Catholic Ireland dead? Mod Warning in Post #563

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 2:57pm

Grey Wind wrote: »

It's stupid because you can't help being Irish or a man, and those categories are insanely broad. People choose to support an organisation guilty of the abhorrent things the Catholic Church has done - that's where the problem is.

You’re missing the point as to why the association is fallacious. I wouldn’t associate anyone who is innocent with someone else who has done wrong on the basis that they have characteristics in common. That’s what guilt by association is. You’re implying by the criteria you are using that someone supports the wrongdoings of others, solely by virtue of the fact that they have one thing in common.

Have you considered at all that being Catholic has nothing to do with any wrongdoing? In the same way as being a man has nothing to do with any wrongdoing committed by other men, or being Irish has nothing to do with wrongdoing committed by other people who are Irish?

The exercise is pointless anyway because people aren’t actually taking it seriously. It’s as easy as the current movement of morally superior types demonising anyone who disagrees with their ideology - accuse anyone who disagrees with them of immoral behaviour, or associate them with someone who has committed immoral behaviour on the basis that they are meat-eaters. It’s a fallacy of association.

In the same way, recent examples include attacks by Tusla on the Scouts, it’s an attempt to discredit the work of the Scouts - there were people who did use their authority within the Scouts to commit child abuse, but the Scouts who didn’t shouldn’t suffer for the crimes of the few who did. Same with the GAA - there are a minority of people within the organisation who used their authority to commit child abuse. It shouldn’t mean that the whole organisation or those who are members of the organisation should be accused of supporting child abuse.

The vast majority of people within the organisation whether it be the Church, the Scouts or the GAA are equally as horrified as anyone else that there are people within their own organisation who would abuse children, because that’s not why they associate themselves with the organisation, contrary to yours and other people’s beliefs.

The high horse brigade · 26-05-2019 2:58pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

But say you were involved or had children involved in the GAA or any other sporting organisation. As we know there has been plenty child sexual abuse in many of these organisations. If a person doesn't completely opt out then, does that mean by supporting the GAA, they support child abuse. Not in my book.

Did the GAA cover up and lie about it and move the perpetrators to another club to carry out the same deeds again on a fresh bunch of children? Did the GAA neglect and bury dead children in a septic tank?
There's a bit of a difference there

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 3:02pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Did the GAA cover up and lie about it and move the perpetrators to another club to carry out the same deeds again on a fresh bunch of children? Did the GAA neglect and bury dead children in a septic tank?

They might have done. They could be members of the Catholic Church and members of the GAA, so the same fallacious association would apply to both organisations.

There’s no difference there. It’s still a ridiculous association to make.

The high horse brigade · 26-05-2019 3:04pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They might have done. They could be members of the Catholic Church and members of the GAA, so the same fallacious association would apply to both organisations.

Whataboutery

The CC did those things so lets judge them on that

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 3:11pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Whataboutery

The CC did those things so lets judge them on that

No, the Catholic Church didn’t do those things.

People who committed those acts did those things. It suits your purposes to point out that they were members of the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church has never endorsed child abuse nor is it in any way part of Catholic doctrine.

Now you’re perfectly free to judge people as you see fit, but when you say “let’s judge them on that”, you’re associating me with your wish to judge people on the basis that they are Catholic, not whether or not they committed child abuse.

I’m not the person who assumes all Catholics are child abusers in the first place, as that would be ignoring the fact the vast majority of child abusers aren’t Catholic.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-05-2019 3:17pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the Catholic Church didn’t do those things.

People who committed those acts did those things. It suits your purposes to point out that they were members of the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church has never endorsed child abuse nor is it in any way part of Catholic doctrine.

Now you’re perfectly free to judge people as you see fit, but when you say “let’s judge them on that”, you’re associating me with your wish to judge people on the basis that they are Catholic, not whether or not they committed child abuse. I’m not the person who assumes all Catholics are child abusers in the first place, as that would be ignoring the vast majority of child abusers who aren’t Catholic.

By covering up abuse and moving abusers to other parishes to carry on thier abuse the RCC kinda did endorse it (unofficially of course).

lawred2 · 26-05-2019 3:21pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, isn’t it?

It’s exactly the same level of stupidity you engaged to try and make your point about the association you make between ordinary members of the Roman Catholic Church and people who have raped, murdered and abused children. I could also have said if you’re Irish you support the abuse, rape and murder of children. If you’re a man? Yup - guilty. Any other characteristics I can draw associations between you and people who abuse, rape and murder children makes you as guilty as them. Should be ashamed of yourself, yada yada :rolleyes:

Or, you could just acknowledge you were talking complete bollocks because your point just doesn’t make any sense.

