The Hazards of Belief

Igotadose

robindch wrote: »

Avoiding the public, I suppose. They're supposed to be hermits after all - though they don't live in that place any more, but in a distinctly weird outfit a few miles away called "The Priory", run by the SSPX Resistance, a ragtag group of hardliners who make the pansies who write and print "Alive!" look like wimps.

Wondered what happened to Richard Williamson. He's in the SSPX resistance. Odious. Excommunicated twice, that's impressive.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The ballot box in one hand, and the Carmelites in the other?

That comment nearly cost me a laptop... lucky it was only a rather nice espresso I snorted all over my keyboard.

Hotblack Desiato

I first heard that one years ago!

robindch

Igotadose wrote: »

Wondered what happened to Richard Williamson. He's in the SSPX resistance. Odious. Excommunicated twice, that's impressive.

And deported from or booted out of Germany and seemingly Argentina too for anti-semitic activities of one kind or another. He's visited Rosscarbery a couple of times to spread his load. Far as I can make out Williamson now runs SSPX-Resistance after they split away from the mainstream SSPX who were open to a reconciliation with the Vatican. SSPX-R holds that Pope Frank was appointed somehow by Satan and bends to His Luciferian will.

You can get a feel for SSPX-R by the contents of sites like the US-based https://www.cathinfo.com/ - as solid a diet of climate-change denialism, anti-vaccine brainrot, anti-semitic, racist, pro-trump bull**** as you'll find anywhere on the internet short of an openly Nazi website.

Hotblack Desiato

Hey if you're going to let one flavour of crackpot fcukwittery inhabit your brain, might as well go for the full set.

*awaits formation of Continuity SSPX*

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

*awaits formation of Continuity SSPX*

Oddly, that's what some of the locals call it :rolleyes:

Odhinn

Another case of projection....

"A professor for Truman State University and elder of the Kirksville Church of Christ has been charged with misdemeanor prostitution. This is made worse for the anti-LGBTQ religious professor, because he’s alleged to seek same-sex relations from students."

Police were told Poyner had been propositioning male students for sexual favors, as well as offering to pay for things in exchange for same. He was active on Grindr with the username “DILF”.
After a detective set up a profile to catch Poyner, they received a message from the professor. Poyner propositioned the detective saying he:

“Would live to have a sugar daddy relationship.”

The fact an elder of a virulently homophobic church was caught engaging in this activity didn’t surprise some.

https://percolately.com/ben/anti-gay-church-elder-arrested-pay-men-sex/?fbclid=IwAR1afNifpdG25mF63Z9BWIAC1w9USrrehjd-Qy4AaqY32wNQAcml9odQFXY




Some posts from the church about the ebbil gheys

https://www.towleroad.com/2019/12/barry-cole-poyner/

Igotadose

Odhinn wrote: »

Another case of projection....







https://percolately.com/ben/anti-gay-church-elder-arrested-pay-men-sex/?fbclid=IwAR1afNifpdG25mF63Z9BWIAC1w9USrrehjd-Qy4AaqY32wNQAcml9odQFXY




Some posts from the church about the ebbil gheys

https://www.towleroad.com/2019/12/barry-cole-poyner/

Apparently he offered to pay with an Arby's (US fast food specializing in roast beef sandwiches ) card - do the nasty with him, get your sandwiches for free. "Where's the beef?"

Hotblack Desiato

More of a white pudding roll than a sandwich :pac:

He was trying to pray away the ghey, just didn't pray hard enough :cool:

Odhinn

A vile bunch.

The Islamic State group has released a video claiming to show the killing of 11 Christians in Nigeria.
IS said it was part of its recently declared campaign to "avenge" the death of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during a US raid in Syria in October.
No details were given about the victims, who were all male, but IS says they were "captured in the past weeks" in Nigeria's north-eastern Borno State.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50924266

smacl

Interesting bit on the RTE news this morning that there is a hearing in which will test whether veganism 'philosophical or religious belief'. The bit below amused me;

Mr Casamitjana's lawyers said ethical veganism satisfies the tests required for it to be a philosophical or religious belief, which would mean it was protected under the UK's Equality Act 2010.

For a belief to be protected under the Act, it must meet a series of tests including being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not being incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with fundamental rights of others.

I wonder how many current mainstream religions would fail this simple test?

Odhinn

Comedy gold or puke inducing .....

