Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 09:59AM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

So if it became a law that everyone must report instances of child abuse to the gardai if they're made aware of them, and someone during confession to a priest admitted abusing their child, you would agree that the laws of the state should trump the laws of religion, and that the priest should inform the gardai?

Yes, I do.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 10:00AM

vibe666 wrote: »

You mean such as institutional child abuse on a massive scale over decades and an international conspiracy to conceal that from the authorities?

It's a good job nothing like that ever happened in the church or there wou....oh wait...

That's exactly right. If anyone believes a crime is being committed they should report it to the Gardai immeadiately.

If people believe treason has been committed, they should not be sitting on their hands or debating it on internet forums.

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 10:01AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't like either to pry, or to sound a bit thick... Maybe my maths or google-use is failing me today, but I can't for the life of me work out what country you're referring to. Sounds like an extreme version of the Netherlands' demographics, but several times the size.

Ja, Zuider Afrika is ietwat Nederlands-isch

South Africa.

So... what happened to the other 74.38% of the population? Split between a whole series of diminishing-returns Protestant denoms?

Split between an interesting array of Christian traditions (that wouldn't all identify as 'Protestant'), some arguably Christian traditions, and other bits and pieces - like Confucianism, Taoism, 'ethnic churches'. African traditional beliefs were counted, but only in the vaguest possible way - think it would take a sharp brain to re-arrange the questions on the survey to get a more holistic view also of how many of the Christian traditions incorporate African traditional beliefs (to the horror of some of the trinitarian Christian churches). There was no separate count for Paganism or Wicca - I think people were expected to count themselves New Age. Neither was there a count for Satanism (there are small numbers that would self-identify as Satanists, who are quite firm in claiming their right to their religious beliefs).

The biggest group after "No Religion" is "Other Apostolic Churches" with 11.3%. Then "Zion Christian Church" with 11%.

There are about 17 Christian denominations listed, and then 28 'other' variations on those denominations. The way we understand the differences between all of them, we would never lump them all together for a total "Christian" percentage - the theological and doctrinal differences are too significant. Only a few of them are "trinitarian" - you could (at a push) put those ones together, but the others range across the board.

Total population: 44,819,778 people at the 2012 count (and it's tricky to count South Africans - lots of informal settlements and migration).

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 10:06AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Did you somehow miss the "scare quotes" in my post? This is precisely the way the phrase the RCC and its political apologists use the term. When the Reform Alliance people starting crafting phrases like "freedom of conscience on moral issues", did anyone really think they were talking about the morality of levels of wealth and income disparity in modern capitalist societies?

That's exactly what I say, and indeed, what I was saying in the post you were endevouring so hard to miss the point of.

Eh, Reform Alliance /= RCC

The RCC view of moral issues is, like other philosophies, as broad as the spectrum of human behaviour. Your "scare quotes" fail because you are committing precisely the same "morals = sex" equivalence that you're accusing the RCC of.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 10:09AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

To be precise, I used it to clarify "state school", and you piggybacked in the fee-payers, in a way clearly designed to dilute the sense of that....

....by making it more accurate.

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, it suggests that a) they're largely built by the state, b) they're very largely funded by the state, and c) people's entirely reasonable expectation that it be run in line with what the DoE says, rather than the Vatican.

What modest steps beyond a "circular" would be required to get provision more in line with demand is an interesting but distinctly "drifty" topic. (But it's clearly not the "suspend the constitution, ban religion freedom, violate private property rights, socialist secular nightmare!" vista you're apt to try to conjure up.)

But becasue these schools are not State Schools, any change will have to e agreed with those who own and manage these schools.

robindch · 27-01-2014 10:30AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But these exemptions are codified in the laws of the state. The laws of the state are not being trumped - they are being followed.

You're perhaps missing the point. There are two classes of "trumping the law":

The first is openly flouting it, as in the case of the RCC's covering up of widescale child abuse by its employees on a massive, global scale; the ongoing scandals at the Vatican bank; the ongoing scandals at The Legion of Christ and so on.

The second is more subtle and it involves religion turning state law to its own benefit. There are numerous examples of this in Ireland - the Michael Woods "indemnity deal" to limit the exposure of named religious orders to unlimited damages resulting from the way they treated people in their care; the very limited financial accounting requirements for charities (see where that's got us :mad:); religious exemptions from equality law, tax free churches, the state paying for indoctrination of its youth, paying for military chaplains (despite the Constitution explicitly prohibiting the state from endowing religion). And so on and so on.

While examples of the second are much more widespread, examples of the first are common too - as Alistair Cooke almost said one time, once religion becomes involved, justice has a way of climbing down from its high, impartial seat and creeping into a corner.

Hope this helps.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 10:59AM

robindch wrote: »

You're perhaps missing the point. There are two classes of "trumping the law":

The first is openly flouting it, as in the case of the RCC's covering up of widescale child abuse by its employees on a massive, global scale; the ongoing scandals at the Vatican bank; the ongoing scandals at The Legion of Christ and so on.

The second is more subtle and it involves religion turning state law to its own benefit. There are numerous examples of this in Ireland - the Michael Woods "indemnity deal" to limit the exposure of named religious orders to unlimited damages resulting from the way they treated people in their care; the very limited financial accounting requirements for charities (see where that's got us :mad:); religious exemptions from equality law, tax free churches, the state paying for indoctrination of its youth, paying for military chaplains (despite the Constitution explicitly prohibiting the state from endowing religion). And so on and so on.

While examples of the second are much more widespread, examples of the first are common too - as Alistair Cooke almost said one time, once religion becomes involved, justice has a way of climbing down from its high, impartial seat and creeping into a corner.

Hope this helps.

The issues here is that the first group of examples you give can, have and are being investigated, where appropriate by civil authorities under civil legislation. While the second group are a hodge-podge of issues, none of which are illegal and many of which are the application of constitutional rights. That you deem, for example, "tax-free churches" as bad does not mean it is illegal (which I understand is not your point) or does not mean that it is a manipulation or biased exemption from the law (which I believe is your point).

robindch · 27-01-2014 12:28PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The issues here is that the first group of examples you give can, have and are being investigated, where appropriate by civil authorities under civil legislation.

Well, allegations of collusion involving tens of thousands of RCC employees have been surfacing for close on twenty years now and so far, one employee has been prosecuted and convicted, and that that conviction has been overturned. Here in Ireland, stories of collusion abound in official reports amounting to tens of thousands of pages and the highest prelate himself has admitted that he colluded in hiding the activities of one of the worst abusers, Brendan Smyth, and so far as I'm aware all the Gardai have done is give him a cheery wave.

Are you seriously saying that this almost total lack of activity constitutes "investigation"?

robindch · 27-01-2014 01:07PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

[...] many of which are the application of constitutional rights [...]

BTW, the Irish Constitution explicitly prohibits the state from paying for "religion":

Article 44.1 wrote:

The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

This constitutional guarantee is routinely ignored every time a teacher steps into a class and attempts to indoctrinate a student at the state's expense.

Elsewhere, here's a good example of religious leaders claiming that state law shouldn't apply to them and the organizations they control:

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/23/commentary-catholic-case-contraception-coverage/

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 01:42PM

robindch wrote: »

BTW, the Irish Constitution explicitly prohibits the state from paying for "religion":This constitutional guarantee is routinely ignored every time a teacher steps into a class and attempts to indoctrinate a student at the state's expense.

If that were true and balanced representation of what the constitution says, as a whole, concerning religion and education (which it isn't), then we would have seen successful challenges to the Dept of Education's practices years and years ago. A constitutional challenge would be irresistable and anyone taking it would be almost certain to have their expenses covered (even if they lost) given the importance of the matter.

So why has no one successfully challenged the constitutionality of religiously run schools in the courts? Why, if it's so clear cut?

robindch · 27-01-2014 01:47PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If that were true and balanced representation of what the constitution says, as a whole, concerning religion and education (which it isn't), then we would have seen successful challenges to the Dept of Education's practices years and years ago.

The word "endow" means "give money or assets to" and is used in this sense in the US. Ireland's supreme court interpreted the word much more narrowly and somewhat differently sometime in the 1970's, so it doesn't mean what it originally meant.

I notice you have ignored the other point about the RCC actively protecting criminals - do you agree with it doing so?

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 01:52PM

robindch wrote: »

The word "endow" means "give money or assets to" and is used in this sense in the US. Ireland's supreme court interpreted the word much more narrowly and somewhat differently sometime in the 1970's, so it doesn't mean what it originally meant.

I notice you have ignored the other point about the RCC actively protecting criminals - do you agree with it doing so?

So, what you're saying is, "the Supreme Court disagreed with me." Perhaps they know better.

Obviously, I don't agree with anyone, including the RCC, protecting criminals and have said that throughout this thread. I've also encouraged those who suspect people of committing grave crimes (treason) to go to the Gardai about it. It's easy to talk about these matters but no good if people won't report crimes.

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2014 01:54PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So, what you're saying is, "the Supreme Court disagreed with me." Perhaps they know better.

Obviously, I don't agree with anyone, including the RCC, protecting criminals and have said that throughout this thread. I've also encouraged those who suspect people of committing grave crimes (treason) to go to the Gardai about it. It's easy to talk about these matters but no good if people won't report crimes.

I'll just have a look down the back of the sofa and see if I can come up with the funds to take legal action shall I?

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 01:54PM

robindch wrote: »

Well, allegations of collusion involving tens of thousands of RCC employees have been surfacing for close on twenty years now and so far, one employee has been prosecuted and convicted, and that that conviction has been overturned. Here in Ireland, stories of collusion abound in official reports amounting to tens of thousands of pages and the highest prelate himself has admitted that he colluded in hiding the activities of one of the worst abusers, Brendan Smyth, and so far as I'm aware all the Gardai have done is give him a cheery wave.

Are you seriously saying that this almost total lack of activity constitutes "investigation"?

Addressing your point directly. I support and will support any and all investigations into criminality at any time and in any part of the world. That convictions have not been forthcoming in some of the case you mentioned may be for a number of reasons.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 01:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'll just have a look down the back of the sofa and see if I can come up with the funds to take legal action shall I?

In the case of treason, all you must do is make a report to the Gardai. No legal fees required. Simply make a complaint as a citizen and the Gardai are duty bound to investigate.

If it's a case of a constitutional challenge to how the Dept of Education funds schools, as I say, in most cases where the matter being contested is of a national importance, the funds, even of the loosing party would normally be covered by the state. I'm sure there are some keen legal minds who might be looking to make a name for themselves who would assist.

robindch · 27-01-2014 02:26PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So, what you're saying is, "the Supreme Court disagreed with me." Perhaps they know better.

I'm not sure that you took the time to read my last post very carefully.

The SC interpreted the word "endow" as meaning something other than what "endow" means.

In this, I am demonstrating what you asked for - a case where the religious have been placed above state and constitutional law.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That convictions have not been forthcoming in some of the case you mentioned may be for a number of reasons.

An excuse worthy of the finest religious mind

Can you explain why Mr Brady, a qualified canon lawyer, who's admitted knowing exactly what crimes Brendan Smyth committed, has not been prosecuted? Or indeed, why Brady hasn't handed himself into police?

One would have thought that the national leader of an organization that keeps on banging on about morality would be interested in demonstrating that he has some moral doubts about colluding with child abusers.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I support and will support any and all investigations into criminality at any time and in any part of the world.

