might have been the other St Augustine....

Just a little. Chunks of his Confessions.

Believe that was the other Augustine (he of Cantebury)

I Heart Internet · 25-01-2014 12:14AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You do realise that is treason?

You are 'fine' with the Roman Catholic Church urging elected representative to commit treason?

You are 'fine' with a Vatican sponsored coup?

What will replace it?

An Iona Junta?

Really???

Where is your belief in democracy now?

By the way - it wouldn't be the first time the RCC has advocated treason in a sovereign state: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5regnans.htm

That is not treason. Article 39 of our constitution will set you straight on this.

A coup would be treason. I'm not fine with a coup.

I'm totally fine with a church reminding its adherents of what it expects of them. Regardless of their dayjob.

Hyperbole doesn't help our case. Another reason I know its not treason is that no one has been charged with treason (except on internet forums).

I Heart Internet · 25-01-2014 12:16AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What's worse the rcc attempted to suvbert the law of the land in order to get their own way. If they tried doing that with the US for examples you'd soon see marines toppling the statues to former popes and setting up a puppet government in the Lateran.

I think Dan Brown's next book features this storyline.

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 02:46AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Another reason I know its not treason is that no one has been charged with treason (except on internet forums).

While i don't think it's treason either, this reasoning is somewhat weak, given the number of well-known and prosecuted "strokes" In Irish public life more broadly. "He'll never see the inside of a jail cell" is a mantra oft-proven correct.

When the RCC decides to meddle in national politics, it's problematic for me because of the mixing of its various charitable, public, and private roles. Now of course, these are technically OK (it's argued) because church-run charities are legally separate entities from church-run schools, church-run hospitals, "self-employed" prelates, and so on. But that's akin to the "technically OK" rationale for the not entirely dissimilar shenanigans of corporations and individuals for tax dodging "efficiency" purposes.

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 03:03AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm fine with a church reminding adherents that they risk their salvation if they do things such as support abortions.

I think that a flying wedge of bishop on the picket lines and a Nordie Vice-Archbish on the 6-1 News thundering about booting elected officials out of the "eyes of eternity" club goes just a tad beyond "reminding".

It is not the church who is putting these people's salvation at risk - they are - because they are supporting the killing of unborn humans.

This is getting into Calvino territory for me, with three different categories of non-existent things, but the temporal church is threatening temporally real sanctions, which it itself claims will have metaphysical implications. If it were all simply a matter between an individual, their conscience, and their god (in the implausible event of the existence thereof), well, we'd be in miserable Protestant territory again. (Admittedly, someplace that Irish "Catholics" are a lot, theologically -- at least the ones that aren't atheists, agnostics, New-Agers, spiritualists, etc.)

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 03:19AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But they're not state schools.

Oh good grief, this old "terminological exercise" again. I refer you back to my earlier extensive rebuttal of this, which I recall you ducked out of after I pointed out the flaw in your attempted equation of fee-paying schools into the same "state-funded" category as (what any reasonable personal is happy to regard as) "state school". i.e., the ones overwhelmingly built by state funds, overwhelmingly run with state funds, and run with a state-provided educational infrastructure.

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 03:49AM

weisses wrote: »

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/02/ireland-poll-shows-60-oppose-abortion-on-suicide-grounds/

Not according to this poll

And there was much rejoicing about another Opinion Poll Denier repenting of their ways!

... well, when it's one particular dodgily worded question is one particular poll on one particular issue, at least. Baby steps, I guess.

FYI, the Irish Times poll was a whole lot clearer. Do you support legislation for the X case: 71% yes, 11% no, 18% don't know. So, rogue poll, right, and Amarach just did it better? Well, no. The PLC had them ask an entirely different question, to "inform the conscience" of the respondees. "if it were clearly shown that abortion is not a suitable treatment for a pregnant woman with suicidal feelings, how likely or unlikely would you to be support abortion on this ground?" Hilariously neutral wording, as I'm sure you can see. I'm sure that for the next election, they'll be commissioning one asking "If after Jesus' Second Coming, he personally reminded you of the mortal wickedness of Socialism, would you still be voting for that nasty aul' Ivana Bakic and her shower?"

