lazygal wrote: » Maybe the issue is if you're financially reliant on and linked to your parents as a student you might not have a choice? Or the myriad other reasons people as adults live with their parents?
Absolam wrote: » Maybe the issue is there's too many people living with mammy and daddy?
SpaceTime wrote: » I think the census should really be filled in by each individual in private. There are too many distorting factors: 1. Mammy or Daddy fills it in and tells you what religion you are (you cheeky pup!) 2. Someone won't tell mammy or daddy that they're not Catholic/C of I etc 3. The enumerator is known to the household, especially in small towns but even in suburban areas. So they don't think 'no religion' or whatever as it might 'look weird'. As this stage you should be able to just complete the census online.
Username32 wrote: » I can just see you now-balaclava adorned, hammer in one hand and the AI manifesto in the other.. and an angel grinder in your boot.
Username32 wrote: » ...and an angel grinder in your boot.
Cabaal wrote: » What's next? They are going to start claiming that cribs at Christmas are just about tradition and the have no religious meaning?
lazygal wrote: » What is a cross a symbol of if not religion? Is it a lower case t or something?
Cabaal wrote: » So the big giant cross wasn't put in a mountain for religious reasons now? What's next? They are going to start claiming that cribs at Christmas are just about tradition and the have no religious meaning?
A statement entitled 'A View from the Top' on the video that was handed in to the Dublin offices of Journal.ie said: "148,000 children as young as four continue to be indoctrinated with a homophobic, sexist, sectarian dogma for at least 10pc of each school day. Non Catholic children, forced to attend these schools through lack of choice, are separated and excluded from their classmates for 'religious' reasons. Despite criticism from the UN Human Rights Commission, the Irish Government continues to fund and endorse this child abuse. If you agree with the reasons behind this act, then like and share this video." So far, it has been shared over 1,600 times. Hundreds more have expressed their opinion, for and against, on the site. But how many of these actually live there?
MICHAEL and Bernadette Foley can remember Sunday, May 29, 1977 clearly, as can most of their neighbours in Beaufort, Co Kerry. Michael, a member of the local community council, had been roped in with about 100 other volunteers for a special mission. Many of those who re-erected it have no particular religious conviction, if any. The cross wasn't put up as a religious symbol really, I don't think so anyway," Bernadette Foley added
It was made by Liebherr in Killarney and carried in sections by parishioners from Beaufort Community Council to the summit of the mountain 38 years ago.
jank wrote: » Indeed, Atheists telling Catholics they are not Catholics....
Pherekydes wrote: » Catholics seem to be unable to recognise this self-evident truth. Ticking catholic on the census does not make one a catholic.
lazygal wrote: » Can you be Catholic if you don't believe in God?
shruikan2553 wrote: » The mental gymnastics are impressive.
recedite wrote: » Tyranny of the majority when the cross goes back up, despite it not being an inclusive symbol. Veto of the minority if the (minority) objectors had the power of veto, which they don't. So its not a case of how you spin it. There is no veto. That's it. The tyranny of the majority was challenged by an individual, who chose to fell the cross in an act of defiance, which was an illegal act. Now the majority grouping have chosen to re-assert their symbol, knowing that it is not inclusive, and not everyone supports it, yet still happy to install it in that knowledge.
jank wrote: » Either way one can spin it as the tyranny of the majority or the veto of the minority.
Michael Nugent wrote: » Religious people have the right to offend atheists, and vice versa. And we completely support the right of religious people to say and do things that offend us. But there is a difference between being offensive on the one hand, and discriminating and denying rights on the other hand.... With regard to the cross on Carrauntoohil, we did not demand that anything should happen. We did not even initiate any comment on the matter. We were asked by the media what our opinion was on the matter, and we said that (a) the cross should not have been vandalised, and we hoped that the perpetrators are brought to justice; and (b) the local community who put up the cross in the 1950s, and replaced it in the 1970s, should consider replacing it now with a more inclusive symbol that everyone in the community can identify with... Some religious people seem to have interpreted that suggestion as (a) a demand instead of a request, and (b) an attempt to impose our beliefs on religious people, instead of an attempt to prevent religious beliefs being imposed on atheists, and to instead have no beliefs imposed on anybody who does not share them.
shruikan2553 wrote: » In short, immigration is a sign of tolerance when it suits you, doesnt count when it doesnt. Emigration from said countries is economical. Im not even going to waste my time with the rest.
jank wrote: » Where are you getting that 20% Brazilian figure from? Yes, it is one indicator. People from other places in the world can freely practice their religion or non religion if they want to in Ireland. You have not challenged this point directly but try and muddy the waters with unrelated points. Do you attribute Irish people leaving Ireland in numbers that are more do with religion or just plain ol-economic push and pull factors. I have meet many an Irish person in NZ and Australia (I am one myself) and no one has EVER mentioned religion as a push factor. Perhaps you should do some travel yourself and open up that mind. Thank you. Quick, there is an agenda somewhere waiting for you to comment on, you just don't know it yet. Your the one that mentioned Catholics that don't believe in god. If you are going to make such a weak argument that you cannot defend after one attempt, here is a tip. Use better arguments. That surrey also notes that African-Americans were more religious than white people, yet knew the least of all about religion. One could then form the view about African-Americans intelligence on this and knowledge on other matters. Careful what stats you post. They can be used to prove many different things. So are they both Muslims, my point proved. Maybe 'Catholics' have different interpretations of the bible and RCC teaching, yet they are still Catholic, hence my point.
shruikan2553 wrote: » Migration is an indicator of how tolerant a country is towards other religions? You must think United Arab Emirates is more tolerant then Ireland going by those statistics. I'll give you a chance to backtrack before I use more statistics like more Irish people are leaving than returning and 20% of immigrants were from Brazil, which happens to have Catholicism as the majority religion too.
The UN looks to be a bit past puberty. Well done trying to get a dig in at someone by use that, its below the kind of crap most trolls would come out with. You really outdid yourself there. Whenever everyone is omnipresent and all knowing the second part may hold true. Until that time someone cant hold an opinion on something until they know about it.
Most believe in a God of some sort? You have just proven my point. In Catholicism there is one true god. A Catholic believing in Allah or Thor must get a bit confused.
It goes into the whole cultural Catholic thing. Most atheists in Ireland started off as being Catholics, many learnt what Catholicism was about and then decided it wasn't for them. It is a US link but backs up what I said.http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/
They both follow the quran, just different interpretations.
Michael Nugent wrote: » No, I would see those as part of our historical heritage. I don't see a plain cross erected in 1976 as falling into that category.
Michael Nugent wrote: » That question is more complicated than it seems. As far as I understand from ambiguous descriptions to date, the land is commonage, which means that it is jointly owned by several farmers whose animals graze there. The extent of the farmers rights with regards to building, as opposed to grazing, has not been clarified. But even granting them the strongest property rights, they would still require planning permission to erect a structure like that. In 2011 Mayo Council decided that Joe McNamara's Achill-henge structure, which was also built on commonage, required planning permission, and the Council's decision was upheld by the High Court and An Bord Pleanala. Kerry County Council has said the erection of the cross was exempt from planning permission, but did not say why, and this opinion does not seem to be supported by the planning acts. Mountaineering Ireland said that, in their opinion, whether the reinstatement requires planning permission or not is unclear.
Michael Nugent wrote: » Just for accuracy, some Atheist Ireland members were aware of it (such as those living in Kerry, or those interested in mountaineering), but that specific cross had not arisen as a specific policy issue within Atheist Ireland.
Michael Nugent wrote: » The cross, by the way, is accepted not "by the local community" but by "most of the local community".
Michael Nugent wrote: » I can see how some people could do this if they looked only at what you have outlined, and did not also look at what we have actually said.
Michael Nugent wrote: » Mountaineering Ireland took what I consider to be a strange position. They said that if the cross had never been there Mountaineering Ireland would be absolutely opposed to it being erected; that Mountaineering Ireland has opposed a number of developments in the Irish mountains in recent times; that whether the reinstatement requires planning permission or not is unclear but Mountaineering Ireland will not object to it. The vast majority of the local community may well favour its reinstatement, but that is at the core of our concern about the issue. Questions of religion or atheism should not be addressed by community or mountaineering groups, precisely because a majority position fails to reflect the inclusive nature of a community.
Michael Nugent wrote: » Of course, there was already a powerful symbol of nature there in the first place, which was the unspoilt peak of Ireland's highest mountain. .
Username32 wrote: » I don't agree with your logic here. Most religious people believe in evolution, in fact I would say all Catholics do. Creating that kind of distinction of interpretation (between the evolution believing atheist as apposed to the Grand designer view of people of religion) could cause further animosity between atheists and theists. Furthermore as an atheist I have no wish to worship the theory of evolution or create symbolism around it. I find that kind of pseudo religious thinking around scientific theory a bit disturbing tbh.
Michael Nugent wrote: » My personal suggestion would be a symbol of nature, or of the universe, that religious people could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as created by their god, and that atheists could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as naturally evolved.
lazybones32 wrote: » Existing on top of Carr.? You must have balls of steel.
swampgas wrote: » What about: Ireland isn't 100% Catholic, it has lots of other beliefs too - live with it ?
