Will you eat meat tomorrow

Kiwi in IE · 06-03-2014 04:24PM

green_screen wrote: »

Again, how about respecting people?

I don't agree with my mother's opinions on the economy, politics or religion, but I respect my mother, aand she respects me, so I refrain from acting like a dick.

Basic respect isn't too difficult. You can disagree with a belief or opinion without ridiculing somebody.

The idea or 'live and let live' is the ideal when it comes to different beliefs. However reality is very, very different.

Why is my child told that the beliefs of others which I find ridiculous, are factual/important/significant, not just to the adherants of that religion, but to everyone? He is told these things regularly in the state funded education system.

Why is abortion illegal?

Why is marriage not an option for gay couples?

Why was contraception illegal until 1980?

Why was divorce illegal until 1997?

The best way for religious people to have their religion, and the beliefs associated with it respected, is to firstly realise that the doctrines and rituals of their religion have no importance or significance to those who are not religious, and secondly, to campaign for a secular society where everyone truly is respected. There is little value in demanding respect for your religion/religious beliefs, while the religious institution you belong to is allowed special privileges in society at the expense of those who are of a different religion or none. It's not going to happen and frankly, it is not deserved. For so long as ridiculous religious ideas continue to intrude into my life, and actually or potentially interfere with my rights, I will ridicule them!

Sure whether or not people eat meat on any particular day is of no consequence. However my son came home from school yesterday with his chocolate brownie still in his lunchbox because he wasn't sure if he was allowed to eat it with all the talk of lent/ashes/giving up sweets etc. Not a hugely big deal either in the scheme of things (he dug into it the minute he got in the car after checking with me that he was allowed to eat chocolate that day) but still a ridiculous religious idea imposed on my 5 year old which was unwelcome and caused him unnecessary uncertainty.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 04:27PM

papu wrote: »

Does that make you liable?

All things aside , I don't know how this went from eating meat to mass genocide :rolleyes:

It didn't. My post actually said that hating the Catholic Church for historic actions was as illogical as hating the Germans for historic actions.
Once again, though, you can't resist being a drama llama.

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 04:28PM

Tasden wrote: »

Well I know you weren't addressing me, but specifically today, my child- who is in no position to understand religion let alone decide whether to believe it or not- had to sit and colour during her school day rather than actually learn something while her friends were being indoctrinated, she will then have to be given an activity by myself for homework because the rest of her class are sent home with religion homework on Thursdays and as a result she has none. Not as big a deal as having my daughter being taken away or being hated for who I love obviously, but it affects my day and my child's education for at least one day a week every week when it has no place in our life. That's a pretty valid reason to be pissed tbh. And the local educate together was not a good school compared to the National school, so it was either she gets a lower standard of education all round or she puts up with the church imposing itself on her education, lesser of two evils but annoys a lot of people in this country.

You chose to send your child to a school with a religous ethos, and now you think the school should drop its ereligous ethos to suit your family? Can you not see how unreasonable that is?

BobbyPropane · 06-03-2014 04:29PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The idea or 'live and let live' is the ideal when it comes to different beliefs. However reality is very, very different.

Why is my child told that the beliefs of others which I find ridiculous, are factual/important/significant, not just to the adherants of that religion, but to everyone? He is told these things regularly in the state funded education system.

Why is abortion illegal?

Why is marriage not an option for gay couples?

Why was contraception illegal until 1980?

Why was divorce illegal until 1997?

The best way for religious people to have their religion, and the beliefs associated with it respected, is to firstly realise that the doctrines and rituals of their religion have no importance or significance to those who are not religious, and secondly, to campaign for a secular society where everyone truly is respected. There is little value in demanding respect for your religion/religious beliefs, while the religious institution you belong to is allowed special privileges in society at the expense of those who are of a different religion or none. It's not going to happen and frankly, it is not deserved. For so long as ridiculous religious ideas continue to intrude into my life, and actually or potentially interfere with my rights, I will ridicule them!

Sure whether or not people eat meat on any particular day is of no consequence. However my son came home from school yesterday with his chocolate brownie still in his lunchbox because he wasn't sure if he was allowed to eat it with all the talk of lent/ashes/giving up sweets etc. Not a hugely big deal either in the scheme of things (he dug into it the minute he got in the car after checking with me that he was allowed to eat chocolate that day) but still a ridiculous religious idea imposed on my 5 year old which was unwelcome and caused him unnecessary uncertainty.

First off these things are slowly but surely becoming legalised/accepted but to answer your question as to why all of those things were illegal, well, that is sort of what the vast majority of people in this country wanted the laws to be. Sure people have changed now but you are forgetting that the people themselves wanted abortion to be illegal.

I'm not saying I agree with these views but it was the same case in other countries around the world as well.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:31PM

Melissa Mammoth Trademark wrote: »

By enlightened I meant that they don't treat people in these situations with a black and white cruelty, as they used to. Sex outside marriage and using contraception are against Catholic beliefs in accordance with how they interpret the bible. In the same way that certain actions are against the beliefs of other religions. That's not about being unenlightened. How you practice tolerance, acceptance of others outside your faith and forgiveness and support for those struggling with some aspects of their faith but still wanting to practice it are really how you show genuine christianity and enlightenment in my view. Chopping and changing the fundamental doctine of your religion to fit in with what society wants would be hypocritical. Accepting that there is a large section of that society who do not follow your faith and that those who try to follow it and fall are not 'bad' people is a different matter.

Opposing contraception in the 21st century is almost the definition of unenlightened thinking.

Allowing better access to contraception and education for women is probably the number one best chance that we have as a species of reducing poverty and improving the lives of the worlds poorest people.

Not to mention improving the lives of the women themselves who have been seen as second class citizens for thousands of years.

Tasden · 06-03-2014 04:33PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

You chose to send your child to a school with a religous ethos, and now you think the school should drop its ereligous ethos to suit your family? Can you not see how unreasonable that is?

The point is I shouldn't have to choose. That's the unreasonable part. The majority of schools in ireland have religious ethos, that's why people are pissed off. Religion should have NO place in education. And of course I chose a better school all round, I'm not going to let my child receive a bad education.

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 04:33PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah, Muslims oppose equal rights for gay people too

I haven't come across anyone who has campaigned against equal rights for Gay people who hasn't been arguing primarily from a religious perspective.

On Boards.ie or journal.ie or anywhere else you will find absolute atheists who dont think gay people should be allowed to marry, for many reasons, or adopt children for that matter, so you cant be looking very hard.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:35PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Millions and millions of people "listen" to them. Where on earth did you get the idea that nobody listens to them "anymore"? If you dont listen to them, thats your absolute perogative, but its quite clear that many many millions are listening.

Not in Ireland

Only 18% of Irish Catholics attend regular mass services.
In the 70s it was closer to 90%

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 04:35PM

Tasden wrote: »

The point is I shouldn't have to choose. That's the unreasonable part. The majority of schools in ireland have religious ethos, that's why people are pissed off. Religion should have NO place in education. And of course I chose a better school all round, I'm not going to let my child receive a bad education.

So you say religion should have no place in school, because i presume you think that the childrens time would be better spent doing maths or geography or a bit of French perhaps?
BTW, you say you shouldnt have to choose. The parents of the other children in your childs class chose to send them to the religous ethos school and they are seemingly happy for them to be "indoctrinated" as you put it.
So you are saying that you should be in a position to dictate the ethos of the whole school?

BobbyPropane · 06-03-2014 04:37PM

Tasden wrote: »

The point is I shouldn't have to choose. That's the unreasonable part. The majority of schools in ireland have religious ethos, that's why people are pissed off. Religion should have NO place in education. And of course I chose a better school all round, I'm not going to let my child receive a bad education.

You're forgetting your history. This country wouldn't have a good education system without the church. Most schools were founded and funded by religious institutions and priests who went out of their way to educate the people of this country despite discrimination.

We wouldn't nearly have as many schools are such a well established system without the church's help and believe it or not you can actually opt out of religious services in school as happened when I was growing up. Even in secondary school I was allowed to not partake in the yearly school mass if I wished to.

Oh and as for the problem regarding your child not taking part in that part of the class have you taught your son that there are different types of beliefs and faiths in the world and that she doesn't have to follow what the others believe in?

I Heart Internet · 06-03-2014 04:40PM

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

@ Akrasia,

Cheers for those posts. Really not arsed explaining to someone what logic is over and over again.

Religious beliefs by their vary nature are illogical and its a pointless discussion talking about this and is going off topic totally.

Nobody debates the logic of them not even religous debaters. its just pointless.

Person A doing something that they believe benefits them, in whatever way, is an entirely reasonable and logical thing for person A to do. It's really quite simple. Take religious belief out of it, Person A doing what makes them happy is entirely reasonable.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:40PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

On Boards.ie or journal.ie or anywhere else you will find absolute atheists who dont think gay people should be allowed to marry, for many reasons, or adopt children for that matter, so you cant be looking very hard.

Do you have any examples?

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 04:41PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Opposing contraception in the 21st century is almost the definition of unenlightened thinking.

Allowing better access to contraception and education for women is probably the number one best chance that we have as a species of reducing poverty and improving the lives of the worlds poorest people.

Not to mention improving the lives of the women themselves who have been seen as second class citizens for thousands of years.

They're not opposing it for everyone. They're saying it's against Catholic teaching to use it. Then it's up to people to make their own individual choices. What's the point of a religion that keeps saying yes, no, yes, no. It's either a tenet or it isn't. It's not imposed on everyone, it's just something you're expected to adhere to if you want to be a fully practicing Catholic.

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 04:42PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Not in Ireland

Only 18% of Irish Catholics attend regular mass services.
In the 70s it was closer to 90%

I thought you meant worldwide.
18% is still more than "nobody".
Unless you regard us as a group as nobodies.

Tasden · 06-03-2014 04:42PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So you say religion should have no place in school, because i presume you think that the childrens time would be better spent doing maths or geography or a bit of French perhaps?

An overview of all religions/spirituality/ morality whatever else- I wouldn't be opposed to actually. So I take back that "religion has no place". My issue is with one church being so involved in an education system. Indoctrination of one religion.

And no I'd like my child to be taught about the world she lives in in an objective and practical way-doesn't matter what subjects- I don't want her being told stories, that haven't been proven, as if they're fact.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:45PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So you say religion should have no place in school, because i presume you think that the childrens time would be better spent doing maths or geography or a bit of French perhaps?
BTW, you say you shouldnt have to choose. The parents of the other children in your childs class chose to send them to the religous ethos school and they are seemingly happy for them to be "indoctrinated" as you put it.
So you are saying that you should be in a position to dictate the ethos of the whole school?

Most of the parents I know say that far too much time is spent on religious education in primary schools. The pressure to spend time on religion is coming from the 'patrons' of the school, not the parents (guess who the 'patrons' of most of the irish schools are?)

BobbyPropane · 06-03-2014 04:45PM

Tasden wrote: »

An overview of all religions/spirituality/ morality whatever else- I wouldn't be opposed to actually. So I take back that "religion has no place". My issue is with one church being so involved in an education system. Indoctrination of one religion.

And no I'd like my child to be taught about the world she lives in in an objective and practical way-doesn't matter what subjects- I don't want her being told stories, that haven't been proven, as if they're fact.

Only 20 years ago most people in this country were staunch Catholics. It is only in recent times we have experienced change so you can't expect education to suddenly be taken over entirely by the government and away from the Church. The Church was the organisation to founded and funded many of the schools in this country and it is the main religion as well so it does make perfect sense that some schools still have a religious ethos.

Give it another 20 years and you will find many more secular schools

papu · 06-03-2014 04:48PM

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Only 20 years ago most people in this country were staunch Catholics. It is only in recent times we have experienced change so you can't expect education to suddenly be taken over entirely by the government and away from the Church. The Church was the organisation to founded and funded many of the schools in this country and it is the main religion as well so it does make perfect sense that some schools still have a religious ethos.

Give it another 20 years and you will find many more secular schools

The Church will and has held onto the schools and their foothold in the education system for as long as they can.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:49PM

Melissa Mammoth Trademark wrote: »

They're not opposing it for everyone. They're saying it's against Catholic teaching to use it. Then it's up to people to make their own individual choices. What's the point of a religion that keeps saying yes, no, yes, no. It's either a tenet or it isn't. It's not imposed on everyone, it's just something you're expected to adhere to if you want to be a fully practicing Catholic.

They did oppose it for everyone in Ireland. Up until 1980 it was illegal.

In Africa there are Archbishops of the RC Church making statements telling people not to use condoms because they actually increase the risk of getting aids
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/27/aids.international

No matter how you spin it, the church opposing contraception is totally unenlightened and archaic and I am absolutely delighted that the vast majority of catholics in Ireland now ignore this doctrine (along wth most of the rest of the church's teachings)

Tasden · 06-03-2014 04:51PM

BobbyPropane wrote: »

You're forgetting your history. This country wouldn't have a good education system without the church. Most schools were founded and funded by religious institutions and priests who went out of their way to educate the people of this country despite discrimination.

We wouldn't nearly have as many schools are such a well established system without the church's help and believe it or not you can actually opt out of religious services in school as happened when I was growing up. Even in secondary school I was allowed to not partake in the yearly school mass if I wished to.

Oh and as for the problem regarding your child not taking part in that part of the class have you taught your son that there are different types of beliefs and faiths in the world and that she doesn't have to follow what the others believe in?

Everything has developed through history though, does that mean I still agree with the methods previously used? No.

And she's catholic at the moment, she attends church of her own accord. Yet she also believe in reincarnation. We're discussing communion atm but she's still only 6 so she has time to decide herself if she wants to be baptised. But the problem is she only wants to be baptised because her school is telling her that's what everyone should be doing. I'm the one telling her that she has a choice in the matter. I'm the one bringing her to church even though I don't agree with its teachings.

BobbyPropane · 06-03-2014 04:52PM

papu wrote: »

The Church will and has held onto the schools and their foothold in the education system for as long as they can.

And the majority of people had no issue with it very recently. As I said change takes time.

I had absolutely no issues with going to both a religious primary and secondary school, this is from someone who has identified as agnostic since around 5th or 6th class.

In fact I am more than content with the level of education I received as well the social knowledge I gained.

It's difficult for me to understand the hate the church receives, it's almost as if people completely ignore the good that it has done

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 04:53PM

Akrasia wrote: »

They did oppose it for everyone in Ireland. Up until 1980 it was illegal.

In Africa there are Archbishops of the RC Church making statements telling people not to use condoms because they actually increase the risk of getting aids
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/27/aids.international

No matter how you spin it, the church opposing contraception is totally unenlightened and archaic and I am absolutely delighted that the vast majority of catholics in Ireland now ignore this doctrine (along wth most of the rest of the church's teachings)

That's over thirty years ago. That's why I'm saying things have changed. Where are the Church still 'opposing' contraception. I haven't seen them standing outside Chemist shops trying to stop people from going in, or lobbying the Govt to bring back a ban on selling it. They're simply re-iterating Catholic teaching for those who may be interested. Anyone who isn't is free to ignore it.

BobbyPropane · 06-03-2014 04:54PM

Tasden wrote: »

Everything has developed through history though, does that mean I still agree with the methods previously used? No.

And she's catholic at the moment, she attends church of her own accord. Yet she also believe in reincarnation. We're discussing communion atm but she's still only 6 so she has time to decide herself if she wants to be baptised. But the problem is she only wants to be baptised because her school is telling her that's what everyone should be doing. I'm the one telling her that she has a choice in the matter. I'm the one bringing her to church even though I don't agree with its teachings.

And things are developing now. As I said education will eventually be out of the hands of the church as we become a more diverse society in terms of beliefs.

Fair play for allowing your daughter to make her own decisions and supporting her beliefs though.

Tasden · 06-03-2014 04:55PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

BTW, you say you shouldnt have to choose. The parents of the other children in your childs class chose to send them to the religous ethos school and they are seemingly happy for them to be "indoctrinated" as you put it.
So you are saying that you should be in a position to dictate the ethos of the whole school?

Take away the necessity for the child to be baptised in order to be guaranteed a place and you would see a lot more parents opting out. But that's ifs and buts and "seeminglies" :pac:

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 04:57PM

Tasden wrote: »

Everything has developed through history though, does that mean I still agree with the methods previously used? No.

And she's catholic at the moment, she attends church of her own accord. Yet she also believe in reincarnation. We're discussing communion atm but she's still only 6 so she has time to decide herself if she wants to be baptised. But the problem is she only wants to be baptised because her school is telling her that's what everyone should be doing. I'm the one telling her that she has a choice in the matter. I'm the one bringing her to church even though I don't agree with its teachings.

But surely your issue is with the State for not providing sufficient choice? Not with the Catholic Church for still being involved in the schools they set up, ran, staffed, maintained and supported for many many years?

I Heart Internet · 06-03-2014 04:57PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I thought you meant worldwide.
18% is still more than "nobody".
Unless you regard us as a group as nobodies.

I made a point, backed up by evidence on another thread that over 1million people in Ireland (Republic) are at Mass every weekend. I didn't think that was a very controversial statement but it wasn't accepted by everyone.

The RCC currently has 1.2 Billion souls under its care around the world. The RCC has more priests than at any time in it's history. The RCC has a history unrivalled in longevity and ability to withstand the tests of time. I dare say, She will be around for some time yet

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:59PM

Melissa Mammoth Trademark wrote: »

That's over thirty years ago. That's why I'm saying things have changed. Where are the Church still 'opposing' contraception. I haven't seen them standing outside Chemist shops trying to stop people from going in, or lobbying the Govt to bring back a ban on selling it. They're simply re-iterating Catholic teaching for those who may be interested. Anyone who isn't is free to ignore it.

They don't want to get into any kind of public debate on contraception because the know that they haven't got a let to stand on and it would be a PR disaster for them

The church can't even argue against homosexuality based on religion anymore, they talk about 'tradition' and 'family' and 'the institution of marriage' but they rarely publically mention the religious aspect of why they're opposed to Gay marriage and this is because they know that there would be a public backlash.

Society has moved on for the better.

Tasden · 06-03-2014 05:00PM

BobbyPropane wrote: »

And things are developing now. As I said education will eventually be out of the hands of the church as we become a more diverse society in terms of beliefs.

Fair play for allowing your daughter to make her own decisions and supporting her beliefs though.

Hopefully you're right. And I wasn't trying to get into a debate about the church's place in education, just a poster asked why the hate and how is religion affecting people in their life, just ignore it if it bothers you kind of thing, I was just pointing out that that's where some hostility comes from and that a lot of people try to avoid religion and yet they can't when it comes to things as important as their child's education.

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 05:01PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Most of the parents I know say that far too much time is spent on religious education in primary schools. The pressure to spend time on religion is coming from the 'patrons' of the school, not the parents (guess who the 'patrons' of most of the irish schools are?)

But the poster says that even though so much time is "wasted" on religious teaching in this school, its still a better school than the educate together school down the road. How do you explain this?
Also, I dont know if you were educated in a religous school here in Ireland or not, but I was, and despite "wasting" so much time on RE, going to Mass, going to confession, May Procession, Corpus Christie Procession, Nuns funerals, choir practice, Devotions etc., my year still turned out many professionals including teachers doctors nurses solicitors accountants and a Minister for Education.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 05:03PM

Akrasia wrote: »

They don't want to get into any kind of public debate on contraception because the know that they haven't got a let to stand on and it would be a PR disaster for them

The church can't even argue against homosexuality based on religion anymore, they talk about 'tradition' and 'family' and 'the institution of marriage' but they rarely publically mention the religious aspect of why they're opposed to Gay marriage and this is because they know that there would be a public backlash.

Society has moved on for the better.

Or maybe, just maybe, they are trying to behave appropriately in an increasingly sectoral society and not cause offence to anyone whilst still adhering to the doctrine and religion they stand for and to explain, in sectoral language, why they would be opposed to same sex marriage.

Will you eat meat tomorrow

Comments