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 03:57AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

Presumably saying something to the effect of, "Come on now, they're Objectively Disordered in their sexuality, going straight to hell, and the source of all our 'little local difficulty' with clerical child sexual abuse, but you're making us look bad, here! Steady now!"

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 04:07AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

Given that these are acts the CCC asserts are "contrary to the natural law", I can only conclude that this represents slacking on the job in recent times by the RCC.

If haranguing politicians to the effect that statutory law must be in line with its concepts of "natural law" and "grave matters of sin" when it comes to abortion and gay marriage (and before that, on much else besides), one can really only conclude that the lack of such calls in this case is essentially tactical, rather than based on any deep principle.

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 04:14AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

Law of the land, as I understand it. "Promoting a political cause" makes one an "excluded body" under the 2009 Charities Act, by my reading of it.

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 04:23AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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).

That's messenger-blaming, pure and simple. When did you last see a rugby team's worth of Catholic prelates on a picket line outside government buildings on something that didn't have anything to do with sex?

The church says a lot about a lot of things. But it says a whole lot about "moral issues" (i.e., relating to sex). You seem to be upset that people don't have the good taste as to pretend not to notice. Not our "undue weight": theirs.

alaimacerc · 25-01-2014 04:57AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've read the whole thing, though how you can conclude that somebody can be better off by knowing less about what they are making claims about is anyone's guess.

Oh, just better off in general. I'm not the person insisting on dragging in off-topic fanciful "claims" about Breivik. Just willing to spend the few moments that were required to demolish yours.

He didn't pray. Like I said his prayer, which he planned to do only during the attacks, would have been a single occurence, so where you've got "repeatedly" from I have no idea as means of assisting him to complete his "mission".

I made the error of trusting your own artless characterisation of it as "meditation", which makes no sense if it were indeed intended to be strictly a one-off. My mistake not to double-check your own woolly assertions (especially as everything else I did check proved to be utterly wrong, as I've demonstrated).

There is absolutely no point in discussing this with you when you very clearly haven't read the manifesto and don't know what you are talking about.

Up to your usual standard of "rebuttal": i.e., dismiss, insult, totally ignore the evidence cited, claim superior knowledge, absent any demonstration thereof whatsoever. Feel free to get back to me with an actual argument in the event you manage to throw one together.

It's exactly as I said.

It really just isn't. I've pointed out where he directly contradicts what you asserted. Produce some material "redirect", or have the good grace to just stop repeating yourself. What next, going to scweam and scweam until you're sick?

Breivik's cause wasn't religious, it was political.

The two are not exclusive. The one may indeed just essentially be the usual "cultural" window-dressing for blatant racism. But it's absurd to claim, as you've apparently just doubled down on (having been cited direct evidence from the manifesto you've supposed already read in detail) that someone anticipating admittance to heaven as a martyr, devising "pledges of allegence" to (inter alia) god, anticipating wholesale reconstruction of European church polity, ethnically cleansing the continent on "culturally" Christian lines, etc etc is areligious, irreligious, or (utterly nonsensically) "secularist".

I am not the one with double-standard here. I am not rejecting the Jahar Tsarnaev, Atta etc self-identification as Muslims. Nor am I rejecting the Christian identification of Catholics based on them not being like as obedient to their Church as the albino from The Da Vinci Code

Oh, but you very much are. Your attempts to argue that other people have some supposed "double standard" necessitates tortured characterisation of what other people might have said (but, well... didn't), adding on about three or four layers of wildly inappropriate extrapolation and invalid comparison, and claiming to have made fools of us all.

People are "affiliated" to a religion to the extent that they do or think anything that would provide evidence of that. The different between "tap all" and "ticking a census box every five years, or allowing it to be ticked for you" is minimal. Breivik may or may not pass my (... and the churches'...) suggested "Credo" test, with or without assorted caveats and factoring in doubt, but he's a great deal further into "demonstrated affiliation with Christianity" than that.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments