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

Hank_Jones

I actually thought this thread was going to be a joke.

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

"Well there fcuking well should be!!"

In my mind I pictured it something like that, disappointed at the reality (of both the thread and the catholic church).

It's Ireland's largest lingerie section I understand.

Dave!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

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

Would probably be a good idea for the Catholic Church to excommunicate the convicted pedophiles then.

But they don't do that...

They reserve excommunication for 'really' horrendous things, like young girls who have had an abortion after they've been raped by their father.

Heroes.

Glassheart

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some people would put Catholic for political reasons if you know what i mean. Less catholics, it can look bad. So lets click it anyway.

Not in the south.

MagicMarker

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Both RCs and Mennonites are branches of Christianity. As Christian denominations as a whole have differing views on contraception you need to include the denomination in question when discussing Christianity and Contraception.

As such
1. No they are not true Catholics.
2. They are true Mennonites.

- Views on contraception differ from denomination to denomination. Views on issues such as child abuse rarely if ever vary from denomination to denomination.

You didn't answer the question that I asked, I would appreciate it if you would.

JonJoeDali

Dave! wrote: »

Would probably be a good idea for the Catholic Church to excommunicate the convicted pedophiles then.

But they don't do that...

They reserve excommunication for 'really' horrendous things, like young girls who have had an abortion after they've been raped by their father.

Heroes.

You obviously know very little about excommunication.

Ghost Buster

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to say that the majority of Catholic priests are paedophiles? A tiny minority now equates to "so many"?


True. But a paedophile is not a Christian.

You seem to be implying that Christians hate sinners. I never said that, I only said that paedophiles are not Christians. Nothing more.

Im saying that 100% of priests and catholics are 100% directly supporting an
institution, administrated from a wealthy foreign state, which enables child rape and protects child rapists. I am also saying that anyone who ticks "Catholic" in the next census is directly giving the 'ok' for such behaviour to continue. Thats how the census works.

Ghost Buster

partyatmygaff wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7069664.ece


If they do, they disagree with the Catholic Church and should move to a denomination whose beliefs they agree with.


If they are genuine in their repentance and give a heartfelt apology then yes. However that is not to say they should be free from punishment. They should be permanently disallowed from holding any clerical position and they should be punished to the maximum extent allowed by civil law.

I have this vision of a massive stampede as a huge majority of Irish catholics run into their nearest church of ireland chapel.... imagine:D

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

You didn't answer the question that I asked, I would appreciate it if you would.

I have provided you with answers already. If you are looking for one word answers then look elsewhere.

MagicMarker

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have provided you with answers already. If you are looking for one word answers then look elsewhere.

I'm just looking for an answer to my question. You seem unable to provide one though.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Mind control... by the Catholic Church because i'm apparently a "Catherlick" preacher whose brainwashed and is trying to brainwash poor free old gurramok.

I ain't old young man.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Stop winking at me. It's 1:30AM on a monday morning, bit creepy, don't you think?

smokingman

Let's get back to the point though, why should we separate church from state?

Education: Religion teaches a reward mechanism, not a true moral goodness. If you want to teach children not to be a$$holes in life, teach them that being nice to the person next to you won't give you a pass to some heaven but will be good for society. There is room for religion classes in schools but these lessons must include the teachings of all religions so that they instill an understanding of other peoples belief systems instead of intolerance.

Health: Doctors who refuse to treat someone because the particular treatment (say contraception) doesn't sit with their religious views should be struck off, end of. Religion has nothing to do with the biological mechanism and shouldn't be entertained as part of it.

Government: We've seen with our blasphemy law (that Pakistan is holing up as a reason they should bring it in) that religion and a countries laws should be separate so as to ensure proper equality for all the citizens of that country.

GoldRush4821

gurramok wrote: »

I've often found the most hypocritical people are those that went to church. They go to mass and be lovey dovey but for the other 6 days of the week they can be the most downright obnoxious people one would ever come across.

On the other hand, those who never went to mass i've often found to be decent good natured people who will never pass judgement on you and will often help you out when you are down.

Yes true and it comes down to the fact that the majority of atheists/agnostics, call them what you will, are morally good people. The lie that most religious fanatics propagate is that without religion, one is devoid of morals. Yet, these people only do right instead of wrong because they believe they will be rewarded in heaven for doing such a thing. In a way, they are not moral people for morality's sake, but rather they are only in it for what they will get in the "afterlife". Atheists, on the other hand, believe in being good because they believe in the Golden rule or some variation, and believe that making good decisions is the right thing to do, and that it benefits society if we all treat each other with equal respect.

If everyone lived by the Golden rule, instead of the distorted ideals of the Abrahamic religions(the ones which cause the most conflict, i.e Islam, Christianity and Judaism) then the state of affairs in numerous countries would be a lot better right now.. e.g Israel - Palestine, the Kashmir, Chechyna, let's not forget Northern Ireland...

A little off topic, but I think a legitimate point nonetheless...

Morag

snuggles285 wrote: »

Yes, the state and the church are seperate entities in Ireland. The state controls and influences the country more cause of the government and constitution. The church might have objections when it comes to certain laws when it involves religion and humanity rights maybe. The church wouldn't have a strong an influence of the country of Ireland except in the church not so much outside it depending on the parishioners beliefs.
When it comes to marriage, baptisim, communion, confirmation and abortion would be likely the only time the church will interveen and perhaps in catholic schools. The thing is God is not part of the constitution of Ireland, God is seen as seperate from the constitution and the State laws of Ireland. God doesn't influence or dictate what is said in the constitution, God is only influcenced in one written document and thats the bible! So ya the state and the church are seperate!

Dud you need to read the Irish constitution.

MungoMan

strobe wrote: »

If you don't believe in a god you are an atheist. If you don't claim to know if there is a god or not you are an agnostic. If you don't believe there is a god but you don't claim to know if there is one or not you are an agnostic atheist. If you believe there is a god but you don't claim to know there is one you are an agnostic theist.

It isn't you are either an agnostic or an atheist or a theist. Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. One deals with belief and the other deals with knowledge.

What a wonderful post. All my life I have been an agnostic athiest, but I never heard the term before. I have finally found a word (or 2 words) to describe what I am !

I guess all athiests are really agnostic athiests (because even the most hardened athiest must accept the very small probability that there is a God, or several Gods.

And I guess every believer is really an agnostic thiest (because even the strongest believer must accept that there might not be one of more gods, because it's impossible to know.

Getting back to separation of church and state, the angelus at 6pm on state TV is one of the most visible signs that we are not secular yet.

I returned to Ireland recently and when I saw the Angelus on TV for 60 seconds, I wondered was I in Iran or some fundamentalist country. I've respect for the angelus, it harms nobody, and I'm sure it makes many people feel good, but how do non Christians in Ireland feel ?

GoldRush4821

MungoMan wrote: »

What a wonderful post. All my life I have been an agnostic athiest, but I never heard the term before. I have finally found a word (or 2 words) to describe what I am !

I guess all athiests are really agnostic athiests (because even the most hardened athiest must accept the very small probability that there is a God, or several Gods.

And I guess every believer is really an agnostic thiest (because even the strongest believer must accept that there might not be one of more gods, because it's impossible to know.

Getting back to separation of church and state, the angelus at 6pm on state TV is one of the most visible signs that we are not secular yet.

I returned to Ireland recently and when I saw the Angelus going bong bong on TV 18 times over the course of 60 seconds, I wondered was I in Iran or some fundamentalist country. I've respect for the angelus, it harms nobody, but how do non Christians in Ireland feel ?

Yes the angelus is on TV, but I think that to a certain extent has even been "censored". They have removed all religious imagery from it and it is now more of a minute of a reflection than a minute of prayer. IMO, there is no reason why the angelus should be taken off the air when we are a predominantly Roman Catholic country, especially considering it is no longer forcing religious imagery down our throats.

KeithAFC

The republic has never been a secular country.

Ghost Buster

If there was separation of church and state would the state saddle the tax paying population with the greater percentage of the churches compensation payments to the children it abused rather than , for example seizing its assets and selling them as would most certainly happen any other group who could not pay its way in a criminal proceeding

Ghost Estate

MungoMan wrote: »

I returned to Ireland recently and when I saw the Angelus on TV for 60 seconds, I wondered was I in Iran or some fundamentalist country. I've respect for the angelus, it harms nobody, and I'm sure it makes many people feel good, but how do non Christians in Ireland feel ?

When a few more of the Tribunals finish up they might extend the Angelus to 120 seconds to make it easier for the news crowd to fill their slot.

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm just looking for an answer to my question. You seem unable to provide one though.

I've answered you already. My answer cannot be simplified to a simple "Yes" or "No" as to do that would require me to make a judgement as to whether or not contraception should be allowed in Christianity as a whole. I cannot do that so I can only give you my opinion. By my take on the matter I would consider both parties as being true Christians.


So to make it super simple and super sweet just so I don't have to deal with your rubbish and your strange affliction to the :rolleyes: emoticon here it is in it's most simplified form based on my own opinion.

1. Yes
2. Yes

partyatmygaff

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

Yes true and it comes down to the fact that the majority of atheists/agnostics, call them what you will, are morally good people.

Generalising to suit your own group. I don't see a correlation between Atheism and morality. I'm not saying that Atheists are inherently immoral. Merely that a simple lack of belief in a God does not make you a moral person, similarly to how a belief in God does not necessarily make you a moral person either.

The lie that most religious fanatics propagate is that without religion, one is devoid of morals.

Both the religious and the non-religious have their own fair share of fanatics. The religious say that Atheists have no morals (Without any evidence). The Atheists say that the Religious are of lower intelligence (Again without evidence). Both are equally generalising and are equally worthless statements.

Yet, these people only do right instead of wrong because they believe they will be rewarded in heaven for doing such a thing.

You're assuming quite a bit. You claim that all religious people base their moral decisions only on being rewarded in heaven. I don't know a single religious person who thinks like that. But then again I don't know a single atheist who is as militant and as confrontational as our share on boards.ie

In a way, they are not moral people for morality's sake, but rather they are only in it for what they will get in the "afterlife".

Who says? You can't delve in to the minds of billions of people and make such a wild assumption on their character.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe in being good because they believe in the Golden rule or some variation, and believe that making good decisions is the right thing to do, and that it benefits society if we all treat each other with equal respect.

Again, who says? There is nothing universal about Atheists except for a lack of belief in a God. That does not give them an inherent sense of moral goodness as you seem to think it does.

If everyone lived by the Golden rule, instead of the distorted ideals of the Abrahamic religions(the ones which cause the most conflict, i.e Islam, Christianity and Judaism) then the state of affairs in numerous countries would be a lot better right now.. e.g Israel - Palestine, the Kashmir, Chechyna, let's not forget Northern Ireland...

The typical stale point. Religion doesn't start wars, war mongers use religion as a reason to start wars.

My name is URL

KeithAFC wrote: »

The republic has never been a secular country.

We're still doing a little better than our Northern friends though

Namlub

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.

It happens in plenty of schools, mine for one. I asked to leave the class I was in and apparently I'm not an atheist because I had my confirmation.

partyatmygaff

Namlub wrote: »

It happens in plenty of school, mine for one. I asked to leave the class I was in and apoarently I'm not an atheist because I had my confirmation.

When did you go to school and in what general area?

Namlub

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When did you go to school and in what general area?

I'm in fifth year now, that was only about two months ago.

KeithAFC

My name is URL wrote: »

We're still doing a little better than our Northern friends though

Really? At least the majority reject the evil that is the Roman Catholic church.

partyatmygaff

Namlub wrote: »

I'm in fifth year now, that was only about two months ago.

If you're in secondary school you learn all world religions. When we talk of schools we talk of primary schools.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you're in secondary school you learn all world religions. .

Depends on who you get, it seems

partyatmygaff

bluewolf wrote: »

Depends on who you get, it seems

There's a set exam and a set syllabus. You can't just teach Religion the way you deem fit.

Namlub

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you're in secondary school you learn all world religions. When we talk of schools we talk of primary schools.

That's for the JC course, we can't take it as an LC subject but it's still compulsory, meaning that I have to sit down for 40 minutes of 'Contraception is wrong kids, rabble rabble etc' The book's blurb says it has a Catholic ethos, nothing about world religions. Not very progressive tbh.

partyatmygaff

Namlub wrote: »

That's for the JC course, we can't take it as an LC subject but it's still compulsory, meaning that I have to sit down for 40 minutes of 'Contraception is wrong kids, rabble rabble etc' The book's blurb says it has a Catholic ethos, nothing about world religions. Not very progressive tbh.

I don't know about your school but in our school we use many different books for religion. All of them give both sides of the argument and leave the reader to make up their own mind.

My name is URL

KeithAFC wrote: »

Really? At least the majority reject the evil that is the Roman Catholic church.

The majority of people may not be Roman Catholic, but afaik it is still the most popular religion in NI. Over 40% according to this. Being secularist isn't about dismissing only the religions which you don't like and deriding the people who follow that religion.. there's another word for that.