US President Donald Trump has claimed his Democratic opponents would tear down crosses and pledged to bring prayer to public schools at a re-election rally to shore up evangelical support.

Mr Trump - who despite three marriages, sexual assault allegations and a controversial business history has made himself a champion of right-wing Christians - promised "another monumental victory for faith and family, God and country, flag and freedom".

"I really do believe we have God on our side," Mr Trump told the crowd at the King Jesus International Ministry mega church in Miami.
"We are defending religion itself, it's under siege," Mr Trump said. "A society without religion cannot prosper."

https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2020/0104/1104293-donald-trump/

smacl

Odhinn wrote: »

Comedy gold or puke inducing .....

The latter. The screen adaptation of American Gods caricatures this kind of Evangelical attitude rather well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBjph1T3Ls

Hotblack Desiato

Hitler said exactly the same...

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

I wonder how many current mainstream religions would fail this simple test?

This is the sort of ridiculous knot a state ties itself up in when it's not secular. If it affords privilieges to religions, then it has to decide what is a 'valid' religion and what isn't...

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is the sort of ridiculous knot a state ties itself up in when it's not secular. If it affords privilieges to religions, then it has to decide what is a 'valid' religion and what isn't...

A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I wonder how many current mainstream religions would fail this simple test?

The test is not applied to particular religions (or particular non-religious philosophical movements) as a whole, but to a specific religious (or philosophical) belief for which protection is claimed. It's not only possible but, I would guess, likely that most religions (and non-religious philosophical movements) embody a blend of specific beliefs, some of which would meet this test and others of which would not.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.

Would the state not just require specifically non-religious arguments to support any proposed changes to public affairs? It wouldn't even have to take a position on something as religious to reject it, just show it to lack a fair and logical justification.

Your idea of secularism would only have a problem if it decided that nothing that happens to also exist in any way in any religion should be part of public affairs. I don't know of any secularism that says "Well, we were going to have a law against killing each other, but the religions say that too, so I guess it's open season on each other", so it looks like you have a bit of a strawman.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The test is not applied to particular religions (or particular non-religious philosophical movements) as a whole, but to a specific religious (or philosophical) belief for which protection is claimed. It's not only possible but, I would guess, likely that most religions (and non-religious philosophical movements) embody a blend of specific beliefs, some of which would meet this test and others of which would not.

That's a good point and seems to be one where many nominally religious people in this country are at odds with church dogma, the results of recent referendums being good illustrations of this. I think variations within a given religion also emphasize or reject different beliefs, so for example where the likes of Israel Folau and like minded right wing evangelists would push the line that homosexuals are going to hell as scripture, most Catholics in this country would reject it outright as morally repugnant.

Peregrinus wrote: »

A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.

My take on secularism is that it basically boils down to 'freedom of religion and freedom from religion' such that in a secular democracy a persons religious belief can inform and restrict their own actions but not restrict those of others. Given that caveat, I think that attempting to remove religious symbolism and religious expression from the public sphere is actually anti-secular. Similarly, I see the undue influence of religion, e.g. in education in this country, as deeply anti-secular.

Taken in the context of the previous post, the only expressions of religious belief I'd seek to exclude from public affairs are those that infringe on the basic human rights of others. The remainder I'd consider in the same manner as personal preference or opinion, as opposed to fact or truth.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Would the state not just require specifically non-religious arguments to support any proposed changes to public affairs?

I agree entirely with the sentiment, though you could and probably should say the same about any purely ideological arguments. Any proposition should be considered objectively in terms of who benefits, who loses and at what cost. The main problem I see with religious arguments in the public sphere in this country is that they often claim validation on the basis that a certain percentage of the population is Catholic, where the Catholics of this country have consistently voted against the position held by their church when given a voice.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.

First you need to define what you mean by "excluding religion from public affairs".

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

First you need to define what you mean by "excluding religion from public affairs".

Indeed you do. I think there’s (at least) two distinct traditions within secularism about this.

In one secularist tradition, secularism is about disregarding considerations relating to the supernatural, the divine, etc in making decisions. So a secular decision or action isn’t in any sense “anti-God” in the sense that a secularist doesn’t necessarily have to be an atheist, or opposed to religion. Indeed, someone who is devoutly religious in their personal life might also believe strongly that the state should be secular, and avoid any kind of entanglement with religion. There are several boardies whose views are similar to this.

A secularist in this tradition would take that view that, e.g. in funding schools or hospitals, religious and non-religious institutions should be treated in exactly the same way, and according to the same criteria, which themselves should make no reference to religion, nor be motivated by any support for or animus against religion. In their view, it is simply not the business of the state to take any position on any religious question, including a hostile position.

In another secularist tradition, religion and religious considerations should be actively excluded from civic and public affairs. On this view, religious schools, hospitals, etc should be denied public funding or support because they are religious.

But either tradition does require its advocates to be able to identify “religion”. We can neither exclude religious questions/considerations as irrelevant, nor practice a policy of denying/excluding religious movements, institutions, etc. from public affairs, unless we can say what is religious and what is not. Similarly guarantees of freedom of religion or freedom from religion are meaningless if we can’t say what “religion” is.

Take abortion as an issue. A lot of people would argue that anti-choice arguments which are grounded in “divine law” or something similar cannot legitimately be allowed to influence public policy on abortion. I think secularists of both the traditions outlined above would take this view. Fair enough.

Now go a little further. Suppose an argument is not grounded in anything like divine law, but on an ethic of respect for human life (in the biological sense of “human”) or on utilitarian grounds about the social consequences of a particular aspect of abortion law or practice. But suppose also that this argument is advanced by a man wearing a soutane and a roman collar. Is it legitimate? Some secularists would say yes, it’s legitimate (but they might still be unconvinced by it as an argument) while others would say no, it’s not, because it’s advanced by a representative of a religious institution, who should not be participating in this discussion.

Now take a different issue - the death penalty, say, in the US. Suppose I am a secularist and an opponent of, and campaigner against, the death penalty. Many other campaigners are religious, and many of those advance explicitly religious arguments against the death penalty. Should I refuse to work with them? Should I, in fact, oppose their involvement in the issue, and argue against the state acceding to their views in public affairs, even though in terms of the desired outcome their views align with my own? Does the participation of religious institutions in public affairs, or the advancement of religious views, become legitimate if the same position can be arrived at on non-religious grounds?

Odhinn

At least two of a number of talks that a controversial American Catholic chastity campaigner was expected to deliver to Irish school students will not now take place.
Jason Evert advocates chastity for teens and young adults. In books and in speeches he has called homosexuality, and the use of contraceptives, "disordered".

Jaysus forfend somebody try to protect against pregnancy....

Mr Evert is touring Ireland, visiting Dublin and Waterford, over two days next week. According to a schedule that was published on Mr Evert's website but was subsequently withdrawn, Mr Evert was due to deliver addresses to two fee-charging Dublin boys schools, as well as at churches and other locations in Dublin and in Waterford.

"The homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex - babies and bonding."

Good jaysus tonight.....
https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/0110/1105663-jason-evert/

robindch

Street Preacher fail:

https://twitter.com/StoneTadhg/status/1215421145564041217

Odhinn

robindch wrote: »

Street Preacher fail:

https://twitter.com/StoneTadhg/status/1215421145564041217

There was a big group at henry street today that I think were Afro-americans, with 5 or 6 of them singing gospel and doing a fine job of it. Nobody tried to give me a leaflet though, so I've no idea what grouping they are precisely.

Hotblack Desiato

Odhinn wrote: »

There was a big group at henry street today that I think were Afro-americans, with 5 or 6 of them singing gospel and doing a fine job of it. Nobody tried to give me a leaflet though, so I've no idea what grouping they are precisely.

Yeah but are you still feeling f**king sick though? :pac:

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah but are you still feeling f**king sick though? :pac:

Alas I do still have a throbbing pain in the bollocks, but that's the kind of thing only a grade 1 relic can fix.

Odhinn

There was always going to be a problem having a second Pope in the granny flat out back.

The former pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against allowing married men to become priests, in a move that could jeopardise a potential plan by Pope Francis to change the centuries-old requirement in areas of the Amazon.
Benedict, who implied upon his resignation in 2013 that he would not interfere with the work of his successor, has defended clerical celibacy in an explosive book written with the outspoken conservative cardinal Robert Sarah.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/13/former-pope-benedict-warns-against-relaxing-priestly-celibacy-rules

Bannasidhe

Odhinn wrote: »

There was always going to be a problem having a second Pope in the granny flat out back.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/13/former-pope-benedict-warns-against-relaxing-priestly-celibacy-rules

Schism! Schism! Schism! Schism!

Odhinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Schism! Schism! Schism! Schism!

My moneys on Frank - KO before round 6.

smacl

Odhinn wrote: »

My moneys on Frank - KO before round 6.

Given he's been shown to be a bit handy with the old slap of late, I'd tend to agree :P

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

My moneys on Frank - KO before round 6.

Frank is an ex nighclub bouncer. It will be no contest at all.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Frank is an ex nighclub bouncer. It will be no contest at all.

Benny has "unusual resources" though....
https://images.app.goo.gl/645WJ4sDQ9UKAmod7

Hotblack Desiato

Odhinn wrote: »

Jaysus forfend somebody try to protect against pregnancy....

Good jaysus tonight.....
https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/0110/1105663-jason-evert/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/irish-talks-by-controversial-us-catholic-preacher-jason-evert-cancelled-1.4137466

According to the original schedule for his first visit to Ireland, Mr Evert was to speak to students at two Dublin schools - Blackrock College and Sandyford’s Rosemont secondary school - on Wednesday, and at the Tower Hotel in Waterford city on Thursday. These have been cancelled.

It was planned that he would speak at an ‘Incite 2020’ student retreat event in University College Dublin between Thursday and Saturday next but a spokeswoman for the university said it had been decided to cancel his talk there.

His talks at the Our Lady Queen of Peace church on Dublin’s Merrion Road will go ahead next Wednesday evening, as will his address at the Holy Family Mission in Waterford on Thursday. The latter was set up by the Catholic diocese of Waterford and Lismore in 2016 aimed at young Catholics between 18 and 35.

Our Lady Queen of Peace is the only Catholic parish in Dublin run by priests of the conservative Opus Dei congregation while Bishop of Waterford and Lismore Phonsie Cullinan is understood to be the only Irish bishop who is a member of Opus Dei.

The UCD LGBT Society had called on the university authorities to stop Mr Evert from speaking, saying in a statement that his proposed visit to the university was “putting the safety of UCD’s LGBTQ+ community at risk” and his words could have “lasting and damaging effects on the mental wellbeing of LGHBTQ+ students.”

In a statement posted on Twitter, the society said Mr Evert’s preaching has direct negative repercussions on all that our university stands for. His ideology and printed work continuously spread hate by insisting that “homosexuality is a disorder.”

After the event was cancelled, the group thanked “everyone for their support and solidarity in this matter”.

'Incite 2020' - 'Incite Hatred 1820' more like.

As for Opus Dei - 'nuff said.

....

Edit: Evangelist Jason Evert cancels remaining Ireland tour dates ‘due to illness’

The remaining speaking engagements in a short tour of Ireland by controversial Catholic preacher, Jason Evert, were cancelled on Tuesday “due to illness”.

The US evangelist had been scheduled to speak at a number of events over the next few days including one at the only Catholic parish in Dublin run by priests from the conservative Opus Dei congregation.

Odhinn

The end times are upon us.............

Pope Francis has made an Italian lawyer the first woman to hold a management position in the Vatican's most important office.
Francesca Di Giovanni, 66, will serve as undersecretary for multilateral affairs in the Secretariat of State.
She will be responsible for co-ordinating the Holy See's relations with groups including the UN.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51124478

Odhinn

The bodies of seven people have been found in a mass grave in an indigenous area of Panama where members of a religious sect were believed to be performing exorcisms, officials say.
The victims included a pregnant woman, 32, and five of her children, aged one to 11. The sixth was a neighbour, 17.

Inside the makeshift church, officers found a naked woman, machetes, knives and a ritually sacrificed goat, Mr Baloyes said. The site was controlled by a religious sect called the New Light of God, believed to have been operating in the region for about three months.
According to Mr Baloyes, the kidnapping and torture started last Saturday after one of the members claimed to have received "a message from God". The victims were then kidnapped from their homes, beaten and killed

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-51144629

Hotblack Desiato

Linked to that was a story I hadn't read before:

Children of God cult was 'hell on earth'

Verity Carter says growing up in a secretive cult that encouraged sexual contact between adults and children was "hell on earth".

The 38-year-old says she was abused from the age of four by members of the Children of God cult, including her own father.

Alexander Watt was convicted in February after admitting four charges of sexually abusing Verity and another child in Renfrewshire and on the east coast of Scotland in the 1980s.

Verity told BBC Scotland's Kaye Adams Programme: "He wasn't the only one who did things to me when I was growing up.

"I had much worse done to me by many others."

"There was a bit of closure in him getting a conviction but at the same time it felt like I wanted more."

She said she hoped her father's conviction would encourage others to come forward to expose the actions of the cult in Scotland.

The Children of God began in the United States in the late 1960s.

Its founder, David Berg, told members that God was love and love was sex, so there should be no limits, regardless of age or relationship.

"It actively encouraged sexual activities among minors as young as two or three years old," Verity says.

Berg's cult spread and claimed to have 10,000 full-time members in 130 communities around the world by the 1970s.

Hollywood stars Rose McGowan and Joaquin Phoenix were born into the cult.

In Scotland, it operated at sites in Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Edinburgh.

Both Verity's parents were active members when she was born.

As well as sexual abuse, Verity says she was repeatedly beaten and whipped for the smallest of transgressions.

"It became hell on earth for anyone born into it," she says.

"It happened a step at a time and many of the adults did not see how extreme it had got until it was too late.

"A lot of parents did leave and take their kids out."

Her own father left the cult when she was about nine, but Verity and her siblings remained inside with their mother.

At first they were not living in a commune, but instead in a small flat in Paisley.

However, they lived a commune lifestyle

"We had no contact with the outside world," Verity says.

"We did not have music or television or culture. We had no idea how the world worked."

Although Verity and her siblings received no formal education, they were taught survival skills and how to keep secrets from the "systemites" in the outside world, especially social workers.

"There were heavy consequences if you failed to keep that smile and say the things you were meant to say," she says.

They were told that terrible things would happen to them and their siblings if there was bad publicity for the group.

Her mother and father claimed to be Christian missionaries as a cover for their activities, Verity says, and she was forced on to the streets to trick people into donating money.

"People did not question it because nobody wants to be accused of being prejudiced against someone who wants an alternative belief system," she says.

Verity says she had very little formal education but was very good at "reading" people and manipulating them.

She says her days with the cult were very regimented and "any signs of imagination" would be beaten out of her.

"There was sexual abuse for myself from the age of four, not just from my dad who got convicted, but from various other members of the cult, some related, some not.

"I wasn't comfortable with the things being done to me but if I asked a question I got beaten or put on silence restriction.

"I was punished a lot because I was never able to stop asking questions."

Verity says she was living in communes full-time from 11 or 12 until she "escaped" at the age of 15.

She says she had reached the stage where she no longer cared what happened to her and refused to submit to the cult's punishments.

"When I got out it was because it no longer mattered if death waited for me in the outside world because I already wanted to die, so how much worse could it be?" she says.

robindch

More international news, this time from Iceland. Though much of it reads as though it was from Ireland.

https://grapevine.is/news/2019/11/08/decline-of-icelandic-church-scandals-and-controversy-lead-to-mass-exodus/

Igotadose

robindch wrote: »

More international news, this time from Iceland. Though much of it reads as though it was from Ireland.

https://grapevine.is/news/2019/11/08/decline-of-icelandic-church-scandals-and-controversy-lead-to-mass-exodus/

It seems like the entrenched (Lutheran-based) church is losing adherents due to the scandals and bigotry in the article you linked to, but the Catholic church there is growing. Not sure this is a good thing overall for Iceland. https://grapevine.is/news/2019/10/24/catholic-congregation-in-iceland-growing-rapidly/

smacl

Igotadose wrote: »

It seems like the entrenched (Lutheran-based) church is losing adherents due to the scandals and bigotry in the article you linked to, but the Catholic church there is growing. Not sure this is a good thing overall for Iceland. https://grapevine.is/news/2019/10/24/catholic-congregation-in-iceland-growing-rapidly/

You're seeing something similar here with the Evangelists, quite a few of which are the right wing American variety, filling a gap left by the shrinking Catholic church. I don't think it will slow the decline of religion in Europe, just leave it more fragmented on the way down.

Hotblack Desiato

Igotadose wrote: »

It seems like the entrenched (Lutheran-based) church is losing adherents due to the scandals and bigotry in the article you linked to, but the Catholic church there is growing.

At least lutherans have the option of officially leaving their church!

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

At least lutherans have the option of officially leaving their church!

So do Catholics, in Iceland.

Because Iceland has a church tax, taxpayers have to declare which church (if any) they belong to. So the way you leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland is by indicating on your income tax return either that you are a member of another church, or that you are not a member of any church. And of course Icelandic Catholics can do exactly the same.

Argument for introducing a church tax in Ireland?

(Not sure what you do if you want to leave a church, but aren't a taxpayer.)

Pawwed Rig

Peregrinus wrote: »

Argument for introducing a church tax in Ireland?

I would love if that happened. It would definitely separate the serious and occasional catholics. Although here they would be more likely to make it obligatory for everybody.

Huntergonzo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

At least lutherans have the option of officially leaving their church!

In my opinion you can officially leave the catholic church, you just decide yourself that you're gone and that's it.

When I was 18/19 I thought about seeking formal recogonition of my leaving the RCC from the RCC. But then I thought about it further and found the following issues:

1. I don't view the RCC as a remotely legitimate organisition, they're a pernicious shower of charlatans with a vile record of human rights abuses all over the word. Such an organisation could never have any legitimate claims over anybody.

2. Given their bare-faced dishonesty and stubborness not to cooperate, you would be bashing your head against a wall trying to deal with them. It gives them more time than they're worth and will cause a lot of unnecessary headaches for the person trying to deal with them.

3. Even if they did give me formal recognition of 'leaving' the church, this is the RCC we're talking about here!! it would mean nothing and they would almost certainly still count me as a 'member'.

Conclusion:

The only records they're good at destroying is that of pedophile priests. Don't even give them your time in asking to leave, just leave.

smacl

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would love if that happened. It would definitely separate the serious and occasional catholics. Although here they would be more likely to make it obligatory for everybody.

With our politicians implementing it they'd probably piss away a few hundred million trying to install a God-o-meter in your driveway, get savaged by the an indignant mob led by the 'Prophets before People' brigade, abandon the whole thing as a bad idea and retire to the Dail bar to lick their wounds. :pac:

Huntergonzo

What tax if any does the church currently pay?

Hotblack Desiato

Huntergonzo wrote: »

In my opinion you can officially leave the catholic church, you just decide yourself that you're gone and that's it.

When I was 18/19 I thought about seeking formal recogonition of my leaving the RCC from the RCC. But then I thought about it further and found the following issues:

1. I don't view the RCC as a remotely legitimate organisition, they're a pernicious shower of charlatans with a vile record of human rights abuses all over the word. Such an organisation could never have any legitimate claims over anybody.

2. Given their bare-faced dishonesty and stubborness not to cooperate, you would be bashing your head against a wall trying to deal with them. It gives them more time than they're worth and will cause a lot of unnecessary headaches for the person trying to deal with them.

3. Even if they did give me formal recognition of 'leaving' the church, this is the RCC we're talking about here!! it would mean nothing and they would almost certainly still count me as a 'member'.

Conclusion:

The only records they're good at destroying is that of pedophile priests. Don't even give them your time in asking to leave, just leave.

When countmeout was a thing, I was thinking along similar lines, but since it's gone I do regret not having done it.

1. I know that, you know that. I want THEM to get an idea of how disgusted we are with them. Not just too lazy to go to mass, or whatever. They were getting quite a few applications to 'defect' here, and then they stopped it.

2. The countmeout process was very easy, cost them money/time/hassle to do, and didn't cost you anything.

3. They can't use baptismal rolls for membership figures anyway, as they're not correlated with death records.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

What tax if any does the church currently pay?

Why, none, of course. Merely promoting itself and perpetuating the money-grabbing charade is, for some reason, recognised by law as a 'charitable purpose'.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

With our politicians implementing it they'd probably piss away a few hundred million trying to install a God-o-meter in your driveway, get savaged by the an indignant mob led by the 'Prophets before People' brigade, abandon the whole thing as a bad idea and retire to the Dail bar to lick their wounds. :pac:

Or they would slap a 2% levy on all birth certs, marriage certs, and death certs to cover the cost of the big 3 churching occasions.

ohnonotgmail

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or they would slap a 2% levy on all birth certs, marriage certs, and death certs to cover the cost of the big 3 churching occasions.

a tax on baptismal certs would probably make more sense.

Bannasidhe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a tax on baptismal certs would probably make more sense.

What on Earth has making sense got to go with government imposed levys? :P