A chance to scrap the Angelus - Nutella, Croissants and Pineapples.

Absolam wrote: »

Obviously not... but then, what I actually said was the point you were responding to was "The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means."

Your point is not the same point as that you quoted, hence not the point I responded to.

Absolam wrote: »

It is a profession of the Christian faith. Do you think that should make a difference to whether a Catholic should need to accept it, if the Catholic Church doesn't say a Catholic needs to?

How can it be a profession of faith if catholics don't actually need to profess it?

SpaceTime wrote: »

We actually don't have any non Christian ethos secondary schools unless maybe the grind schools until educate together comes on stream there are no mainstream ones. They're all coming from more or less the same place mostly Catholic of various strengths of involvement in day to day management or small number of Protestant schools. None of the Christian churches are particularly good at gat rights. The church of Ireland has recently become a lot more progressive but it's still pretty muchom the fence on the issue.

Well, we were talking about Catholic schools, not Christian ones, but how many Protestant schools are more on the fence than the Catholic ones I've mentioned? Is there a reason to think they're likely to suddenly start condoning homophobic bullying?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm glad to see those schools mentioned above have good policies but it's still just a bit odd that the church comes out with one thing yet then claims to be all tolerant in the next breath.

Is there any reason at all to think your idea of oddness will lead to any schools becoming more tolerant of homophobic bullying?

SpaceTime wrote: »

You really wouldn't know where you stood with them.

Well... you could go by their stated policies on homophobic bullying. That should give you a reasonable idea of where you stand with them, surely?

SpaceTime wrote: »

A lot of church tolerance at official level is "tolerance" too not acceptance. There's an awful lot of "hate the sin love the sinner" type stuff which is pretty hurtful to people who are LGBT.

Regardless of how hurtful the Church's stance is (or is perceived to be), it's pretty obviously not translating into Catholic schools failing to deal with homophobic bullying if their policies are anything to go on though, is it?

SpaceTime wrote: »

All I'm saying is it's just a very two faced position the organisation takes. How can you be on the one hand quote openly and officially anti-gay and on the other supportive of gay students ?Doesn't make sense.

That wasn't what you were saying, you were saying that 90% of our schools are run by an organisation that has a fundamental problem with gay people and particularly gay parents, and it'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with homophobic bullying. As if they're suddenly going to change how the'll deal with homophobic bullying for some reason?
Anyways, perhaps it doesn't make sense because you haven't looked at what these organisations do from their point of view? Or considered that perhaps your perspective on their position doesn't accurately reflect their position.
For instance compare your idea that the Church is 'officially anti-gay' with the Church position that you yourself have pointed out 'hate the sin love the sinner'. That doesn't sound like an official anti-gay position, does it? More an officially anti gay-act position. I appreciate the nuances may not lend themselves to the picture you're tying to paint, but case in point; homophobic bullying. Pope Benedict is on record as saying "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs... The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law." Now I don't think the Pope is the worlds greatest supporter of Gay Rights (far, far, from it in fact), but as far as homophobic bullying goes, it appears that Catholic school policies are in line with the head of the Church's thinking on the subject, so where does a concern for how how they'll deal with homophobic bullying suddenly arise?
You're trying to shoehorn the Church's position on homosexuality (or, to be more accurate, your perception of the Church's position on homosexuality) into the potential actions of schools under Catholic patronage, and immediately finding yourself at odds with how those schools are demonstrably behaving right now. The fact that that is not making sense to you may not be because the Church is being two faced; it may be because you haven't accurately expressed the Church's position, it may be because you're not considering the amount of influence the Church imposes on Catholic school boards, it may be because you're ascribing motivations to Catholic schools without considering the more immediate motivations they have as schools in the Irish State.
But so far, it seems that the position of both the Catholic Church and of Catholic schools is to oppose homophobic bullying, regardless of how 'officially anti-gay' you think they are....

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your point is not the same point as that you quoted, hence not the point I responded to.

Is there a reason my point should be the same point as the one I quoted? That seems more than a little redundant.
Let's see if we can get you back on track.
Nicolas Cage said:

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I think Huntergonzo's point was that if they were in any way honest with themselves, they wouldn't call themselves catholics

Then Peregrinus said:

Peregrinus wrote: »

The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means. More to the point, that's not what the Catholic church thinks, or says, that "Catholic" means.

Then you said:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This discussion has come up many times before, always ending on essentially the same point - if "Catholic" can mean anything to anyone then it means nothing to everyone.

(I've left out the bit about Vatican documents because I think I answered that for you).
Then I said:

Absolam wrote: »

Which does nothing to refute the point that if 84% of the population say they're Catholic, then 84% of the population say they're Catholic. If some people think they're not Catholic enough, and some think their reasons for being Catholic aren't good enough, it doesn't change the fact... 84% of the population say they're Catholic. Whatever that means to them it has sufficiently substantial meaning in their eyes for them to choose that description rather than any other.

Now that's when you said:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is just a tautology and also not the point I was responding to.

Which led me to say:

Absolam wrote: »

Just because it's a tautology doesn't make it not true.
The point you responded to was "The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means. More to the point, that's not what the Catholic church thinks, or says, that "Catholic" means." So, if 84% of respondants felt that being Catholic meant something different to them than it does to you, it doesn't negate the fact that they identify themselves as Catholic, regardless of whether you think they deserve to, or should, be considered Catholics.

So, back then I placed the point you responded to in quotes, so you'd see that was what I was talking about when I said 'the point you responded to was'. This time I've bolded it too, because from your next post I suspect you didn't quite get that?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Absolam wrote: »

it doesn't negate the fact that they identify themselves as Catholic

Still not the point I was responding to.

Now, I did try to help you by pointing out

Absolam wrote: »

Obviously not... but then, what I actually said was the point you were responding to was "The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means."

So, I think it ought to have been obvious that my point was a response to your response to the point you responded to, rather than a reiteration of the point you responded to, but maybe it wasn't sufficiently obvious. Hopefully it is now?

TLDR In short; regardless of your opinion that the word Catholic means nothing to everyone if it can mean anything to anyone, it means enough to the people who choose to be identified by it to set it down on paper in a State document, rather than setting down nothing, so it apparently means more than nothing to 84% of the population.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can it be a profession of faith if catholics don't actually need to profess it?

Because a profession of faith (or a profession of anything really) doesn't necessarily require anyone else to make it, in order for it to still be a profession of faith.
If every Catholic, or every Christian, doesn't profess it, how is it not a profession of faith?
My friend just professed a love for marshmallows. If I don't profess it too, is it no longer a profession of love for marshmallows? Must all lovers of marshmallows make the same profession, or may they choose their own profession instead? What if they make declarations, will that invalidate my friends profession?

Skrynesaver

frostyjacks wrote: »

As already mentioned, it's not the Catholic call to prayer. It's a moment of reflection. I'm not sure what the intentions are with those looking to scrap it, but I'm curious as to why such a short, harmless broadcast provokes so much bile in people.

As may have been mentioned earlier, it's effectively a territory marking exercise letting the rest of us know that "This is a Catholic country boy".

The use of the state broadcaster to intone a sectarian call to prayer (and saying it's not a Catholic call to prayer is, at best, self-deception) is something I find oppressive when working in Islamic countries, but at least they have the honesty to declare themselves theocracies.

So, given that we're not a theocracy, would it be too much to ask that the Angelus bells be restricted to being played in every parish in the country from the steeple?

Peregrinus

No. It's a form of call to prayer which emerges from the Catholic tradition, which is of course the most visible tradition in Ireland. But if other religions experience it as "sectarian", now would be a good time to link us to examples of their representatives saying so. Most religious traditions generally think prayer is a good thing, and calls to prayer are a good thing, and they don't object to calls to prayer, or consider them "sectarian", on the basis that they're not their calls to prayer.

If there's any territory-marking going on here, would it not be secularists demanding that a public broadcaster not be permitted to give air-time to the express of positions which are not secular?

Absolam wrote: »

TLDR In short; regardless of your opinion that the word Catholic means nothing to everyone if it can mean anything to anyone, it means enough to the people who choose to be identified by it to set it down on paper in a State document, rather than setting down nothing, so it apparently means more than nothing to 84% of the population.

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. It is, in fact, a strawman (of Peregrinus' point) used to try and counter my point to him. Is every discussion with you going to be as pointless as this?

Absolam wrote: »

Because a profession of faith (or a profession of anything really) doesn't necessarily require anyone else to make it, in order for it to still be a profession of faith.

Then what is it for?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. It is, in fact, a strawman (of Peregrinus' point) used to try and counter my point to him. Is every discussion with you going to be as pointless as this?

Not at all; if the word Catholic means something to anyone, and it evidently does or they would not choose to be described by it, then it does not mean nothing to everyone. Contrary to the point you were making.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then what is it for?

Must it be for something?

Absolam wrote: »

Not at all; if the word Catholic means something to anyone, and it evidently does or they would not choose to be described by it, then it does not mean nothing to everyone.

If a label is being used by a group of people who all are using unique definitions of tha label in their personal application then that label has no meaning to the group as a whole or anyone else (i.e. to everyone).

Absolam wrote: »

Contrary to the point you were making.

Yes, this post is contrary to my original point, unlike your first post which was a different point and a (redundant) strawman: "Which does nothing to refute the point that if 84% of the population say they're Catholic, then 84% of the population say they're Catholic."

Absolam wrote: »

Must it be for something?

Yes. What is it for? Who is for? Who is supposed to profess it? Who is the "I" in the "I believe" at the start of the creed?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If a label is being used by a group of people who all are using unique definitions of tha label in their personal application then that label has no meaning to the group as a whole or anyone else (i.e. to everyone).

Why not? Is there a reason to imagine that any substantial proportion of those people are going to claim that the others cannot use the term to describe themselves? We've already established that the description has meaning to each of them individually, so if they don't object to each other using the same description of their faith position, I don't think anyone else can reasonably claim that it has insufficiently shared meaning to them all to allow them to be described as they've chosen to be described.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, this post is contrary to my original point, unlike your first post which was a different point and a (redundant) strawman: "Which does nothing to refute the point that if 84% of the population say they're Catholic, then 84% of the population say they're Catholic."

Oh I see! You missed that the 84% of the population who say they're Catholics feel that the word means something to them or they wouldn't be describing themselves in such a fashion, which demonstrates that the word certainly does not mean nothing to everyone.
Ah well, we got there in the end eh?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes. What is it for? Who is for? Who is supposed to profess it? Who is the "I" in the "I believe" at the start of the creed?

Why must it be for something?
In what way does any of that matter?

PopePalpatine

I see we've descended into semantic arguments again?

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I see we've descended into semantic arguments again?

Are you really surprised given the "arguments" being parsed and analysed?

Absolam wrote: »

Well it would certainly indicate that there were Catholics before there were Catholic schools, so with regards to the correlation you offered, it's likely you're getting it backwards; the reason there are so many Catholic schools in Ireland is likely to be that there are so many Catholics. 84% of the population apparently. Whether or not they need omnipotent sky fairies is probably up to them, but I've never met anyone who said they did, have you?
Who said that? I don't think anyone said that.. certainly no one is saying that 7.6% of cultural programming shouldn't reflect the interests of those who indicate no religious belief. But if you think 7.6% should dictate to 84% in a democratic society, you'll probably find more than just Catholics express their disdain for the notion just as you've described.

Maybe. But shouldn't it also be there to ensure a minority can't dictate to the majority?
I think that's just not true.
First of all Catholics don't have a right to hear it; RTE broadcasts it because according to it's research a majority of its viewers want to hear it.
Nor has RTE (or anyone else) forbidden the call to prayer for other faiths being broadcast, but at 1% of the population, I can't see the Muslim call to prayer warranting a daily feature, can you?
As for atheists; what do you think would be a reasonable representation?
If 84% warrants sixty seconds a day, 7.6% (to include agnostics and unspecifieds as well) warrants about five and a half seconds. What would you like to do with it?

I'm sure you did the right thing and immediately reported your mammy to the appropriate authorities.

I'm pretty sure I'm not. For a start, if I was aware of a pedophile priest engaging in illegal activities (even if I found out later) I would report him to the appropriate authorities. Further, I've never donated money to the Catholic Church, though if I had I don't think I'd feel funding the positive aspects of an organisation made me complicit in it's negative aspects.

Big shot eh? I feel positively flushed with praise
Is it threatening to point out someones obligations? Be honest, did you feel even the tiniest frisson of fear, for even a moment, that your anonymous post on the internet would lead to your mammy being arrested for falsifying your census return? I doubt it... but hyperbole is a tool heavily favoured by those trying to make a point seem more than it is, so I don't expect any less from certain quarters.

I come back after 2 days and I see you've just posted up the same old tired nonsense again and if I attempt to reason with you all you'll do it post up the same old nonsense another time, this is pretty boring to be honest.

When it comes to rights I don't believe the majority should get preferential treatment, apparently you do but you deny that and dress it in a completely different fashion.

84%, obsessed with 84%, which further proves my above point that you believe the majority have a right to preferential treatment. Also no, I don't think the majority should bend to any minority, that's why I'm calling for neutrality rather then calling for all sorts of other calls to prayer and atheists opinions before the 6.01 news, that I have already expressed and won't be covering again with you.

I await the denials and 84%s but I'm not going over old ground with you, if you have anything new or interesting to add then fire ahead, otherwise this is a waste of time.

How is this tv & radio broadcast giving me preferential treatment? Treatment to what end? If it's placing Catholicism above other religions, how come they haven't objected all these years?

frostyjacks wrote: »

How is this tv & radio broadcast giving me preferential treatment? Treatment to what end? If it's placing Catholicism above other religions, how come they haven't objected all these years?

Haha how is a catholic call to prayer giving preferential treatment to catholics? get a chalkboard and some chalk and I'll try explaining this to you

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha how is a catholic call to prayer giving preferential treatment to catholics? get a chalkboard and some chalk and I'll try explaining this to you

Telling me here is fine. How am I getting preferential treatment, and who am I being preferred over?

frostyjacks wrote: »

Telling me here is fine. How am I getting preferential treatment, and who am I being preferred over?

You're not going to accept any explanation, I know exactly how this will go if I try to explain the obvious to you and I just don't have the interest to go around in circles with you at this point to be honest.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You're not going to accept any explanation, I know exactly how this will go if I try to explain the obvious to you and I just don't have the interest to go around in circles with you at this point to be honest.

Lol...great answer. If you can't back up what you're posting, you shouldn't post it in the first place.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Lol...great answer. If you can't back up what you're posting, you shouldn't post it in the first place.

You won't bait me into a boring discussion, that was a poor effort, but feel free to try you want. If you want to know my views on the angelus read some of my earlier posts on this thread where I explain my position and come back to me if you have something new or interesting, otherwise I'm just not interested.

Or don't, I couldn't give a monkeys what you do :-)

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I come back after 2 days and I see you've just posted up the same old tired nonsense again and if I attempt to reason with you all you'll do it post up the same old nonsense another time, this is pretty boring to be honest.

Is there something I repeated? Pretty sure the post you just quoted was the first time:
1) I asked you if you had ever met someone who told you they needed omnipotent sky fairies.
2) I pointed out that no one appears to have said " we're the catholic majority, so you can fcuk off."
3) I pointed out that thinking 7.6% should dictate to 84% in a democratic society is probably not going to be a popular notion.
4) I asked you if the State should be there to ensure a minority can't dictate to the majority.
5) I pointed out that contrary to you assertion Catholics don't have a right to hear their call to prayer.
6) Asked you what you would like to do with the five and a half seconds of airtime atheism warrants based on the sixty seconds airtime Catholicism gets.
7) I kindly answered your question about complicity in illegal activities.
8) I asked to you what degree were you actually put in fear by my post.

Now all of these I would suggest are new points, so they're really not the same old tired nonsense again. Feel free to reason with them....

Huntergonzo wrote: »

When it comes to rights I don't believe the majority should get preferential treatment, apparently you do but you deny that and dress it in a completely different fashion.

Apparently I do? I don't, and I never indicated I do. I do believe decisions in a democracy are carried by majority; that's got nothing to do with religion, it's the social system we've chosen. And I have pointed out that proportional treatment with regards to cultural programming means that atheist programming should get five and a half seconds for every sixty seconds of Catholic programming; if you're prepared to agree that that is not 'the same old tired nonsense again' maybe you could consider what that programming should look like?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

84%, obsessed with 84%, which further proves my above point that you believe the majority have a right to preferential treatment. Also no, I don't think the majority should bend to any minority, that's why I'm calling for neutrality rather then calling for all sorts of other calls to prayer and atheists opinions before the 6.01 news, that I have already expressed and won't be covering again with you.

No, as I've shown, not preferential treatment. I personally agree equal treatment is fine; the one hundred hours reflecting the full diversity of religious belief and practice in Ireland that RTE apparently broadcasts every year should certainly include seven hours and twelve minutes reflecting non religious belief and practice.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I await the denials and 84%s but I'm not going over old ground with you, if you have anything new or interesting to add then fire ahead, otherwise this is a waste of time.

Sure... how about points one to eight above as a starter?

Absolam wrote: »

Why not?

Because then the label stops being a label. Imagine a shelf full of tins, each tin labelled with a piece of paper which reads "Baked Beans". If each tin was not labelled based on actual content, but based on how someone felt about the content, or how someone felt about the label itself, then the label is useless as it doesn't tell anyone else about what's in the tin.

Absolam wrote: »

You missed that the 84% of the population who say they're Catholics feel that the word means something to them or they wouldn't be describing themselves in such a fashion, which demonstrates that the word certainly does not mean nothing to everyone

If this was your point you should have made it in the first place, instead of saying (paraphrasing) "84% said something, therefore 84% said something".
And it does mean nothing to everyone, according to my tin of beans analogy above.

Absolam wrote: »

Why must it be for something?
In what way does any of that matter?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I see we've descended into semantic arguments again?

lazygal wrote: »

Are you really surprised given the "arguments" being parsed and analysed?

Do you not see what has happened though? Absolam is resorting to the dumbest of semantic arguments (asking someone the relevance of a reference he himself brought in) because that reference he himself brought in completely undermines his position.

He quoted the Nicene Creed, which (like the Apostles Creed which is read out in mass) is a declaration of faith used by the church, i.e. a list of things that the followers declare faith in. And not just any declaration, but one which says they believe in God, Jesus his Son, the Holy Spirit, Virgin Mary, The Resurrection, Pontius Pilate, Revelations.

In trying to derail a discussion on what a catholic is supposed to be, he accidentally answered the question with unassailable proof! A direct official RCC document, recited every mass!
It.
Is.
Glorious!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because then the label stops being a label. Imagine a shelf full of tins, each tin labelled with a piece of paper which reads "Baked Beans". If each tin was not labelled based on actual content, but based on how someone felt about the content, or how someone felt about the label itself, then the label is useless as it doesn't tell anyone else about what's in the tin.

But they're not tins of baked beans, they're people. Unlike tins of baked beans, regardless of the label you put on them they are capable of describing themselves. You can believe they're describing themselves incorrectly. You can even believe their description is meaningless. But they don't believe it's meaningless, and it is ultimately their choice. You might lobby the CSO to have them allow you to decide how peoples religious choice should be described for them, but I don't think many people would want you to take it on, especially if you're going to tell them they're not what they say they are.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If this was your point you should have made it in the first place, instead of saying (paraphrasing) "84% said something, therefore 84% said something".

Well, you got there in the end so I guess that's what counts.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And it does mean nothing to everyone, according to my tin of beans analogy above.

Nope, it may mean nothing to you, but it does mean something to the people describing themselves. And even the Heinz of your example isn't going to say the description they choose is inaccurate... as far it's concerned all of those tins of baked beans are tins of baked beans, regardless of whether you think they're the right kinds, or even the same kinds, of beans or not.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you not see what has happened though? Absolam is resorting to the dumbest of semantic arguments (asking someone the relevance of a reference he himself brought in) because that reference he himself brought in completely undermines his position.

Well no, not really. I'm not arguing the semantics of your question; you're asking me to provide an analysis of the Nicene Creed without providing me a reason for doing so, and I'm trying to understand from you why you're doing so.
Or, as you put it, I'm not questioning the relevance of the reference I brought in; I already demonstrated it's relevance to the question you asked. I am, however, questioning the relevance of your questions about the content and purpose of a document beyond the reference I made to it. I'm quite happy to discuss my own reference, which was that Catholic is one of the four marks of the Church set out in the Nicene Creed; not, you'll notice, that professing the Nicene Creed is a requisite of being Catholic, which is what you appear to be trying to infer was the purpose of my reference (I say appear, because you're not being terribly forthcoming with your answers).
Would taking the reference I offered and trying to make it appear to be a different argument so that you can refute it, be something that you would consider strawmanning by any chance?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

He quoted the Nicene Creed, which (like the Apostles Creed which is read out in mass) is a declaration of faith used by the church, i.e. a list of things that the followers declare faith in. And not just any declaration, but one which says they believe in God, Jesus his Son, the Holy Spirit, Virgin Mary, The Resurrection, Pontius Pilate, Revelations.

I didn't actually quote the Nicene Creed, I quoted the Catechism, but I linked the Nicene Creed for you. Regardless, I don't think the fact that I linked it (or even if I had quoted it) puts me under any obligation to analyse it on your behalf, does it?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In trying to derail a discussion on what a catholic is supposed to be, he accidentally answered the question with unassailable proof! A direct official RCC document, recited every mass!
It.
Is.
Glorious!

So... you asked for an actual papal decree or official vatican document of what the catholic church says "catholic" means.
I provided an answer; including a link to an official vatican document which specifically includes the Catholic Church's answer to the question "What does Catholic mean?".

How exactly is providing precisely what you asked for 'trying to derail a discussion on what a catholic is supposed to be'?

I will admit, the attempt to slide in 'a direct official RCC document, recited every mass!' as if the Nicene Creed document isn't actually a different one from the one recited in every Mass (remember, you yourself actually said it's the Apostles Creed; a direct official RCC document I haven't actually mentioned until now), and to pretend that this is unassailable proof of something unspecified, is certainly ballsy.
You also seem to have seamlessly transitioned from what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, to what a catholic is supposed to be, but we can probably take it that's because I provided you an answer to what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, and you didn't like it?

With regards to your triumphal assertion that the Nicene Creed, like the Apostles Creed is a declaration of faith used by the church, i.e. a list of things that the followers declare faith in, can I draw your attention to the difference between:
'a list of things that the followers declare faith in'
and
'a list of things that Catholics are required to declare faith in in order to be Catholics'
Whilst the Nicene Creed, like the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed is an example of the former, none of these are examples of the latter.
Since we were discussing what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, and not what Catholics can do in church, I think the 2nd list would be a tad more relevant than the 1st? I don't know if
It.
Would.
Be.
Glorious!
but it would be relevant.....

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

As already mentioned, it's not the Catholic call to prayer. It's a moment of reflection. I'm not sure what the intentions are with those looking to scrap it, but I'm curious as to why such a short, harmless broadcast provokes so much bile in people.

No, it's a Catholic thing. Thats clear from its very name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus