Religion and the State

sliabh

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

While these two states described themselves as athiest you can make a good argument that in practice they were not. In each case they replaced traditional religion with new state religions - Communism in the USSR and Naziism in Germany. There is volumes of literature on how leaders in both drew on religious ideas and methods in building and running their national movements.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Wacker

While the power of the Caholic Church has declined in Ireland in recent years, it hasn't declined enough, if you ask me. I read of a case recently where a couple had to get permission off the local catholic school in order to send their child to the nearby multi-denominational school. This permission wasn't forthcoming. Thats ust not right, by anyone standards (I assume.)

Paladin

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

True, but it served them to "teach" their students about catholicism.
"Religion" when I went to school was all about learning off prayers and crap. There was never any philosophical education. Even the basic whats good and bad issue is tarred when they try and teach kids.

Obviously stabbing someone is bad. But little Johnny asks is it bad if he is trying to kill Mammy and Daddy? Does it leads to discussion? Like hell it will. Shut up Johnny. NEVER question the catholic church! And gays are evil little Johnny.

I think a lot of why people are angry at the church is the fact the church blatently lied to them during their "education". And continue to lie. The church's teaching of children never educated them, it fed them lies stating that they were truth. No wonder kids turn away from the church when they find out Adam and Eve did NOT spawn all humans. If the church lied about that then why believe anything else.
Of course then the kids are told "These are just stories used to emphasise points".

Why could the church not have educated children honestly in the first place?
Instead there are so many major issues that people will rebel against that they are taught. Banning sex before marriage, gays evil, so many other things that dont make logical sense, people in Ireland were bound to rebel eventually. Religion doesnt offer the same comfort in this day and age as it used to.

Seperate state and church imho.

sliabh

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'd agree. If you are poor and "down trodden" you get angry and look for someone to blame. The guy over there with the funny religion is the easy target. Once it gets started then there is the historical grudge to keep it going.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Paladin

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Agreed

Exactly, the church doesn't teach that. You are confusing fundamentalist Christianity with the Catholic Churches teaching.

Ah cmon. Catholic schools had Brothers from cathlic orders teaching this stuff. Primary school teachers did. Im not confusing anything. I know its christian doctrine, but thats what the catholic church is! The difference is that other christian orders didnt have a tight grip on schooling in Ireland.

Don't you mean why couldn't the church not have educated children in the way you believe? Why is banning sex before marriage wrong? Who decided that?

Why is banning sex before marriage wrong? Why is it right? People asked this and on not receiving a reasonable answer they rebelled. Look are Ireland! Almost everyone has sex before marriage now. A decreasing number of people believe gays are evil. My point stands omh. They should have educated honestly.

Depends, obviously you and I don't need comfort from it, but I'm not going to deny it to people that want it.

Also agreed. Im just pointing out that they, the catholic church, biased more people against themselves than they "comforted" through their control of education.

Victor

sliabh wrote:

Yeah, the sunday shopping one is a poor example, but it's applicable in other countries. You see scary examples of this sort of thing in other countries all the time, and not just in the middle east. The influence of Christian right in the US is a prime example. This is one area where I wish we were a lot closer to Berlin than Boston!

Would that be Berlin where almost everywhere is closed on Sunday?

Paladin wrote:

"Religion" when I went to school was all about learning off prayers and crap. There was never any philosophical education. ...... And gays are evil little Johnny.

This two point don't work together. Did you get philosophical education about homosexuality or not? and ever hear of "hate the sin, not the sinner"?

Paladin wrote:

Instead there are so many major issues that people will rebel against that they are taught. Banning sex before marriage, gays evil, so many other things that dont make logical sense, people in Ireland were bound to rebel eventually.

So how about we "unban" larceny, seeing as people don't follow the law anyway?

"Banning sex before marriage" isn't quite right - the church condemns adultery, coveting and fornication, but does not condemn.

ArthurDent

Wacker wrote:

While the power of the Caholic Church has declined in Ireland in recent years, it hasn't declined enough, if you ask me. I read of a case recently where a couple had to get permission off the local catholic school in order to send their child to the nearby multi-denominational school. This permission wasn't forthcoming. Thats ust not right, by anyone standards (I assume.)

Involved in the Educate Together Multidenominational Sector and have never heard of this happening - all Educate Together schools are open to children of all faiths and none and as far as I am aware you do not have to discuss your relgious affiliation with the school unless you choose to.

arcadegame2004

How can you tar every religious person with the same brush? You're making sweeping generalisations.

It's the ideology I'm slating not the people who claim affiliation with the ideology. Mnay such people don't believe a word of it.

Victor

Wacker wrote:

While the power of the Caholic Church has declined in Ireland in recent years, it hasn't declined enough, if you ask me. I read of a case recently where a couple had to get permission off the local catholic school in order to send their child to the nearby multi-denominational school. This permission wasn't forthcoming. Thats ust not right, by anyone standards (I assume.)

I suspect you have the wrong end of the stick. There is a ban on schools canvassing for / poaching students ouside their own area (for Catholic national schools this tends to mean parish, although in circumstances where one school doesn't have space and a neighbouring one does, a liberal arrangement will apply).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Wacker

I was basing what I wrote on a Vincent Browne (I think) column I read in the Irish Times from a few weeks ago. I probably got it wrong, apologies. If anyone who read it could correct me, that would be great.

Paladin

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No abstinance is not necessarily a bad thing, but for most people kids not running around having sex is better for social and not religious reasons, in that less single mothers, less STD's, less unplanned pregnancies is better for society.

Religiously, Im afraid the catholic churchs attempt to make people feel bad about having sex failed and Irelend, once a bastion of strict(?) catholicism is as debaucherous as any other country you care to name. Im not saying the church is at fault for this, but it didnt help. It encouraged repression of sexual education and advocated keeping condoms illegal in Ireland. No wonder so many people rebelled against the catholic church. Ireland isnt the stronghold of faith it was, maybe 50 years ago.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Paladin

This two point don't work together. Did you get philosophical education about homosexuality or not? and ever hear of "hate the sin, not the sinner"?

Victor wrote:

Paladin wrote:

"Religion" when I went to school was all about learning off prayers and crap. There was never any philosophical education. ...... And gays are evil little Johnny.

This two point don't work together. Did you get philosophical education about homosexuality or not?

Im not sure I follow. Why dont they work together?
And Ive given myself philosophical education outside of school thanks to the wonderful mediums of books and internet.

and ever hear of "hate the sin, not the sinner"?

Indeed I did. Ever hear of anyone obeying it? People dont seperate those things. If people believe the catholic church that homosexuality is wrong, they view gay people as evil. Find me someone who believes homosexuality is wrong but doesnt have anything against gays and Ill show you a liar.

So how about we "unban" larceny, seeing as people don't follow the law anyway?

You are drawing utterly pointless off-topic analagies for the sake of it. The law exists to protect people without putting too great a limit of freedom. Larceny crosses the line. Consentual sex does not. Democracy exists to decide these things.

"Banning sex before marriage" isn't quite right - the church condemns adultery, coveting and fornication, but does not condemn.

I assume you meant "but does not ban".
Yes you are right. The church does not have the power to implement law. If it did have the power it would ban it. If you view sins as something catholics are banned from doing then its a ban for catholics. However thats pointless wordplay.

Paladin

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think we agreed all along just climbed the hill from opposite sides
Interesting about those studies. Do psychologists offer reasons why? Id imagine its the fact that kids that pledged abstinance never prepared themselves mentally for sex or educated themselves properly.

pork99

The state here has been able to abdicate it's responsibilities in allowing the Catholic Church to run schools, hospitals, orphanages etc sometimes with unfortunate results.

What annoys me is the respect that has to be given to religions. If I believed that the story of some fairy tale let's say Jack and the Beanstalk was literally true and went around trying to persuade other people that this was the case I'd be considered mentally ill.

If 200 million others were to believe the same nonsense however ones opinions on life and death issues would be seriously sought, ones sensitivities would be respected in schooling etc.

This is my guru

Sleepy

Laws cannot be based on religeon by any society which considers itself to be civilised, sensible or realistic. As an agnostic, I personally resent that the catholic church can claim me as one of their group because I happened to be born into circumstances in which I could be baptised and confirmed before I had the ability to question their dogma. I resent that their beliefs can prevent me from going to a pub on one of their religeous holidays. I resent that their beliefs were able to deny me the right to a divorce for so many years. I resent them because they're the most hypocritical organisation on earth: ammassing enough wealth to rid the world of poverty and doing nothing about it, encouraging the ignorant to spread aids and have children they can't afford to support, condemning others for their sexualities or sexual practices. Yeah, they really treat others as they wish to be treated.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd have equal levels of scorn for almost any other religeon (I'd exclude some forms of Buddhism because they're more a belief structure in how one should live one's life than a dogma surrounding a deity), it's just that Christianity is the one that's had most impact on my life, given that they were given the role of educating (or should I say indoctrinating?) me.

Religeous beliefs are no basis for law. Yes, in fairness it can make sense to organise public holidays around days when the vast majority of the population are observing a religeous holiday for purely practical reasons. However, laws forcing others to abide by a religeon's customs for any of these holidays is an affront to their personal liberties. Think about it: how would you like to be forced to observe Ramadan?

omnicorp

Sleepy wrote:

Laws cannot be based on religeon by any society which considers itself to be civilised, sensible or realistic. As an agnostic, I personally resent that the catholic church can claim me as one of their group because I happened to be born into circumstances in which I could be baptised and confirmed before I had the ability to question their dogma. I resent that their beliefs can prevent me from going to a pub on one of their religeous holidays. I resent that their beliefs were able to deny me the right to a divorce for so many years. I resent them because they're the most hypocritical organisation on earth: ammassing enough wealth to rid the world of poverty and doing nothing about it, encouraging the ignorant to spread aids and have children they can't afford to support, condemning others for their sexualities or sexual practices. Yeah, they really treat others as they wish to be treated.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd have equal levels of scorn for almost any other religeon (I'd exclude some forms of Buddhism because they're more a belief structure in how one should live one's life than a dogma surrounding a deity), it's just that Christianity is the one that's had most impact on my life, given that they were given the role of educating (or should I say indoctrinating?) me.

Religeous beliefs are no basis for law. Yes, in fairness it can make sense to organise public holidays around days when the vast majority of the population are observing a religeous holiday for purely practical reasons. However, laws forcing others to abide by a religeon's customs for any of these holidays is an affront to their personal liberties. Think about it: how would you like to be forced to observe Ramadan?

religion souldn't be an organization

AngelofFire

Why is banning sex before marriage wrong? Why is it right

A lot of people would ask the question; since when was authority given to the state to interfer in the sexual practises between two consenting private citizens.

omnicorp

AngelofFire wrote:

A lot of people would ask the question; since when was authority given to the state to interfer in the sexual practises between two consenting private citizens.

It wasn't, but it shouldn't be given to the Church either.
Those Protestants were on the right track, leaving the Catholic Church.
But they went wrong.

AngelofFire

Actually Omnicorp im in the church of ireland myself and my religions attitude towards pre marital sex is not much different to that of the catholic church. Its just that sociological studies show that historically protestants in ireland have been less likely to follow their churches attitude towards pre marital sex.

I dont see anything wrong with pre marital sex humans need practise, we cant just learn how to do it on our wedding night.

omnicorp

AngelofFire wrote:

Actually Omnicorp im in the church of ireland myself and my religions attitude towards pre marital sex is not much different to that of the catholic church. Its just that sociological studies show that historically protestants in ireland have been less likely to follow their churches attitude towards pre marital sex.

I dont see anything wrong with pre marital sex humans need practise, we cant just learn how to do it on our wedding night.

yeah, I don't believe in many Catholic "Laws" buut nor do I believe in Protestant "Laws".
Can someone tell me where in the Bible it tells you to go to Mass every Sunday?

AngelofFire

remember that you keep holy the sabbath day. I think that thats the 3rd commandment.

omnicorp

AngelofFire wrote:

remember that you keep holy the sabbath day. I think that thats the 3rd commandment.

Yes, not sit through ritual bable.

rien_du_tout

Sleepy wrote:

However, laws forcing others to abide by a religeon's customs for any of these holidays is an affront to their personal liberties. Think about it: how would you like to be forced to observe Ramadan?

but when does someone's belief in something stem from religion or not....... if two people believe the same thing, say, that homosexual sex should be outlawed, but 1 has a belief due to his acceptence of his religions line on the issue & the other just thru gut instinct why should 1 the religious mans opinion be disregarded?

The way I see it for too long the institution of the church played a hand directly in politics. Instead it should preach to the people, who on consideration should use their power to promote their religions views on certain issues if they so which. If the majority are a certain religion then certain laws are inevitably going to be based in some part on their religion. Even here in ireland when the churchs power has long faded its effect will still be felt through our christian based moral laws.......... natural law sometimes needs to take charge. whats difficult is finding the balance between our moral rules and our laws......... with regard to a restraint on religious laws while keeping the law firmly based in morals.

Bit hazy and mixed up post sorry, at work & have gone too long without sleep:) Nice to see the regulars I once read a year or two ago still posting!

seán

sliabh

omnicorp wrote:

yeah, I don't believe in many Catholic "Laws" buut nor do I believe in Protestant "Laws".
Can someone tell me where in the Bible it tells you to go to Mass every Sunday?

Take a look at Liviticus [http://www.studyjesus.com/bible/leviticus.htm].

Most of the crazy rules running through Judaeo-Christian religions have their origins there. Everything from stoning adulterers to pig meat is bad. It's an eye opener to read. You will laugh at what is in there.

Well you would if it wasn't for the fact that millions of people around the world think you should live your live according to these 2500 year old rules dreamt up by a backward tribe that thought the world was flat and bad odours caused disease.

omnicorp

It makes you wonder why the Vatican don't clean up the church laws.

sceptre

Was there a real reason to drag up a thread that had no replies in 39 days for that?