Is there complete separation of church and state in rep of Ireland ?

Cybertron85

He supports the launch of this book, for me this is akin to supporting the intelligent design theories even though he has shrewdly avoided saying it so openly.

But it's off topic I suppose, the answer to the OP's question is a clear NO.

Irish_Elect_Eng

He was stating that he was to attend to debate the issue with the author and that his position was pro evolution, but it was indeed a silly thing to do, anyone with half a brain could have predicted the headlines. But as you said OT.

My argument above was that separation of church and state is not possible in a purist sense as the state is is collection of real people whose decisions will always be biased by their beliefs.

So I believe that separation of church/beliefs/religion and state is not possible.

Dionysus

MungoMan wrote: »

It's obvious that the established churches in Ireland (Catholic, Church of Ireland etc etc) do not have much (if any) influence on the running of the state.

Are there any areas where the church still has influence ? Can anyone give any examples ? Are there any state institutions where the church has some influence ?

Is it true to say that there is complete separation between church and state in Ireland ?
In France, you often hear about "agressive secularism" where the state and church are very separate, has this happened in Ireland ?

Is there anything in the constitution which refers to "God" or "Budda" or "Allah" or "Jesus" "sun gods" or any established church ?

It could be worse; we could have a law saying the President of Ireland had to be Protestant Catholic and that a non-Protestant Catholic was forbidden from holding the highest civic office in society.

I wonder how many people who look down their noses at the supposed "sectarianism" of Irish state-church relationships then turn round and admire a nearby state which has this sort of ban in 2011?

Jesus Wept

MungoMan wrote: »

It's obvious that the established churches in Ireland (Catholic, Church of Ireland etc etc) do not have much (if any) influence on the running of the state.

w.t.f

The_Minister

JupiterKid wrote: »

Indeed, I was in hospital just a month ago for a minor procedure and I was asked what religion I was. .

That is so that if you die, you don't get given the wrong services.

That isn't the imposition of religion, that is respect, and would hopefully exist in a secular society as well.

Snakeblood

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

He was stating that he was to attend to debate the issue with the author and that his position was pro evolution, but it was indeed a silly thing to do, anyone with half a brain could have predicted the headlines. But as you said OT.

My argument above was that separation of church and state is not possible in a purist sense as the state is is collection of real people whose decisions will always be biased by their beliefs.

So I believe that separation of church/beliefs/religion and state is not possible.

He said that after the storm blew up around it though, I think? He'd have been out there gladhanding not debating.

Ghost Estate

JupiterKid wrote: »

Indeed, I was in hospital just a month ago for a minor procedure and I was asked what religion I was.

A few months ago a lad made a thread about this. A complete nutter of a fella altogether. So much for assertions of superior intelligence from the militant atheist community

strobe

MungoMan wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I hadn't realised that the religious authorities had such control over the schools (and some hospitals).

If there were political will to force every school to be secular (and have religious instruction done outside of the curriculum, and that religious instruction would be optional), how could this be done ?
The dilemma is that schools are owned by the religious authorities.....

Could the schools be forced to be secular ? Maybe a compulsary purchase order of the schools from the religious authorities ? OK, that's silly, the state couldn't afford that !

No need for a compulsory purchase order. No need to purchase anything. Simply pass into law that state funded schools are required to be run on a secular basis. If the Church want to take over the funding, pay the teachers wages, pay the heating and electricity bills, pay for chalk and maintenance, then they can continue wasting pupils and teachers time with their tales of men living inside of wales stomachs and space ghosts killing Egyptian babies. If they want the state to continue funding them they must leave that rubbish outside the school gates.

Sisko

strobe wrote: »

Sinn Fein and Labour seem to be the most secularly leaning parties.

Guess I know who I'm voting for so.

dilbert2

Cybertron85 wrote: »

We have a Minister for science who doesn't believe in evolution.


ENOUGH SAID!

Ironic really, when he could pass for the missing link. :rolleyes:

The_Minister

Sisko wrote: »

Guess I know who I'm voting for so.

There are more important issues than a blasphemy law that doesn't do anything and a bit of watered-down Catholicism being taught to children.


Like economics, tax-levels and the like.

MungoMan

The_Minister wrote: »

There are more important issues than a blasphemy law that doesn't do anything and a bit of watered-down Catholicism being taught to children.


Like economics, tax-levels and the like.

Of course there are much more important issues.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the less important issues too, maybe the TD's might have to meet more often.

The Catholicism taught in schools is not that watered down..(communion, confession, confirmation, prayers...

Its not watered down if you happen to be an athiest or for someone who believes in a sun god for example.

RichieC

Cybertron85 wrote: »

He supports the launch of this book, for me this is akin to supporting the intelligent design theories even though he has shrewdly avoided saying it so openly.

But it's off topic I suppose, the answer to the OP's question is a clear NO.

BS, he's friends with John.

partyatmygaff

MungoMan wrote: »

The Catholicism taught in schools is not that watered down.....especially for an aethiest or for someone who believes in a sun god for example.

Atheists and Pagans don't have to sit in during Religion classes during school. It's hardly that big of an issue as people here on boards make it out to be. Learning biblical parables don't scar people for life.

Fratton Fred

Dionysus wrote: »

It could be worse; we could have a law saying the President of Ireland had to be Protestant Catholic and that a non-Protestant Catholic was forbidden from holding the highest civic office in society.

I wonder how many people who look down their noses at the supposed "sectarianism" of Irish state-church relationships then turn round and admire a nearby state which has this sort of ban in 2011?

the Netherlands, Spain, Norway or the UK?

Morag

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Atheists and Pagans don't have to sit in during Religion classes during school. It's hardly that big of an issue as people here on boards make it out to be. Learning biblical parables don't scar people for life.

Yes they do as there is in the over whelming majority of schools no one to supervise them.

pajor

"Short answer: 'Yes' with an 'If,' long answer: 'No' -- with a But."

partyatmygaff

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes they do as there is in the over whelming majority of schools no one to supervise them.

I've never heard of that happening. They don't get sent out of the room, they're just allowed to do whatever you want for the time such as read a book or draw a picture.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Learning biblical parables don't scar people for life.

No but it deprives them of a proper education as it wastes time that could be used for ...you know........learning them to reed and rite and stuff.

MungoMan wrote: »

Could the schools be forced to be secular ? Maybe a compulsary purchase order of the schools from the religious authorities ? OK, that's silly, the state couldn't afford that !

In the current property market what is the going rate for an unfunded school with no prospect of planning permission for redevelopment ?

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

No but it deprives them of a proper education as it wastes time that could be used for ...you know........learning them to reed and rite and stuff.

Back when I was in primary school we spent time being read Aesop's fables and other stories with a moral lesson. Do you think that was a waste of time as well?

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Back when I was in primary school we spent time being read Aesop's fables and other stories with a moral lesson. Do you think that was a waste of time as well?

Depends on what class you were in

Now how is this relevant ?

MungoMan

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I've never heard of that happening. They don't get sent out of the room, they're just allowed to do whatever you want for the time such as read a book or draw a picture.

If my memory serves me well, the child in school who is a bit different (i.e. an athiest in a class of Christians) will get picked on in the playground for being different.
It's not nice to be told to go and read a book or draw a picture, while the rest of the class are discussing about a man walking on water for example, or a man at a wedding taking water, and turning it into good wine (without any grapes, or fermentation)

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Depends on what class you were in

Now how is this relevant ?

I was talking about biblical parables as an example. In essence they serve the exact same purpose as Aesop's fables.

MungoMan wrote: »

If my memory serves me well, the child in school who is a bit different (i.e. an athiest in a class of Christians) will get picked on in the playground for being different.

I went to primary school from '98 - '06. We had three people in our class who were not Catholics and not one of us were picked on for being different. This was in a Catholic school of all places.

It's not nice to be told to go and read a book or draw a picture,

The ones who were exempted from religion classes were envied by the rest of the class for being allowed to do as they wished.

My name is URL

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Back when I was in primary school we spent time being read Aesop's fables and other stories with a moral lesson. Do you think that was a waste of time as well?

So.. call it philosophy or theistic study. If it isn't intended to be religious then it shouldn't be rooted in religion.

There was no apparent effort to distance fixed religious ideals and simple philosophy when I was in primary school. Everyone was expected to study about crap before making their communion and confirmation. I don't know any parent who withdrew their kids from such things either.. but as has being mentioned, it's simply easier not to do so in most cases.

Overheal

Ghost Estate wrote: »

it doesn't bother me a bit that there isn't.

but its funny to see the atheist crowd getting so worked up over it.

You might feel differently if the separation wasn't there between the State and Sharia Law, not the State and the Catholic Church.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I was talking about biblical parables as an example. In essence they serve the exact same purpose as Aesop's fables.

If I had the time and inclination I could cite you lots of biblical passages which do the exact opposite.

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If I had the time and inclination I could cite you lots of biblical passages which do the exact opposite.

The typical response. You discreetly attempt to steer the conversation from parables to something completely different in an attempt to appeal to AH popular opinion.

When talking of biblical parables these are the stories told by Jesus in the New Testament to convey his moral message. Considering that children are also told the likes of Aesop's fables I do not see why people feel so negatively towards it.

RichieC

Ghost Estate wrote: »

it doesn't bother me a bit that there isn't.

but its funny to see the atheist crowd getting so worked up over it.

GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY! (serious allcaps are serious)

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When talking of biblical parables these are the stories told by Jesus in the New Testament to convey his moral message. Considering that children are also told the likes of Aesop's fables I do not see why people feel so negatively towards it.

So now weve shifted from Biblical passages in general to the stories told by Jesus in the New Testament specifically ?

Those who tell the stories told by Jesus in the New Testament to convey his moral message. generally tend to have an agenda which goes beyond selling the mere moral message as conveyed by Jesus in the New testament.

Aesop on the other hand doesnt have an army of followers claiming that he is the Son of God.

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Those who tell the stories told by Jesus in the New Testament to convey his moral message. generally tend to have an agenda which goes beyond selling the mere moral message as conveyed by Jesus in the New testament

Strange that. Considering that non-Catholics usually sit out of class I don't see what's the point in them using the telling of parables as a method to "forward their agenda". If they truly wanted to preach they'd force all of the children to sit in.

Aesop on the other hand doesnt have an army of followers claiming that he is the Son of God.

So what? Does that make the parables any less valid?


Interesting to note is your casual exclusion of the first line of the post that you quoted.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Interesting to note is your casual exclusion of the first line of the post that you quoted.

I tend to edit quotes in order to avoid being guilty of that irritating habit among many posters on boards of quoting an entire post in order to reply to one specific point.

That and the fact that pathetic personal attacks are often best ignored.

Sisko

religion should be banned in schools and kept to the churches. imo religion should be banned from being forced on kids till they're 18. Its practically brainwashing atm.

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I tend to edit quotes in order to avoid being guilty of that irritating habit among many posters on boards of quoting an entire post in order to reply to one specific point.

So you chose to ignore the first point I take it?

That and the fact that pathetic personal attacks are often best ignored.

They are indeed best ignored. Thank you for that irrelevant tidbit of information.

Mike 1972

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So you chose to ignore the first point I take it?.

Well since you insist ......

YOUR MA TOO :rolleyes:

RichieC

Sisko wrote: »

religion should be banned in schools and kept to the churches. imo religion should be banned from being forced on kids till they're 18. Its practically brainwashing atm.

agree, look at america for instance... more of them believe in UFO's than in evolution because of religious indoctrination.

and now the fruits of it, you literally cannot have a serious discussion on a website without one of them coming in and Sh*tting on the conversation with some half cocked rubbish their mother thought them in their homeschooling...

I'm glad the Catholic church formally accepted evolution, we dodged a bullet on that one.

Mike 1972

RichieC wrote: »

more of them believe in UFO's than in evolution because of religious indoctrination.

But UFO's exist

Everytime someone looks into the sky and asks themselves what the is that ? theyve seen a UFO

When the realise its a bird/plane/superman the UFO becomes an IFO :pac:

RichieC

Mike 1972 wrote: »

But UFO's exist

Everytime someone looks into the sky and asks themselves what the is that ? theyve seen a UFO

When the realise its a bird/plane/superman the UFO becomes an IFO :pac:

haha, well yes... but you /should/ get my gist

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Well since you insist ......

YOUR MA TOO :rolleyes:

Err....

RichieC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Err....

I see now with your defense of the catholic church why you like Micheal jackson.

partyatmygaff

RichieC wrote: »

I see now with your defense of the catholic church why you like Micheal jackson.

I see no correlation between one of the world's best entertainers and a religious organisation.

I do however see a correlation between militant Atheism and nasty, crass posts.

RichieC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I see no correlation between one of the world's best entertainers and a religious organisation.

I do however see a correlation between militant Atheism and nasty, crass posts.

Pedrophiles.

partyatmygaff

RichieC wrote: »

Pedrophiles.

Neither Michael Jackson nor any true member of any Christian Church are pedophiles.

RichieC

lies, of course.

partyatmygaff

RichieC wrote: »

lies, of course.

Do you have any proof for either claim or are you merely talking populist rubbish? Methinks the latter.

RichieC

you're brainwashed, son.

MungoMan

I think the topic has gone a bit off thread....it started off as a naive question from me about whether the church and state are completely separate in the republic.....and now it has moved on "whether Michael Jackson was a paedophile or not"

Clearly, schools (and to a much lesser degree, hospitals) still have church involvement in the state....

As one poster said, the state could pass a law make every school completely secular, and ensure religious instruction would happen outside normal school hours, and that it would be optional.

How likely is this to happen ?
When I read boards.ie, it's clear that about 90% or more of the people are completely athiest, everytime someone defends religion, about 10 people come in and shoot them down, using logic and reason.

But are boards.ie members representative of the general population ?

partyatmygaff

RichieC wrote: »

you're brainwashed, son.

LOL

How pathetic. Brainwashed by whom exactly considering I am not a Catholic?

Surprising that you feel capable of calling billions of people and a world famous entertainer pedophiles yet cannot answer and choose to spout drivel instead when I ask you for proof.

gurramok

RichieC wrote: »

you're brainwashed, son.

I was brainwashed in a Catholic run primary school. At age 4 in my first year and subsequent years, we were made to learn off by heart the Hail Mary and Our Father prayers which were said before the day began and when the day ended. Something like a Madrassa would have been proud of in the equivalent Muslim faith.

Also we were forced to go to confession and church regularly. This was in the 80's.

Thankfully as I grew up, I threw off those shackles of mind control and I can think freely on my own now

Pace2008

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Neither Michael Jackson nor any true member of any Christian Church are pedophiles.

Nor any true Scotsmen, for that matter.

Morag

MungoMan wrote: »

I think the topic has gone a bit off thread....it started off as a naive question from me about whether the church and state are completely separate in the republic.....and now it has moved on "whether Michael Jackson was a paedophile or not"

Clearly, schools (and to a much lesser degree, hospitals) still have church involvement in the state....

As one poster said, the state could pass a law make every school completely secular, and ensure religious instruction would happen outside normal school hours, and that it would be optional.

There were schools which moved reglion class to the last subject of the day to allow for parents who's kids were not catholic to take them early but they were told to stop it by the Dept of education.

MungoMan wrote: »

How likely is this to happen ?
When I read boards.ie, it's clear that about 90% or more of the people are completely athiest, everytime someone defends religion, about 10 people come in and shoot them down, using logic and reason.

But are boards.ie members representative of the general population ?

I am not an athiest, I think having a spiritual aspect to your life enriches it,
but it should be a personal choice and if parents want their kids to become catholic then they should teach them and they should be taught at home and in church but not in school.