False equivalence. You don't choose to be a man or be Irish or have brown hair.

You do actively choose to be a member of an organisation that has been proven to actively defend and protect rapists and paedophiles..

beejee · 26-05-2019 3:22pm

The replacement of a unifying identity by chaotic individualism (a la "I identify as a coconut") leaves us extremely susceptible to outside takeover/influence like never before.

Those praising the collapse are short sighted in the extreme. It's all very well if the entire world, simultaneously, undergoes something so transformative. But it isn't happening anywhere else outside the west (generally). That makes us weak, no matter how much you'd prefer an easy target over complex societal formation.

A random bunch of people with no common lynchpin believing anything they want, versus a unified, predatory vision from the likes of, say, China is nothing to celebrate.

The high horse brigade · 26-05-2019 3:23pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the Catholic Church didn’t do those things.

People who committed those acts did those things. It suits your purposes to point out that they were members of the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church has never endorsed child abuse nor is it in any way part of Catholic doctrine.

Now you’re perfectly free to judge people as you see fit, but when you say “let’s judge them on that”, you’re associating me with your wish to judge people on the basis that they are Catholic, not whether or not they committed child abuse. I’m not the person who assumes all Catholics are child abusers in the first place, as that would be ignoring the vast majority of child abusers who aren’t Catholic.

Hold on, I'll judge the church on the deeds of its leaders. It was the leaders of the CC who were complicit in the covering up and lying to protect abusers, moved the offender's to new parishes, sold babies and ordered the burying of dead babies without records.

paleoperson · 26-05-2019 3:27pm

lawred2 wrote: »

False equivalence. You don't choose to be a man or be Irish or have brown hair.

You do actively choose to be a member of an organisation that has been proven to actively defend and protect rapists and paedophiles..

But shur you could say that about almost any organization - GAA, teachers, swimming clubs, boy scouts and so on, almost any organization.

I think there's an irrational hatred of the Catholic Church that doesn't fit with the good things and the bad things they've done over the years. Some of the most awe-inspiring and valuable work done in Ireland has been done by the Catholic Church.

Mrsmum · 26-05-2019 3:28pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Did the GAA cover up and lie about it and move the perpetrators to another club to carry out the same deeds again on a fresh bunch of children? Did the GAA neglect and bury dead children in a septic tank?
There's a bit of a difference there

And I would say to you the people that covered up etc were as bad as those that did the deeds but really that doesn't mean everyone within the organisation is bad. Many people had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
At the time of the Gilette ad, I never saw as many men going nuts at being tarred with the same brush as nasty men of which there are enormous numbers . But they seem to have no problem themselves tarring everyone within the CC with the same brush. Seems double standards to me.

And again as for guilt by association, God forbid but if I had a child that ending up selling drugs. My heart would be broken but I can't imagine not still loving my child. That's wouldn't mean I condoned drug pushing and criminality. Life is way too complicated for black and white.

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 3:31pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

By covering up abuse and moving abusers to other parishes to carry on thier abuse the RCC kinda did endorse it (unofficially of course).

No, they didn’t, not even kinda, not even unofficially.

The people who covered for the abusers are entirely responsible for their actions, and the people who committed abuse are entirely responsible for their actions. Nobody else is responsible for their actions.

The people who committed the abuse and the people who covered for them represent approximately 4% of the members of the Catholic Church, which is no greater than the number of child abusers among the general population. We know for example that children are more likely to experience abuse within their own families than they are at the hands of strangers to them.

You’d also have to ignore the number of people who are still members of the RCC who have uncovered the abuse, came forward about their own abuse to expose abusers, etc. What you’re suggesting is that the victims of abuse were complicit in their own abuse.

(EDIT: I know that’s not your intent, but that’s the logical conclusion of your argument if you go down the “anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” line of argument)

The high horse brigade · 26-05-2019 3:33pm

The Sunday church attendances would say otherwise. Once upon a time you needed to avoid passing churches on a Sunday, now there are no hold ups.

The census is a loaded question, it assumes you must have a religion. It needs to be changed to "do you have a religion, yes/no?" and No Religion should be in the list.

Shefwedfan · 26-05-2019 3:42pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

The Sunday church attendances would say otherwise. Once upon a time you needed to avoid passing churches on a Sunday, now there are no hold ups.

The census is a loaded question, it assumes you must have a religion. It needs to be changed to "do you have a religion, yes/no?" and No Religion should be in the list.

How is it a loaded question?

If you dont want a religion then off you go. Who cares?

I dont understand why you think you can question other people because they want to believe in something? what exactly has it got to do with you?

The atheist and the vegan. Shoving it down everyone neck because everyone has to be on some crusade to rescue everyone else. They are the brighest because they don't believe in God, blah blah blah. Just get on with your own life....go to mass, dont go to mass....it will make f**k all difference to everyone else.....

The high horse brigade · 26-05-2019 3:57pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How is it a loaded question?

It's a loaded question because it is listed right after the ethnicity questions and assumes you must have a religion. Most who answer the question by ticking a religion only do so because their family brought them up in that faith, not because they still believe in it or actively practice it. The data on religious belief in the Census should therefore be viewed as indicative of culture rather than of religion.

eagle eye · 26-05-2019 4:02pm

The high horse brigade wrote:

What let a 5 year old decide of he/she wasn't to study religion?

No, let them read the Bible and when they are old enough they can make a decision.
I have great memories of wondrous stories from the Bible when I was a child. They didn't do me any harm. I decided at 14 years of age that it was not for me.

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 4:04pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

It's a loaded question because it is listed right after the ethnicity questions and assumes you must have a religion. Most who answer the question by ticking a religion only do so because their family brought them up in that faith, not because they still believe in it or actively practice it. The data on religious belief in the Census should therefore be viewed as indicative of culture rather than of religion.

It doesn’t assume you have a religion. I’m not sure what being listed right after the ethnicity questions has to do with anything? Most people in Ireland understand English and are quite capable of understanding and answering the question in the same way as they’re capable of understanding and answering all the questions.

You just don’t like the answers to this one particular question so you have to come up with all manner of excuses as to why people aren’t giving the answers you want them to give. You’re implying that people who don’t answer the question the way you want them to, must be stupid, or at least - not as intelligent as you are.

eviltwin · 26-05-2019 4:08pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn’t assume you have a religion. I’m not sure what being listed right after the ethnicity questions has to do with anything? Most people in Ireland understand English and are quite capable of understanding and answering the question in the same way as they’re capable of understanding and answering all the questions.

You just don’t like the answers to this one particular question so you have to come up with all manner of excuses as to why people aren’t giving the answers you want them to give.

The question is fine. It's the answers being used as proof that the public are happy to maintain the status quo that annoys a lot of people including those who are Catholic. Most religious people are in favour of social change as we've seen with recent referenda.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-05-2019 4:12pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they didn’t, not even kinda, not even unofficially.

The people who covered for the abusers are entirely responsible for their actions, and the people who committed abuse are entirely responsible for their actions. Nobody else is responsible for their actions.

The people who committed the abuse and the people who covered for them represent approximately 4% of the members of the Catholic Church, which is no greater than the number of child abusers among the general population. We know for example that children are more likely to experience abuse within their own families than they are at the hands of strangers to them.

You’d also have to ignore the number of people who are still members of the RCC who have uncovered the abuse, came forward about their own abuse to expose abusers, etc. What you’re suggesting is that the victims of abuse were complicit in their own abuse.

(EDIT: I know that’s not your intent, but that’s the logical conclusion of your argument if you go down the “anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” line of argument)

The issue there is that the people who covered up the abuse were in the higher echelons of the RCC, 4% sounds like a small number but if you use that % in the hierarchy then its a pretty significant number imo.

Saying that I'm not of the anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” school for this or any other issue (republicans/IRA, Muslims/radical islamism etc)

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 4:16pm

eviltwin wrote: »

The question is fine. It's the answers being used as proof that the public are happy to maintain the status quo that annoys a lot of people including those who are Catholic. Most religious people are in favour of social change as we've seen with recent referenda.

I get that it’s annoying that the two different sets of data appear to be entirely contradictory, but if you’re going to use the outcomes of referenda to make your point that most religious people are in favour of social change, then I don’t see how you can say it’s unfair that the Government uses data from the census to argue that most people in Ireland are Catholic, and this is reflected in our education and healthcare systems and policies.

You may be correct, but your opponents are also correct, because you’re using two different sets of data that represent very different things.

Shefwedfan · 26-05-2019 4:21pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The issue there is that the people who covered up the abuse were in the higher echelons of the RCC, 4% sounds like a small number but if you use that % in the hierarchy then its a pretty significant number imo.

Saying that I'm not of the anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” school for this or any other issue (republicans/IRA, Muslims/radical islamism etc)

A crime is a crime. It doesn't matter at what level the person is working.

eviltwin · 26-05-2019 4:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get that it’s annoying that the two different sets of data appear to be entirely contradictory, but if you’re going to use the outcomes of referenda to make your point that most religious people are in favour of social change, then I don’t see how you can say it’s unfair that the Government uses data from the census to argue that most people in Ireland are Catholic, and this is reflected in our education and healthcare systems and policies.

You may be correct, but your opponents are also correct, because you’re using two different sets of data that represent very different things.

The ticking of a box on a census gives only one piece of information, what religion the respondent identifies as. It's not an indication of what kind of social landscape they want, what kind of school they want for their child, their views on moral issues etc.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-05-2019 4:27pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

A crime is a crime. It doesn't matter at what level the person is working.

I agree.

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 4:34pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The issue there is that the people who covered up the abuse were in the higher echelons of the RCC, 4% sounds like a small number but if you use that % in the hierarchy then its a pretty significant number imo.

Saying that I'm not of the anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” school for this or any other issue (republicans/IRA, Muslims/radical islamism etc)

The thing is there’s no way of knowing with any degree of certainty what the figures are for the numbers of people who have been abused, and there’s no way to know for certain the number of abusers and people who covered for them. That’s why I used the example of abuse within the family. I was reminded of it this week when this came up in the news again -

Tusla admits failures after children repeatedly raped in State care

Tusla, the child and family agency, has admitted it failed to protect three children who were repeatedly raped by a teenager while in the care of the State between 2003 and 2007.

The abuse occurred at a foster home in Dunmore, Go Galway, where the foster parents, Kathleen and Gerry Burke, kept both long-term and respite children.

Keith Burke (29) of Addergoolemore, Dunmore, Co Galway, was last year jailed for 7½ years at the Central Criminal Court for the rape of the three girls between 2003 and 2007. He was aged between 14 and 18 at the time, while the girls were all under 10.

In 2007 one of the victims told her biological mother she had been sexually abused by Keith Burke and that a second girl, who had been living with the same family, had also been raped by the same son. Her allegation was assessed by the HSE as being credible. A file was sent to the DPP but no prosecution followed.

A decision was made to allow the other foster child remain with the family.

There were undoubtedly people who knew about the abuse in those circumstances but covered it up. The point I’m making is that covering up abuse isn’t anything to do with Catholicism or the Catholic Church. It has everything to do with some people who want to protect the abuser instead of protecting the victims or anyone else from becoming a victim of abuse.

Most Catholics want to protect children, so accusing Catholics of supporting child abuse because of a minority of people who supported child abusers? It would be the same as accusing parents of being child abusers because some parents abuse their children. It ignores the reality that most parents do not abuse their children, and accusing people of morally abhorrent acts to support their ideological and political beliefs is no different than the minority of fundamentalists who accuse people of morally abhorrent acts on the basis that they do not share that persons religious beliefs.

janfebmar · 26-05-2019 4:36pm

Even though the state and Roman Catholic Church force their religion on so many, most people in Ireland do not follow the teachings of the RCC in this day and age. Telling people to avoid using contraception is criminal.

Mrsmum · 26-05-2019 4:42pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Even though the state and Roman Catholic Church force their religion on so many, most people in Ireland do not follow the teachings of the RCC in this day and age. Telling people to avoid using contraception is criminal.

They don't force their religion on anyone. They state what church teachings are on the matter. And then you can take it or leave it. And most catholics leave it.

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 4:49pm

eviltwin wrote: »

The ticking of a box on a census gives only one piece of information, what religion the respondent identifies as. It's not an indication of what kind of social landscape they want, what kind of school they want for their child, their views on moral issues etc.

Yes, and all the rest of the questions on the census when collated provide a picture at national level as opposed to what individuals want for themselves and their children. The statistics provided by the census are used by all sorts of lobby groups to further their own agendas. The referendums don’t really do the same thing as they are only representative of the people who bothered to vote on a particular issue. The turnout was abysmal for yesterday’s referendum, whereas the census takes account of every household in Ireland.

The excuse that mammies are filling out the census is gone a bit stale at this stage, although according to the census 98% of parents working in the home are women. Let’s see how that translates if we’re offered yet another referendum to remove the special recognition of women in the Irish Constitution that some people argue is an archaic throwback, and some people argue is the only recognition by the State that women working in the home have.

The Census doesn’t provide answers to questions and that was never its purpose. It provides data to Government and lobby groups to argue over their own interpretations of the data according to how it suits their interests.

Mrsmum · 26-05-2019 4:52pm

I often wonder what people think happens at mass which is where most catholics interact with the clergy. I mean the only time the priest speaks to the people off script is during the sermon and that rarely goes anywhere even remotely controversial. If you were looking for controversial guidance or any guidance on moral issues on a weekly basis, you'd die of boredom.

eviltwin · 26-05-2019 4:56pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The excuse that mammies are filling out the census is gone a bit stale at this stage, although according to the census 98% of parents working in the home are women. Let’s see how that translates if we’re offered yet another referendum to remove the special recognition of women in the Irish Constitution that some people argue is an archaic throwback, and some people argue is the only recognition by the State that women working in the home have.

Again I wouldn't assume that that statistic makes that proposed referendum a waste of time. It's an interesting statistic but in isolation it tells us nothing of interest about how many of those people are there by choice vs circumstance, how many want to work, what impact not having an income has on their lifestyle etc.

NewbridgeIR · 26-05-2019 5:24pm

awec wrote: »

In my experience the majority of christians in Ireland have beliefs that are more closely aligned to protestantism than catholicism.

Divorce, gay marriage, abortion, all completely incompatible with catholicism, all enjoying overwhelming support from the people of Ireland, and I am sure there are many practicising "catholics" who voted for all three.

It's a myth that protestantism is more liberal than catholicism.

I know a few pioneers. They don't drink but don't mind if other people do. On the other hand, I've met plenty teetotal Presbyterians who are firmly opposed to any alcohol being served at social events they're attending. We're taking about weddings with a dry bar, birthday parties with nothing stronger than Schloer.

Then you have the left-footers that are so anti-gambling they won't allow a pack of cards in the house, won't allow their kids play the Lotto, have extremely conservative views on abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage etc.

The Catholic Church has plenty of faults and is deeply flawed but holding up the Prods as some sort of beacon of tolerance is seriously misguided.

26-05-2019 5:32pm

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

It's a myth that protestantism is more liberal than catholicism.

I know a few pioneers. They don't drink but don't mind if other people do. On the other hand, I've met plenty teetotal Presbyterians who are firmly opposed to any alcohol being served at social events they're attending. We're taking about weddings with a dry bar, birthday parties with nothing stronger than Schloer.

Then you have the left-footers that are so anti-gambling they won't allow a pack of cards in the house, won't allow their kids play the Lotto, have extremely conservative views on abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage etc.

The Catholic Church has plenty of faults and is deeply flawed but holding up the Prods as some sort of beacon of tolerance is seriously misguided.

Depends on the flavor of protestant I think, Presbyterians are pretty much what you're describing, at least here and Scotland. Other countries different levels such as the U.S.

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2019 5:36pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Again I wouldn't assume that that statistic makes that proposed referendum a waste of time. It's an interesting statistic but in isolation it tells us nothing of interest about how many of those people are there by choice vs circumstance, how many want to work, what impact not having an income has on their lifestyle etc.

It makes the proposed referendum a waste of time because no matter what the outcomes of either a referendum or the data provided by a census, at the end of the day they’re only representative at a national level and don’t get down into the nitty gritty and nuances of people’s lives. It doesn’t matter how many people of whatever gender are there whether it’s by choice or circumstance because ultimately the State should be fulfilling its obligation to provide support for those people. Instead we’re cheering over Government “generously” extending parental leave for men? I think that’s silly, but I understand the enormous benefit it will be to other men - the support is there for them.

In the same way as you wouldn’t assume anything from census figures, I wouldn’t assume anything from either census figures or referendum outcomes, but I can understand why people would argue correlations in the data which suit their purposes, like declaring “Catholic Ireland” dead, and all the assumptions that come with that.

It’s still no reflection of the reality where only last week for example I was attending a Communion and at the after-party I got talking to one woman about her son who was in a wheelchair. Takes a lot to floor me but when she came out with “they won’t pay for my sons wheelchair, but they’ll pay for abortions. If women want abortions they should pay for them themselves, aren’t I right?” I couldn’t help myself saying “No, you’re not!”, before I got up and left her stew.

I would say the same to anyone who thinks that because they pay taxes they’re entitled to a say in what services are or aren’t provided for anyone else, regardless of their means and whether they pay taxes themselves or not. That’s how we got to a point in history before where the poor were holed up in poorhouses so the rest of civilised society didn’t have to look at them. That evolved into the mother and baby homes, and today we have the “homelessness hubs”. They’re all the same thing, all funded by Government who prefer to outsource the care of these people rather than provide proper services for the benefit of all people.

NewbridgeIR · 26-05-2019 5:45pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

Depends on the flavor of protestant I think, Presbyterians are pretty much what you're describing, at least here and Scotland. Other countries different levels such as the U.S.

Not much difference between rural Church of Ireland and all Presbyterians / Methodists in my experience.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-05-2019 12:58pm

Edgware wrote: »

Catholic Ireland may be gone but maybe Christian Ireland has got stronger. Great community spirit, great support of charities,
greater acceptance of differences. Extremism of any religion, political system is to be avoided

Are those things not often DESPITE Christianity, rather than good examples if?

For example when you say "acceptance of difference" remember that the 10 commandments central to very many of the over 33,000 variations and instances of Christianity specifically refer to having false gods. Which does not exactly make a useful initial step towards fostering inter-faith tolerance.

As for charities, our church appears to be little more than a (highly profitable) charity broker at the best of time. It is unclear what it, or any religion, really has to do with charity at all. And in fact the more secular countries last time I was shown figures on the subject (which admittedly was not recently) had a higher per capita charity level than religious countries like the US.

yasmina wrote: »

They are the only kids in the school of 100 who don't "do religion"

Similar here. Anecdote that amused me at the time, but is probably boring to retell.... but I will anyway....

Here in Germany you have to register in the local town hall of any city or town you move into. Our little town had one day a month when they were open for this service. So there was always a queue of 10-20 individuals or couples.

They write your religion down when you register as a "code". Two digits. The Christians and Muslims and even the Indian in front of us got their code written down right away, the Town Hall people knew their code from memory.

When we got there and said "Atheist / No Religion" they actually looked our code up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As determined by whom, you?

Says the guy who was declaring what pro-choice means and telling people who identify with the term that they are doing so incorrectly. Seems if people do not meet YOUR PERSONAL definitions it is ok to tell them that... but if someone else does it then not so. Bit rich.

But it is interesting of course that in a survey conducted during the Eucharist Congress than 8% of Catholics do not even think there is a god. Given this is probably the lowest bar many people might set for qualification for the term..... it seems no one at all, least of all posters here, have "determined" what the word means. It seems to have no actual meaning and sure anyone who wants to call themselves a Catholic can do so.

Sure who needs language to mean anything huh? We can all make words mean what we want any time we want. Communication would really work well then. Our species struggles to communicate even when we agree on terms.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Phew, that’s ok then. For a minute there I thought the Catholic Church had changed it’s position and I hadn’t got the memo.

Would that they would send some memos. Then perhaps the number of "Catholics" I meet who do not know what the church actually believe/teach on most issues..... even the ones seemingly most core to the faith....... might dwindle.

So far though as I said to you before the only "Catholic Education" people I have met appear to get in these Catholic Schools is that they ARE catholic. Nothing much else.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do agree with you though that one doesn’t need religion to be a dick to others

"You do not need to be mad to work here, but it helps".

You do not need to be religious to be a dick to others, but it helps. Quite often by giving people reasons or justifications for it that they otherwise would not have. Like recent Bishops declaring atheists to be not fully human. Or the "Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve" mantra used by the anti-homosexual.

We can certainly expect some such people to hate atheists or homosexuals anyway. But religion certainly gives them justifications and reasons they can reach for where ACTUAL arguments, evidence, data and reasoning is not available to lend substance to their positions.

And then they get to pass off the claims of bigotry too. "Don't shoot the messenger" type comments of "Oh I have nothing against homosexuality you see, it is this god over here that says......." so they then get to pretend their bigotry is second hand and merely relayed by a messenger from the actual source.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I could also have said if you’re Irish you support the abuse, rape and murder of children. If you’re a man? Yup - guilty. Any other characteristics I can draw associations between you and people who abuse, rape and murder children makes you as guilty as them.

Some distinction should of course be made between a characteristic you can not change, or should not be expected to reasonably change..... and those that one can change very easily. Supporting an organisation who has been known not just to have an issue with rape but has been known to harbour the criminals, facilitate the crimes, confound investigation, and cajole victims at many levels of the hierarchy in the organisation.......... is not really comparable with the Gender one was born with.

Sure someone who is horrified at the sexual crimes of one's own gender does have the option to say "Screw that I am changing Gender" but that does not come at quite the same level as withdrawing ones membership, finances, and support for the local clubhouse pertaining to their hobby of choice.

Your conflation of the two is spurious at best. It is not about an attribute they "have in common" as you put it. It is to do with who they actively support socially and financially and what those people have done with that support.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

there are a minority of people within the organisation who used their authority to commit child abuse. It shouldn’t mean that the whole organisation or those who are members of the organisation should be accused of supporting child abuse. .

If however said GAA started protecting the abusers and rapists, moving them to other clubs away from their accusers, started cajoling or influencing the abusers to silence them, refused to pay reparations that were demanded of them, confounded investigations by withholding data or telling their people in position of power NOT to report information the legal authorities, all the while dictating to society at large their doctrine of sexual morality..... and this was happening throughout the varying levels of authority within then GAA...... you might start comparing like with like there.

And in THAT situation they yes, I would indeed question the moral position of anyone who is a paying up member of the GAA in that they are supporting such an organisation and such crimes by doing so.

But until you start to compare like with like here, your analogies are failing badly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn’t assume you have a religion.

It kinda does. The current question last time I checked (perhaps they changed it any my data is out of date) is "What is your religion?".

Not do you have one. Not if you have one. Nothing. Straight away, what is it. So the question itself does make that assumption.

The ANSWERS to it do offer "no religion" as a choice of course, so one can pedantically suggest that means the question itself does not assume you have a religion even though it does.

That said though the "no religion" option is not well placed. Not just at the bottom of the list but also AFTER the "OTHER" option which has 2 lines of white space. At minimum the "No religion" option should be BEFORE the "other" option. That is really remarkably bad placement for any survey let alone a census. Leaving white space for a final "If other please specify" style answer is common practice of course. But usually at the END of a list, not in the middle with other options after it.

But at best it would be better to have a more "Do you have one" and "If so what" structure. Suggestions like that are here.

27-05-2019 1:44pm

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Not much difference between rural Church of Ireland and all Presbyterians / Methodists in my experience.

Not in my experience to be honest, at least those I know.

One eyed Jack · 27-05-2019 1:52pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It kinda does. The current question last time I checked (perhaps they changed it any my data is out of date) is "What is your religion?".

Not do you have one. Not if you have one. Nothing. Straight away, what is it. So the question itself does make that assumption.

The ANSWERS to it do offer "no religion" as a choice of course, so one can pedantically suggest that means the question itself does not assume you have a religion even though it does.

Who’s being pedantic only the people who are assuming that people don’t understand the question? It’s not as though it hasn’t been explained already in terms anyone can understand -

On its specialised website Census.ie, the Central Statistics Office says that everyone should answer the question whether they have a religion or not, but it also gives some guidance about how they answer it.

The CSO says that the question is not about how often they attend church or how they are brought up, but rather how they feel.

“People should answer the question based on how they feel now about their religious beliefs, if any,” the CSO says.

The question is asking about the person’s current religion or beliefs and not about the religion the person may have been brought up with. If the person has a religion they can identify that religion by ticking one of the tick box categories, or by writing in a description of your religion or beliefs in the write-in boxes.

“If they do not have a religion, they should go to the end of the question and mark the ‘No religion’ box.”

'What is your religion?' People are being urged to think hard about that come census night

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-05-2019 2:04pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who’s being pedantic only the people who are assuming that people don’t understand the question?

In science we assume we are wrong. That is how science works. We do not go around proving ideas right, so much as we fail repeatedly to prove them wrong and they become established science.

Similarly the pedantry is likely to be your own here. Assuming people do not understand the question is GOOD practice when conducting any survey. Especially one that is expensive to run and for which the data could potentially change policy.

So yes, it is right to assume people will not understand the question. So simply asking "What is your religion?", and the built in assumption that you therefore have one, is really not good practice here. It is not their failure to understand the question that is at fault here. It is a poorly framed question.

The answers do not help much either. We really should not have answers in a Progression where something low on the list is potentially a subset of something higher up the list. The safe assumption is people will not read the entire list every time, but will tick the FIRST one that they feel applies to them. Given "No Religion" is a potential Subset of "Other" for example.... it is simply dumbass to have it AFTER "other". It should at the very least be before "other".

Worse if you look at the descriptive text WITH the question, it expressly mentions answers 1-5 and 6, but does not at all mention 7. So not only is it hidden down the end, they contrive not to mention it either.

There are also issues I could go into about why having the answer as a check box multiple choice is not a good idea either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not as though it hasn’t been explained already in terms anyone can understand -

Explaining it on a website is a not a good move either. It assumes access to that media and the competency to use it. Which not everyone has. Some have one or the other, some have neither. The move should be to make it as clear as possible at the location of the question.... have further data WITH the survey if required.... and have yet further and more detailed information on a website as a last resort.

A good example of this is the Passport Application. It comes with the form you must fill out and send back. Each question explains pretty clearly what answer is required. It then comes with an EXTRA information sheet separate further explaining each question so you can refer back and forth. If something is still not clear, you can then go to a third source of information.

But the ideal should always be to have the question as clear as possible first, and following intelligent practices like NOT having the question make assumptions about the answer and NOT having answers low on the list being potentially sub sets of answers higher up. To name but two.

Having information on a website that no one is likely to actually read saying "Actually the question is about how you feel!" is about as useful as the Demolition notice Arthur Dent had to find in the basement of the local townhouse in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. He was not likely to know the notice was even there and/or worth reading.

But that the description you quote is not even remotely similar to that on the actual Census..... is just seriously weird to be honest. You quote “People should answer the question based on how they feel now about their religious beliefs, if any,” the CSO says. Reading the actual question on the census itself states nothing about your feelz. At all. Even a little bit.

One eyed Jack · 27-05-2019 2:14pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Reading the actual question on the census itself states nothing about your feelz. At all. Even a little bit.

My point is that it was well publicised at the time. You’re free of course to draw what conclusions you like from the data as it was provided, but accusing anyone else of being pedantic in these circumstances - I’m finding it more difficult than usual to take your efforts seriously.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-05-2019 2:21pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is that it was well publicised at the time.

I am aware what your point is, and that is the point I am countering above so merely re-stating your point in response hardly progresses the conversation.

We can not assume people will understand questions. Or that they will bother to, or even know to, access descriptive information at an external source.

We can OFFER those things to improve the situation of course, nothing wrong with that, but the ideal should still be to make the question, and it's associated answers, as clear up front on the actual page as possible.

This does involve assuming people will misunderstand every question..... and phrase them in a way to most effectively minimise the impact of that....... and to structure their ability to answer along best practice guidelines.

The question DOES make the assumption you are denying it makes in how it is phrased, and the structure of the question and it's associated answers does little to nothing to mitigate this failure.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m finding it more difficult than usual to take your efforts seriously.

Alas going on historical experience your level of expression of difficulty in taking me or my points seriously appears to directly scale with your inability to actually rebut anything I said. So forgive me if I in turn do not take this empty filler sentence as anything more than the guff and fluff it is.

One eyed Jack · 27-05-2019 2:33pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So forgive me if I in turn do not take this empty filler sentence as anything more than the guff and fluff it is.

You’re forgiven.

topper75 · 27-05-2019 3:44pm

sabat wrote: »

I'd take the cardinals and bishops over the insidious dykofascist quangistas any day of the week.

Uffff! I'm going to need a third choice there please Carol!

Although I must say dykofascist is a magnificent word.

suicide_circus · 27-05-2019 3:46pm

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone, It's with O'Leary in the grave.

27-05-2019 6:51pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone, It's with O'Leary in the grave.

Strange quote to use given its nothing to do with Catholicism.

27-05-2019 6:58pm

topper75 wrote: »

Uffff! I'm going to need a third choice there please Carol!

Although I must say dykofascist is a magnificent word.

That poster still hasn't answered a question asked in another thread as to how it was that the richest religion in the world managed to have children die of malnutrition while under it's care, given that they were better off with the nuns than their unwed mothers, so I'm not surprised at their articulate and well thought out post.

Hawkeye123 · 09-03-2024 6:30am

If the referendums are defeated it could signal the beginning of a resurgence of our Catholic heritage.

gmisk · 09-03-2024 6:50am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121868743#Comment_121868743

They will likely be defeated as they were poorly thought out, poorly worded, poorly explained and a huge chunk of people understandably dislike our current government so it's a form of protest. What does "Catholic heritage" really even mean? Why do you think this will indicate a resurgence?

Mass attendances are in the toilet and dropping year on year, COVID gave them a huge extra kicking. Take your pick when it comes to scandals historic and current, the majority of people are done with the Catholic church, they might still put Catholic on a census form but it means very little.

https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/a-catholic-crisis-why-priests-in-ireland-are-fading-into-history-and-not-being-replaced

https://www.euronews.com/2023/02/02/irish-catholic-church-in-terminal-decline-since-sexual-abuse-scandals