Do you think that Mr Brady should hand himself in to the Gardai?

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 02:40PM

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that you took the time to read my last post very carefully.

The SC interpreted the word "endow" as meaning something other than what "endow" means.

In this, I am demonstrating what you asked for - a case where the religious have been placed above state and constitutional law.

This seems awfully like "the Supreme Court of Ireland interpreted the legal definition of a word and it's meaning in the Irish Constitution. But I know better."

We cannot pick and choose Supreme Court decisions to our own choosing.

robindch wrote: »

An excuse worthy of the finest religious mind
Can you explain why Mr Brady, a qualified canon lawyer, who's admitted knowing exactly what crimes Brendan Smyth committed, has not been prosecuted? Or indeed, why Brady hasn't handed himself into police?

Perhaps he and the Gardai and PSNI beleive he has not committed a crime. If you beleive he has, you should report it to the Gardai and encourage them to pursue it.

robindch wrote: »

One would have thought that the national leader of an organization that keeps on banging on about morality would be interested in demonstrating that he has some moral doubts about colluding with child abusers.Do you think that Mr Brady should hand himself in to the Gardai?

I suspect the Gardai know where to find Dr Brady if they want to speak to him.

I personally think Brady should have resigned for his poor stewardship and becasue his link to Brendan Smyth (however weak) marked him out as a member of the "old guard". He's a bit like the Michael Martin of the Irish Church. I don't think, however that he has committed any crimes, it seems that he, the Gardai and the PSNI agree.

gaynorvader · 27-01-2014 02:43PM

I still have no idea what a Catholic is. "Probably follows some Christian teachings and may follow some of the tenets laid down by the RCC" is the best I can come up with, but that describes just about everyone on the planet.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 02:46PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

I still have no idea what a Catholic is. "Probably follows some Christian teachings and may follow some of the tenets laid down by the RCC" is the best I can come up with, but that describes just about everyone on the planet.

Welcome aboard so Gaynovader. There's plenty of room.

It's enough to declare oneself a catholic. God will sort it all out in the end.

gaynorvader · 27-01-2014 02:55PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Welcome aboard so Gaynovader. There's plenty of room.

It's enough to declare oneself a catholic. God will sort it all out in the end.

Why even bother? Everyone fits into my definition!

It also probably works for Muslims, Jews and any other religious denomination you care to mention

Cabaal · 27-01-2014 02:59PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why even bother? Everyone fits into my definition! It also probably works for Muslims, Jews and any other religious denomination you care to mention

deal breaker on some of those for alot of people is no bacon,
No bacon,
come on ffs!

robindch · 27-01-2014 03:00PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This seems awfully like "the Supreme Court of Ireland interpreted the legal definition of a word and it's meaning in the Irish Constitution. But I know better."

In this case, it seems that I do. For the reasons I've already outlined.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't think, however that he has committed any crimes, it seems that he, the Gardai and the PSNI agree.

So while you're not happy that Brady is a "member of the "old guard"", you've no problem with him colluding with a child abuser to protect the abuser from civil justice.

Gotcha.

That "I don't care" attitude on behalf of religious believers is whats' the core of the problem here.

gaynorvader · 27-01-2014 03:01PM

Cabaal wrote: »

deal breaker on some of those for alot of people is no bacon,
No bacon,
come on ffs!

Just don't follow that bit, it's fine! It's probably just metaphorical or something. Like stoning homosexuals to death and gagging women in church.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 03:06PM

robindch wrote: »

So while you're not happy that Brady is a "member of the "old guard"", you've no problem with him colluding with a child abuser to protect the abuser from civil justice.

Gotcha.

That "I don't care" attitude on behalf of religious believers is whats' the core of the problem here.

I think Brady should have resigned, not becasue he committed a crime or because he "colluded with a child abuser" but because he was SEEN by some as part of "the old guard." Wrongly in my view. Brady should have fallen on his sword. I suspect he may have offered to do this but was told by his boss in Rome to stay in situ (with a replacement in the wings).

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 03:16PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

Just don't follow that bit, it's fine! It's probably just metaphorical or something. Like stoning homosexuals to death and gagging women in church.

Yup

no-hope-no-cash-no-jobs-please-dont-die-bacon-funny-jokes.jpg

:pac:

robindch · 27-01-2014 03:32PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think Brady should have resigned, not becasue he committed a crime or because he "colluded with a child abuser" but because he was SEEN by some as part of "the old guard."

As above, that's my problem with this.

I'm not concerned with political optics here -- in this case, your concern that that some unidentified third party or parties might (presumably mistakenly) conclude that some guy may be a member of some imaginary group. That's an internal political matter for the institution and people concerned and irrelevant to the church's contempt for state law where it finds it inconvenient.

I do, however, think that colluding with a brutal child rapist so that he can continue child rape for years is (a) almost beyond belief and (b) a crime. But you disagree. Fair enough.

Thanks for the clarification.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 03:37PM

robindch wrote: »

I do, however, think that colluding with a brutal child rapist so that he can continue child rape for years is (a) almost beyond belief and (b) a crime. But you disagree. Fair enough.

Thanks for the clarification.

you can make Brady's dealing with the Smyth case sound as messed-up as you like (it's easily done, everything connected to the Smyth case is tragic and messed-up) but please present evidence that Brady colluded with Smyth with criminal intent.

Much better yet, please bring this evidence to the Gardai. Becasue making vague assertion on the internet isn't the same as bringing evidence to the Gardai.

robindch · 27-01-2014 04:06PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

[...] present evidence that Brady colluded with Smyth with criminal intent.

Brady knew exactly what Smyth was up to and he did what was necessary to silence his victims. Two years ago, he released the following statement in which he denied any responsibility for anything that Smyth subsequently did:

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2012/05/02/statement-cardinal-sean-brady-response-bbc-this-world-programme-entitled-the-shame-catholic-church/

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Much better yet, please bring this evidence to the Gardai. Becasue making vague assertion on the internet isn't the same as bringing evidence to the Gardai.

(a) You are free to bring this evidence to the Gardai yourself, though I rather doubt you will since you think he's done nothing wrong; (b) it's already been presented to the Gardai by victims (not by the Gardai themselves) and the resulting case is currently blocked in the High Court:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/siblings-suing-brady-must-prove-issue-on-previous-case-1.1568462

While I would like to see Brady convicted of his crimes, I doubt he'll appear in court and if he does, he's unlikely to be convicted of anything and certainly nothing before he resigns/finishes up later this year.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 04:16PM

robindch wrote: »

Brady knew exactly what Smyth was up to and he did what was necessary to silence his victims. Two years ago, he released the following statement in which he denied any responsibility for anything that Smyth subsequently did:

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2012/05/02/statement-cardinal-sean-brady-response-bbc-this-world-programme-entitled-the-shame-catholic-church/
(a) You are free to bring this evidence to the Gardai yourself, though I rather doubt you will since you think he's done nothing wrong; (b) it's already been presented to the Gardai by victims (not by the Gardai themselves) and the resulting case is currently blocked in the High Court:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/siblings-suing-brady-must-prove-issue-on-previous-case-1.1568462

While I would like to see Brady convicted of his crimes, I doubt he'll appear in court and if he does, he's unlikely to be convicted of anything and certainly nothing before he resigns/finishes up later this year.

So Brady is the subject of legal proceedings but the RCC is pretty much untouchable in Ireland right? Which one is it?

Are you sure that you're not letting your desire to see Brady being charged with something/anything convince you that he must be guilty of at least some "crimes".

robindch · 27-01-2014 04:33PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So Brady is the subject of legal proceedings but the RCC is pretty much untouchable in Ireland right?

Are you aware of the scale of child rape that went on in this country?

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments