Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland's atheist majority?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I don't mind secularism.

    What do you mean by "secularism"? Because you apparently don't mean what I mean.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I think its giving power to others, which should be held by people themselves.
    Believing individuals should decide how important their religion is and what place it should have in official business of a hospital or school or company, such as allowing this nurse to determine if her Christianity is more important than other religions and therefore she should be allowed discuss it, is not secularism.

    Which is why I was puzzled when you said you don't mind secularism. Apparently you do.


  • Options
    #93
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What do you mean by "secularism"? Because you apparently don't mean what I mean.


    Believing individuals should decide how important their religion is and what place it should have in official business of a hospital or school or company, such as allowing this nurse to determine if her Christianity is more important than other religions and therefore she should be allowed discuss it, is not secularism.

    Which is why I was puzzled when you said you don't mind secularism. Apparently you do.


    Maybe I do mind it so. I was under the impression that it was removing religion from state bodies. I didn't think it was censoring people within these bodies. If that is the case, then I do have a problem with it. I just haven't got a problem with seperating church and state whatever thats called. I suppose I never realised how offended and hurt you guys got when someone asked if they could pray for you. I still see it as OTT, and still think that it is you in need of correcting. But there you go, life goes on.


  • Options
    #94
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Personal faith wouldn't be seen as a threat to anyone, if it were removed from public policy in the way secularism envisages. No power - no threat.

    Astrology isn't given any credence in public policy, but it doesn't stop it from having a huge industry built around it.

    That said if a nurse offered to read my horoscope I'd be amused - if she offered to pray for me I'd be concerned. :pac:


  • Options
    #95
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Maybe I do mind it so. I was under the impression that it was removing religion from state bodies.
    It is.

    But you need to legislate that. You can't just remove all references without something saying that religion and the state must be separate. You certainly cannot just leave it up to people themselves, you will end up with a big mess. That misses the point of removing it in the first place.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I didn't think it was censoring people within these bodies.
    How do you remove religious bias, or the perception of religious bias, from government without censoring the people who work for the government. Government is after all just a bunch of people.

    You can't just "remove" references to religion from government. You need a law that says government must remove reference to religion bias and cannot introduce new ones. And by government I mean the public service in general.

    That includes everyone, right down the nurse. Her discussion of prayer was an introduction of religion as she was acting a representative of the state. She is proclaiming that she is Christian. My only objection to this nurse discussing religion was that she was working as a representative of the state at the time.

    The State is religion neural and by proxy those working for the State must appear to be religion neutral. Otherwise you alienate people who do not share that religion, as much as you do by passing a law that says "Christianity is great"

    And the only way to ensure that is to legislate it. The only power government has is legislation.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I just haven't got a problem with seperating church and state whatever thats called.

    That is separation of church and state. If the nurse introduces religion into her work as a representative of the state, declares through her actions that she is a Christian and will act as a Christian while doing her job, she is not separating church and state she is doing the exact opposite.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I suppose I never realised how offended and hurt you guys got when someone asked if they could pray for you.

    It isn't really us. It is other religious people. Being looked after by someone of a different religion means far more to a religious person. Again, the example of the Adelaide hospital in Dublin.


  • Options
    #96
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You certainly cannot just leave it up to people themselves,
    What an interesting statement, not a big fan of democracies I take it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »

    How do you remove religious bias, or the perception of religious bias, from government without censoring the people who work for the government. Government is after all just a bunch of people.

    You can't. As you said, its a bunch of people. I think the word in bold is key. Its not about the reality, its about the perception.
    You can't just "remove" references to religion from government. You need a law that says government must remove reference to religion bias and cannot introduce new ones. And by government I mean the public service in general.

    Like above though, people will still have bias. Be it atheist, Christian, Jew, whatever. Whoever makes the policy will have a concience informed by many different things, which in turn influences policy. All you are doing, is saying they must hide them.
    That includes everyone, right down the nurse. Her discussion of prayer was an introduction of religion as she was acting a representative of the state.

    Which is why I don't like the legislation. IMO, it goes too far. I would simply take situations on merit.
    She is proclaiming that she is Christian. My only objection to this nurse discussing religion was that she was working as a representative of the state at the time.

    Which is part of why I hate it. Its irrational. Its just a rule. Its not that this nurse was offensive or not professional, its that she seemed to be mentioning something harmlessly.
    The State is religion neural and by proxy those working for the State must appear to be religion neutral.

    Again, its not religion neutral, if there are any religious people in it. As you said, its made up of people. Again, I highlighted an important word. I think removing religious trinkets etc is enough, and any religious privelage etc. I am simply for leaving people communicate.
    Otherwise you alienate people who do not share that religion, as much as you do by passing a law that says "Christianity is great"

    Thats the thing though. I would not legislate for people who are offended at such things as a nurse offering a prayer. I would tend to believe these people are rare anyway, but in any case not legislated for. Whats that phrase, 'You can please some people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.' As I mentioned in the other thread. I 'hate' the whole horoscopes and new age witchy type stuff. I detest them. However, if a nurse asked if I wanted my horoscope read, it would not, and should not, be offensive to me. We should be discouraging people from such silly sensitivities, rather than embracing it and saying 'there, there'. Again, I've yet to meet people who are so stressed and hurt by such things anyway.
    That is separation of church and state. If the nurse introduces religion into her work as a representative of the state, declares through her actions that she is a Christian and will act as a Christian while doing her job, she is not separating church and state she is doing the exact opposite.

    No, she is acting as a human being who happens to be a christian working in a secular hospital. I think nurses should be encouraged to treat the patient as a person, and not as a job number. Obviously there can be lines crossed, but I'd rather the odd crossed line than the alternative.
    It isn't really us. It is other religious people.

    Then let them fight the battle. You keep out of it if you are not actually bothered by it. You are quite quick to point out irrationality in believers, yet now you embrace this as if believers are completely rational and should be pandered to.
    Being looked after by someone of a different religion means far more to a religious person. Again, the example of the Adelaide hospital in Dublin.

    Then more fool them. That was an extreme from the religious side, and like I said, I feel that what you are encouraging is an extreme from the secular side. Your rationale is the equivalent of making all hospitals Catholic to suit the people who irrationally bycotted the Adelaide IMO. Its got the problem wrong. What needed to be done, was those who bycotted the Adelaide needed to cop on, not be encouraged.


  • Options
    #98
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    What an interesting statement, not a big fan of democracies I take it.
    I think what Wicknight meant was that people will not always abide by what society as a whole thinks are "good ideas" (such as separation of church and state) unless there is legislation in place.
    The majority of Irish people may think that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places, but without legislation to prevent it not all smokers would stop smoking in public places. Sometimes governments need sticks as well as carrots :D


  • Options
    #99
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    pts wrote: »
    I think what Wicknight meant was that people will not always abide by what society as a whole thinks are "good ideas" (such as separation of church and state) unless there is legislation in place.
    The majority of Irish people may think that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places, but without legislation to prevent it not all smokers would stop smoking in public places. Sometimes governments need sticks as well as carrots :D

    Perhaps I'm misrepresenting him, I'll withdraw the statement.


  • Options
    #100
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    pts wrote: »
    I think what Wicknight meant was that people will not always abide by what society as a whole thinks are "good ideas" (such as separation of church and state) unless there is legislation in place.
    The majority of Irish people may think that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places, but without legislation to prevent it not all smokers would stop smoking in public places. Sometimes governments need sticks as well as carrots :D

    And in relation to this conversation, I would say that this legislation is the equivalent of saying you can't 'mention' cigarettes in a public place never mind smoke them.


  • Options
    #101
    Calibos
    Registered Users Posts: 7,807 ✭✭✭Calibos


    JimiTime wrote: »

    Which is part of why I hate it. Its irrational. Its just a rule. Its not that this nurse was offensive or not professional, its that she seemed to be mentioning something harmlessly.

    'Mentioning Something harmlessly' to you who is also a christian, however it might not seem harmless to someone of a different religion. The nurse saying this to an atheist is only annoying in terms of how it is a reminder of the 'lack of separation of church and state' but its not annoying to an atheist in terms of "How dare you say that to me nurse". We're an easygoing bunch. I'd say 99.99% of us would, upon hearing that we are being prayed for 1. accept it graciously on a personal level as the nurses' way of saying she cares for our welfare, 2. mentally raise our eyes to heaven(pardon the pun) that here is more evidence of an intelligent person expert in compartmentalising their rational side from their religion, 3. noting this as another example of the lack of separation of church and state. However a person of another religion is much more likely to take offence. How dare they pray to their false prophet on my behalf.

    Thats the thing though. I would not legislate for people who are offended at such things as a nurse offering a prayer. I would tend to believe these people are rare anyway, but in any case not legislated for. Whats that phrase, 'You can please some people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.' As I mentioned in the other thread. I 'hate' the whole horoscopes and new age witchy type stuff. I detest them. However, if a nurse asked if I wanted my horoscope read, it would not, and should not, be offensive to me. We should be discouraging people from such silly sensitivities, rather than embracing it and saying 'there, there'. Again, I've yet to meet people who are so stressed and hurt by such things anyway.

    Wow, my Irony meter just exploded! "I would not legistlate for people who are offended........" You might not but most of your fellow religionists 'would' like to legistlate to stop the likes of us saying that we don't believe in your God. All that furore about the atheist bus!! Blasphemy legistalation brought back into the statute books in the UK etc

    The Coup de grace, "We should be discouraging people from such silly sensitivities, rather than embracing it and saying 'there, there'. Again, I've yet to meet people who are so stressed and hurt by such things anyway."

    Thats all we are doing for the most part. Talk about one rule for us and another rule for them. Don't you see that your religion to us is like Horoscopes and witchy things for you....ie patent nonsense.


    No, she is acting as a human being who happens to be a christian working in a secular hospital. I think nurses should be encouraged to treat the patient as a person, and not as a job number. Obviously there can be lines crossed, but I'd rather the odd crossed line than the alternative.

    Yeah, they should be treated as a person....not a christian person though cause guess what, we're not all christians. and Oh Yes, the horific alternative of just keeping your religion to yourself. You are basically saying, "Most people wont be offended, but even if a few are so what?" Yet you castigate us, "Even though most Christians wont be offended, you atheists should keep your mouths shut so you don't offend the few that are"

    .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    anladmór
    Closed Accounts Posts: 367 ✭✭anladmór


    I DESPISE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. HELD IRELAND BACK SO MUCH OMG IM SO EMOTIONAL ABOUT IT AFTER A BOOK I JUST READ.

    IT WAS MABY GOOD FOR US AT ONE POINT IN THE 17TH CENTURY BUT OTHER THAN THAT IT DEFINETLY HAS BEEN A MAJOR DOWNPOINT WHEN IT COMES TO IRISH IDENTITY. ITS COOL TO BELIEVE IN GOD...WHATEVER BUT I HOPE FOR THE DAY WHEN THE CATHOLICS IN IRELAND IS 2%


  • Options
    #103
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    anladmór wrote: »
    IM SO EMOTIONAL ABOUT IT AFTER A BOOK I JUST READ.
    Let me guess... no don't tell me... the bible ?


  • Options
    #104
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    anladmór wrote: »
    LOUD TALK

    Well, you're only 15 so you might see less of the Catholic Church than we ever will.

    In the interim, don't post in CAPS, do post on topic and we won't have to give you detention.


  • Options
    #105
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    JimiTime wrote: »
    And in relation to this conversation, I would say that this legislation is the equivalent of saying you can't 'mention' cigarettes in a public place never mind smoke them.
    I don't agree with your analogy. I think smoking in public places was banned due to, among other things, it's perceived negative effect on people in the smokers vicinity. It would be hard to argue that mentioning cigarettes in a public place would have a comparable perceived negative effect on people.


  • Options
    #106
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    What an interesting statement, not a big fan of democracies I take it.

    You say that like you imagine not being a fan of democracies is a bad thing?

    In fairness, I'd say most Atheists are not fans of democracies, it is because of them that we have the blurred lines between church and state. They allow for mob rule of the masses, and if the mob wants their religion in power, they will get it. What Wicknight is proposing is the formation of a republic, where legislation and law are above everything. They cannot be changed merely because the majority wants it so.

    The reason you don't see many republics is because people in power always want more of it, and republics don't allow for it. All republics will eventually degrade into a democracy and from there an oligarchy.


  • Options
    #107
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    pts wrote: »
    I don't agree with your analogy (or simile if we have to get very technical). I think smoking in public places was banned due to, among other things, it's perceived negative effect on people in the smokers vicinity. It would be hard to argue that mentioning cigarettes in a public place would have a comparable perceived negative effect on people.

    Indeed a better analogy might be to ban meat in public places least we make vegetarians uncomfortable, actually perhaps ban eating in public :p


  • Options
    #108
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    he formation of a republic, where legislation and law are above everything.
    Actually that's not what a republic is, a republic is where the country is not lead by a monarch and the will of the people (not necessarily the majority) dictate its running.


  • Options
    #109
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Actually that's not what a republic is, a republic is where the country is not lead by a monarch and the will of the people (not necessarily the majority) dictate its running.

    You should read more about Republics instead of just rewording the definition from wikipedia.

    Read further down that wiki page on "Enlightenment Republicanism"


  • Options
    #110
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Indeed a better analogy might be to ban meat in public places least we make vegetarians uncomfortable, actually perhaps ban eating in public :p
    :D Perhaps. I do realise that lines have to be drawn somewhere since not every one can be one the same side of every line. So where do you draw the line? Smokers or non-smokers rights, vegetarians on non-vegetarians rights, nurse wishing to share her faith or patient that mightn't want to hear about that faith. I think many great minds have pondered these questions, unfortunately I don't think we have a good answer yet.


  • Options
    #111
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    You should read more about Republics instead of just rewording the definition from wikipedia.

    Read further down that wiki page on "Enlightenment Republicanism"

    You should have narrowed your definition of a republic before throwing out a general term. See we both can nit pick. Ohh what fun.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    You should have narrowed your definition of a republic before throwing out a general term. See we both can nit pick. Ohh what fun.

    There was no need, I made it clear which form of republic I was talking about in my comment. If I was to say "I do like sports, I love watching Tiger Woods play" it is not my fault that because you do not know enough, that you would assume Tiger Woods played for a football team.


  • Options
    #113
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    There was no need, I made it clear which form of republic I was talking about in my comment. If I was to say "I do like sports, I love watching Tiger Woods play" it is not my fault that because you do not know enough, that you would assume Tiger Woods played for a football team.

    Pull the other one goddoesntexist. You were being purposely cocky about what a republic is. Then saying, 'its not my fault if you can't keep up with my super intelligence'. Its all about you showing how big ur w!lly is.



    IMO.


  • Options
    #114
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its all about you showing how big ur w!lly is.
    Ah, I always wondered where the w!lly comparison thread on boards was. :)


  • Options
    #115
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    pts wrote: »
    Ah, I always wondered where the w!lly comparison thread on boards was. :)

    Just remember, its not the size of the ship:)


  • Options
    #116
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    ^^^
    this debate is derailing the thread; take it to political theory
    c-note wrote: »
    if your worried that there's not enough believers in college:
    Wait till you graduate and examine your job prospects,
    then count the "oh god" 's :P

    "There are no atheists in dole queues."

    lol

    No, the lack of belief in college isn't what worries me. The doorway that leads to life is narrow and few people find it. It's people not thinking about belief that worries me.


Advertisement