Why is Ruari Quinn so anti-Catholic?

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So these amalgamated rural schools will then face the same choice where a possible sizable minority may want change but the majority wants to keep the status quo. Its these kind of things that will split communities particularly rural ones, where the school is one of the key institutions of a locality.

In very few cases will there be a desire for all out change where greater than 85% of parents desire it, apart from our new ghettos.

The truth is change will be a highly divisive local issue.

Once again I fail to see why religion needs to be taught in these schools. Religion, just like political or sports beliefs is a private thing, and children should be taught from their parents about which religion/political party and football team to follow rather than have the state actively pushing Catholic down their throats.

oppenheimer1

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Once again I fail to see why religion needs to be taught in these schools. Religion, just like political or sports beliefs is a private thing, and children should be taught from their parents about which religion/political party and football team to follow rather than have the state actively pushing Catholic down their throats.

Its more than just religious instruction its also the ethos.

You didn't address the issues of divisiveness that these changes will cause. This could potentially split communities where I feel old wealth conservatism will stay on one side and the working poor on the other. It has happened in the UK, it will happen here too.

Einhard

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So these amalgamated rural schools will then face the same choice where a possible sizable minority may want change but the majority wants to keep the status quo. Its these kind of things that will split communities particularly rural ones, where the school is one of the key institutions of a locality.

Firstly, i don't think this is as divisive issue as you are making out. I know many parents who would like a secular education for their kids, but not to the extent that they'd fall out with people over it.

Also, you speak of rural communities as if they were planetary systems, seperated by massive distances rather than a few miles. "Rural" schools very often cater to a rural population from an urban centre, where there are several other schools. I know this to be the case in several towns in my county. There would not be a problem in designating one such school as non-denominational.

Furthermore, at the moment there is NO choice in the system. You seem to be arguing that, in the absence of a perfect system where everyone is offered a choice, no attempt be made to offer SOME choice. It's all or nothing etc. I don't think this is a very logical position to take.

In very few cases will there be a desire for all out change where greater than 85% of parents desire it, apart from our new ghettos.

You can't possibly know this. how about we let the consultative body do its work for a bit before we throw out figures that can't be substantiated?

The truth is change will be a highly divisive local issue.

No, I think that is a strawman really. In a tiny minority of rural communities it might cause problems, but that's no reason to deny choice to the large proportion of people who want, and demand it.

Einhard

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You didn't address the issues of divisiveness that these changes will cause. This could potentially split communities where I feel old wealth conservatism will stay on one side and the working poor on the other. It has happened in the UK, it will happen here too.

Jesus Christ, all we're talking about is transferring the odd CBS to the patronage of EducateTogether or some other secular body. From your comments, you'd swear we were liquidating private assets!

southsiderosie

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So these amalgamated rural schools will then face the same choice where a possible sizable minority may want change but the majority wants to keep the status quo. Its these kind of things that will split communities particularly rural ones, where the school is one of the key institutions of a locality.

In very few cases will there be a desire for all out change where greater than 85% of parents desire it, apart from our new ghettos.

The truth is change will be a highly divisive local issue.

I don't understand the impulse in Ireland to avoid "divisive" issues until things boil over into disaster. The Irish educational system has serious problems and is in need of an overhaul. There is a critical need to focus on math and science, reading comprehension, and writing skills. Religious education is something that can happen outside of school hours.

raymon

Getting back to the original point, I wouldn't leave a child alone with anyone who identifies themselves as catholic clergy.

The church have proven to be untrustworthy

Well done deputy Quinn , I salute you.

let's see church and state separated forever

Dirk Gently

Mr Quinn as education Minister is the one positive thing I can see in this Government and the country in general. I hope he has the courage to follow through in the face of what will no doubt be fierce and irrational opposition as demonstrated already in this thread.

Lefticus Loonaticus

jahalpin wrote: »

There are several primary and secondary schools in the country under the partonage of the Church of Ireland, however, he doesn't seem to be going after these in any way, this doesn't seem fair

Well, the church of ireland dont engage in this kind of activity do they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmR9Sa8C-8&feature=related

Predator_

jahalpin wrote: »

Ever since he was apponted Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn has been doing everything possible to undermine the Catholic church in Ireland

The vast majority of the population of this country are Catholic and most of these would want their children to have First Communion and Confirmation in school.

There are several primary and secondary schools in the country under the partonage of the Church of Ireland, however, he doesn't seem to be going after these in any way, this doesn't seem fair

Why is Deputy Quinn so anti-Catholic? and what are Fine Gael's views on this?

Your not going to find many supporters here on anti Irish anti Catholic boards.ie

hatz7

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

How do you know that the education the Irish state provides would be in any way inferior to what the church provides?
I see your point, but there is no reason to believe that standards will drop if the state steps in. Most of the teachers will stay the same, the syllabus will mostly stay the same.
Perhaps it would be better if you stated what, specifically, the church does to improve the standard of education, that you feel the state would not be able to do?

Specifically Catholic schools do education well, that's what I mean, In lots of different countries many of the best schools are catholic run schools.

Now secularism is fine, however funnily enough that's not the issue, what is, is what can the 'Irish state' provide in terms of secular education?

I think my view may be influenced by 'better the devil you know', I not think that the Irish state can provide a better service than the CC.

This is a service we are discussing and the delivery of a service. Who trusts the Irish State????

ISAW

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The majority of people say they are Catholic because it is seen as the "done thing" almost.

How many of these people actually follow Catholic religious teachings, well, is very very small.

I think Quinn is right in what he is doing.

The vast majority of irish people are christian and the vast majority of them Roman Catholic. A tiny percentage is atheist!

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And when the USSR or Red China rape kids in our schools and cover it up, we will limit their power too.

Actually the thugs of USSR and China did rape and kill people by the million and little or nothing was done about limiting their power. And the numbers involved were in the hundreds of millions compared to the hundreds of clergy who abused people.

At a very simple level, the Catholic Church have too many more schools than there are Catholics in Ireland and parents do not have a real choice.

And years before the atheist Minister said anything about it the catholic church made this point and offered to assist non Catholics in giving them schools to manage. I am just worried that antitheists will make a mess of education as they did of every society they took over.

No-one is arguing for complete removal of the church from our schools, just balancing them down towords the numbers who want that sort of education.

and the Church supports this and said so years ago!

sdonn wrote: »

ISAW you're on some kind of hardline, borderline demonic religious rampage

When you cant discuss the issue do you always resort to attacking the other person?

so rather than pick the 17,000 holes that would be nessecary to disprove your - frankly odd - reasoning

17,000 holes? Care to show 17? that's one in a thousand otf the claim you made!

I'm just going to suggest that you awaken from you la-la-land induced sleep and re-enter the real world.

And Im going to suggest you produce some evidence as I have and stop using personal attack and hand waving argument based on opinion! It is a fact that atheists make up a tiny percentage of people and religious believers make up the vast majority. So why should 50 per cent of schools have no religion? That is a FACT!
There are no long lasting atheist socisties that is a FACT!
Atheistic regimes killed people in ther millions that is a FACT!
Not communist - atheistic! Castro is a communist dictator and millions have not been slaughtered in Cuba.

China and Russia were atheistic regimes and a hundred million at least were killed.

Without delving into the realm of personal abuse or insults which would likely end in my being infracted let me just say this - you are completely and utterly off the wall deluded (imho).

So you have nothing to back up your opinion?

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Now you're just being picky. Although...
...this technically, also qualifies as a loaded question. Why does any religious organisation have to run schools?

The Schools are mostly roman Catholic run and also Church of Ireland. Matter of fact my own children went to a school with no religion allowed and the oldest one is now going to a school which is not RC or CoI but does have a religious ethos. The schools and the peopel are almost entirely RC and CoI. That is a fact! If ther are people who want something different then the constitution supports then too. But it isn't for the one percent of atheists to demand 50 per cent of schools have no mention of God!

Einhard wrote: »

Blaming the crimes of atheistic regimes on their atheism is willful ignorance. The brutalities of Stalin and Mao weren't carried out in the name of atheism;

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

the brutalities of the Inquisition etc

What "etc."? Inquisition = 450 years= 30,000 dead

were enacted in the name of Christianity. Therein lies the difference. To ignore that difference is self-delusion, and unworthy.

Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

So how come when communism came about they killed hundreds of millions in
one century and the church in 2000 years killed thousands and not millions!
How come the Spanish Inquisition over 500 years burned 2000 people at the
stake when Mao and Stalin in twenty years killed a million a year on
average?

What is it about communism that was so different that the killed at a rate
of millions per year when the Church killed dozens. And how is it that communists who were not atheist didn't slaughter as many people? And how it is other atheistic regimes such as in nineteenth century china and ancient china who were not communist also slaughtered millions?

Hank_Jones wrote: »

This thread got derailed quite quickly...

I don't see what the issue is with this, there are still going to be Catholic schools that parents will be able to send their children to if they wish.

Without doing this we are, essentially, forcing parents into putting their children into schools they do not themselves support.

I agree with you and so does the church! Just remove the antitheist agenda of preaching "no God in schools" and give people what they want - including the holocaust deniers rights to speak and the atheist s rights to have no god in their school if they have enough people to support that.

We should be happy that as a country we are moving forward, in some respects at least.

forward does not mean "no God" . anywher in history where that was done they went backward!

sdonn wrote: »

I think the overbearing point that is being made here is that the Catholic Church - nor any church - should have a monopoly on the education of our children.

A point made years ago by the Church!

In my own opinion, school should be about education. Religious education may be a part of that, that's up to the parent of each individual child and if they want to conciously send their child to a denominational school then that's fine once the religious values are not rammed down the throats of the kids with detrement to education that is actually based on fact rather than belief.

Hear hear ! The Church agrees with this. It is the atheists who want to ram "no god" down peoples throats. Just as they also want to bring in abortion. If the vast majority of people want that then that is what will happen. But atheists are only a tiny percentage of the population!

The fact that the CC has been allowed to maintain such a huge patronage over schools here and effectively bar parents from having any choice in whether or not their kids go through the whole catholic rigmarole is wrong.

But the CC have being saying that for years! They want people to manage schools. We have to be careful however because our lesson from history is that every time atheists took over they did terrible damage.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Once again I fail to see why religion needs to be taught in these schools. Religion, just like political or sports beliefs is a private thing, and children should be taught from their parents about which religion/political party and football team to follow rather than have the state actively pushing Catholic down their throats.

If people want a particular school and you don't then you have no right to stop them. Atheists who represent a tiny percentage have no right to surpress the vast majority!

raymon wrote: »

Getting back to the original point, I wouldn't leave a child alone with anyone who identifies themselves as catholic clergy.

That was NOT the original point! But as it happens Catholic clergy represent one per cent or less of abusers. So if you left you child alone with someone random the chances are a hundred times greater that a non Catholic non clergy person would abuse them compared to a Catholic clergy.

The church have proven to be untrustworthy

As opposed to atheistic regimes who proved to be really great for civilization?

let's see church and state separated forever

Eh? And your constitutional argument that they are no seperate is supported by what evidence?

clown bag wrote: »

Mr Quinn as education Minister is the one positive thing I can see in this Government and the country in general. I hope he has the courage to follow through in the face of what will no doubt be fierce and irrational opposition as demonstrated already in this thread.

Care to please show where my reasoning is in error? Or will you just spout unsupported opinion?

Einhard

Predator_ wrote: »

Your not going to find many supporters here on anti Irish anti Catholic boards.ie

Yep, twas much better back in the day when one could demonstrate one's Catholicism by turning a blind eye while the local priest raped children, and demonstrate one's Irishness by blowing people up in the street up North and in England. Glory days for the Irish identity alright.

mike65

Its a strange country where there is any controversy about the state funded sector (I use that term loosly) not being run almost exclusively by any church.

Byron85

ISAW wrote: »

The vast majority of irish people are christian and the vast majority of them Roman Catholic. A tiny percentage is atheist!






Actually the thugs of USSR and China did rape and kill people by the million and little or nothing was done about limiting their power. And the numbers involved were in the hundreds of millions compared to the hundreds of clergy who abused people.



And years before the atheist Minister said anything about it the catholic church made this point and offered to assist non Catholics in giving them schools to manage. I am just worried that antitheists will make a mess of education as they did of every society they took over.



and the Church supports this and said so years ago!





When you cant discuss the issue do you always resort to attacking the other person?



17,000 holes? Care to show 17? that's one in a thousand otf the claim you made!



And Im going to suggest you produce some evidence as I have and stop using personal attack and hand waving argument based on opinion! It is a fact that atheists make up a tiny percentage of people and religious believers make up the vast majority. So why should 50 per cent of schools have no religion? That is a FACT!
There are no long lasting atheist socisties that is a FACT!
Atheistic regimes killed people in ther millions that is a FACT!
Not communist - atheistic! Castro is a communist dictator and millions have not been slaughtered in Cuba.

China and Russia were atheistic regimes and a hundred million at least were killed.



So you have nothing to back up your opinion?

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004





The Schools are mostly roman Catholic run and also Church of Ireland. Matter of fact my own children went to a school with no religion allowed and the oldest one is now going to a school which is not RC or CoI but does have a religious ethos. The schools and the peopel are almost entirely RC and CoI. That is a fact! If ther are people who want something different then the constitution supports then too. But it isn't for the one percent of atheists to demand 50 per cent of schools have no mention of God!



"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/



What "etc."? Inquisition = 450 years= 30,000 dead



Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

So how come when communism came about they killed hundreds of millions in
one century and the church in 2000 years killed thousands and not millions!
How come the Spanish Inquisition over 500 years burned 2000 people at the
stake when Mao and Stalin in twenty years killed a million a year on
average?

What is it about communism that was so different that the killed at a rate
of millions per year when the Church killed dozens. And how is it that communists who were not atheist didn't slaughter as many people? And how it is other atheistic regimes such as in nineteenth century china and ancient china who were not communist also slaughtered millions?




I agree with you and so does the church! Just remove the antitheist agenda of preaching "no God in schools" and give people what they want - including the holocaust deniers rights to speak and the atheist s rights to have no god in their school if they have enough people to support that.



forward does not mean "no God" . anywher in history where that was done they went backward!





A point made years ago by the Church!



Hear hear ! The Church agrees with this. It is the atheists who want to ram "no god" down peoples throats. Just as they also want to bring in abortion. If the vast majority of people want that then that is what will happen. But atheists are only a tiny percentage of the population!




But the CC have being saying that for years! They want people to manage schools. We have to be careful however because our lesson from history is that every time atheists took over they did terrible damage.




If people want a particular school and you don't then you have no right to stop them. Atheists who represent a tiny percentage have no right to surpress the vast majority!




That was NOT the original point! But as it happens Catholic clergy represent one per cent or less of abusers. So if you left you child alone with someone random the chances are a hundred times greater that a non Catholic non clergy person would abuse them compared to a Catholic clergy.


As opposed to atheistic regimes who proved to be really great for civilization?




Eh? And your constitutional argument that they are no seperate is supported by what evidence?



Care to please show where my reasoning is in error? Or will you just spout unsupported opinion?

What would you do with atheists?

irishconvert

rockmongrel wrote: »

Because we live in what should be a secular country.

I thought this was a catholic country?

irishconvert

irishconvert wrote: »

I thought this was a catholic country?

No it's not

gman2k

All this talk about Catholic Run schools being better because of their 'ethos'.
Can someone explain to me what this 'ethos' actually translates into?

Last time I looked, Irish literacy levels had slipped way down the league table, and there was no major change in 'ethos' in the same timespan.

The only thing that influences the quality of education is funding. The reason why Catholic Schools were/are so popular in the US is down to funding - rich benefactors etc.

Funding of Irish Schools has been/will be totally pathetic. I believe that 95% of the budget for Primary education in this country is salary, yet it is nearly impossible to sack a bad teacher.

Now let's look at the realities. Todays generation of parents are not practicing Catholics, yes many do go to church, but that is purely so as to bring their children to church so their grandparents will be happy.
When todays children reach their late teens (say 2030), and they stop going to mass, because
A: Their grandparents are too old to know about it.
B: They realised their parents are not really catholic and never really cared anyway.
C: The Church's teachings on things like contraception, women priests, homosexuality etc are an anachronism from a bygone century.
Mass is no longer said by Irish people, but there is foreign missionaries here with even stronger views on point C above.
When the parents of that year start having their own children, bringing them to mass will be an alien concept.
2030 or thereabouts will be when the Catholic Church is finally gone from Irish Society.
It's better to now start having a properly run education system without church involvement. Let the parents who pretend to care about religion teach their children religious studies at home, or set up their own Sunday schools.

Finally,
To the OP and his ilk;
If religious studies are so important,
Why is religion not a mandatory exam course at second level?
Why are they not continued into third level as a mandatory course?
Simple answer: Because indoctrination has been achieved already at primary level.

Now get this straight OP and other apologists:
I DON'T WANT MY CHILDREN INDOCTRINATED WITH YOUR BELIEFS JUST BECAUSE THEY GO TO A STATE SCHOOL.

Einhard

ISAW wrote: »

There are no long lasting atheist socisties that is a FACT!

Eh, 100 years ago, one could have made the point that there were no long lasting democratic societies either!

The fact that atheists and those who didn't believe in the prevailing orthodoxy have so often been persecuted mercilessly might have something to do with the lack of atheistic societies over the centuries. Somewhat difficult to establish such a society when one is persecuted for expressing such sentiments.

Atheistic regimes killed people in ther millions that is a FACT!

Nobody's claiming otherwise. FACT!

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004

...go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
-Yahweh (God)

See what I did there?

Attempting to prove the entire philosophies of myriad regimes by selectively quoting individuals is absurd.

So how come when communism came about they killed hundreds of millions in
one century and the church in 2000 years killed thousands and not millions!

You're not comparing like with like. I suspect you know this. Much of the killing carried out in the name of Christianity wasn't directed by the Church authorities, but by temporal authories in the name of Christianity.

How come the Spanish Inquisition over 500 years burned 2000 people at the
stake when Mao and Stalin in twenty years killed a million a year on
average?

You're being entirely disengenuous. Millions were killed by Imperial Japan, where state Shintoism played a major role in shaping and supporting racist imperial ideology. Nobody though, is suggesting that the depredations of the Japanese before and during WWII was because of religion.

You are being entirely dishonest in how you frame your argument. I'm an atheist, and I don't have a problem with religion or the religious in general. However, what troubles me, is when I see obviously intelligent people willfully delude themselves on a subject, or make arguments they must know to be dishonest, purely because it supports a particular ideology. It bothers me with those who hate America, with those who champion Cuba and denigrate the West, and also with people who do so in defence of religion.

irishconvert

bluewolf wrote: »

No it's not

Last Census, I thought the majority of the people said they were Catholic?

irishconvert

irishconvert wrote: »

Last Census, I thought the majority of the people said they were Catholic?

Right, I assumed you meant that old constitutional provision. Well the majority might be "officially" catholic but it is not the official country religion so I would not call this a catholic country. Hopefully this census will show us the truth of whether the majority are or not.

True.
It's not an atheist country either.
Many churches are packed on sundays again.

You could hardly get down the street last week with the cars and crowds at a mission in my local one.

Tim Robbins

jahalpin wrote: »

Why is Deputy Quinn so anti-Catholic?

Name any other organisation which abused children covered it all up and then still gets charity status? The state owes the Catholic Church nothing.

It's the Church who owes the state money.

I generally don't like Laboue, but I commend them to standing up to this tyrannical organisation.

mike65

A state is for the people, not the Catholic people.

raymon

The catholic church has no moral authority to lead in education or anywhere else.

In addition to removing the link between church and education, the prayer before Dail sessions should be banned in addition to the 12 noon and 6 pm angelus.

It is a ridiculous status quo.

gman2k

irishconvert wrote: »

Last Census, I thought the majority of the people said they were Catholic?

That's the problem alright.
They have been indoctrinated to such an extent that even though they do not practice the religion, or follow it's beliefs they are unable to switch off that part in their brain telling them they will burn in hell if they put down on the form what they really are.
If you know what I mean:D

gman2k

raymon wrote: »

The catholic church has no moral authority to lead in education or anywhere else.

In addition to removing the link between church and education, the prayer before Dail sessions should be banned in addition to the 12 noon and 6 pm angelus.

It is a ridiculous status quo.

Where is the multiple thank button when you need it.

It's one of the reasons I like Ming so much, I believe he refused to partake/lead in Council prayers when he was Mayor.

Zombrex

jahalpin wrote: »

Why is Deputy Quinn so anti-Catholic? and what are Fine Gael's views on this?

I would imagine a lot of Catholics would find that comment insulting. Saying he is anti-Catholic for attempting to modernize the current schools system is like calling someone anti-Semitic for criticizing Israels nuclear program.

There is nothing about being Catholic that requires a monopoly on school administration.

Predator_

Einhard wrote: »

Yep, twas much better back in the day when one could demonstrate one's Catholicism by turning a blind eye while the local priest raped children, and demonstrate one's Irishness by blowing people up in the street up North and in England. Glory days for the Irish identity alright.

Thats the problem, you equate the Church with pedophilia and Irish Patriotism with bombings. Either your brainwashed by the enemy or your an agent of the enemy, hard to tell.

NTMK

hatz7 wrote: »

Specifically Catholic schools do education well, that's what I mean, In lots of different countries many of the best schools are catholic run schools.

Now secularism is fine, however funnily enough that's not the issue, what is, is what can the 'Irish state' provide in terms of secular education?

I think my view may be influenced by 'better the devil you know', I not think that the Irish state can provide a better service than the CC.

This is a service we are discussing and the delivery of a service. Who trusts the Irish State????

Secular countries do far better than religous countries in terms of education
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf

raymon

Predator_ wrote: »

Thats the problem, you equate the Church with pedophilia and Irish Patriotism with bombings. Either your brainwashed by the enemy or your an agent of the enemy, hard to tell.

I also associate the church with abuse.

Killer Pigeon

ISAW wrote: »

Well you might wait for the census but I think you will find we live in a country were 95 per cent plus of the occupants are religious believers. Where do you get off dictating to people what they should believe?

What an outrageous figure! The only reason why so many people say they adhere to a particular faith, particularly the Catholic faith, is because they know they'll have a better chance getting their children into a primary or secondary school - most of which are still under the patronage of the Catholic church. If every school in the country was to be made strictly secular, then you'll find that that figure would drastically decrease - probably to about ~50%. Saying that 95% of people in Ireland are religious is basically saying that we're one of the most religious countries in the world which is so outrageous it's actually quite funny.

What we need in Ireland is a bit of rationality and the Labour Party, in terms of their social policy (not really their economic policy), certainly seems to be as rational as you get.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

Well you might wait for the census but I think you will find we live in a country were 95 per cent plus of the occupants are religious believers. Where do you get off dictating to people what they should believe?

Approximately one-third of the population are under 18, and have somebody else filling in their census data. Even you have to admit that saying 95% of the one-third in question are "catholic" is a stretch.

About 300,000 of them are still in nappies, for a start, and I'd suggest Boards.ie is a fair representation of the older ones in that demographic.

sensibleken

Predator_ wrote: »

Thats the problem, you equate the Church with pedophilia and Irish Patriotism with bombings. Either your brainwashed by the enemy or your an agent of the enemy, hard to tell.

Who's the enemy, the british or Satan?

Killer Pigeon

ISAW wrote: »

The vast majority of irish people are christian and the vast majority of them Roman Catholic. A tiny percentage is atheist!

According to that logic, a majority of those 5% Irish atheist spend most of their time on the internet :P

Honesly, a number of Polls on boards.ie have indicated that atheism/ agnosticism are by far the most popular philosophies.

However there are serious flaws in these polls as they are (a) put up on a forum where a majority of people are between 16 and 35 and don't really account for the aged Irish population and (b) these polls are anonymous.

One of the conclusions you could get from these polls is that atheism is increasing in the younger population (don't forget that the Irish population is actually quite a young population compared to other European countries) and that there are a deal of atheists/agnostics who are still "in the closet" with regard to their religious beliefs.

Predator_

raymon wrote: »

I also associate the church with abuse.

Do you associate the British Army with invasions and killings?

ceadaoin.

ISAW wrote: »

Well you might wait for the census but I think you will find we live in a country were 95 per cent plus of the occupants are religious believers. Where do you get off dictating to people what they should believe?

He is not dicatating to people what they should believe. Believe what you want but why should those beliefs be forced on everyone?

sec·u·lar·ism (sky-l-rzm)
n. 1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

And I seriously doubt that over 95% of people in this country are religious believers. Did you just pull that figure out of the air?

A sizeable amount of people might tick that box on the census form but in fact they are non practising if not non believing. They go along with getting their kids baptised and confirmed because it's what's done and it's easier to send their kids to a local school that happens to be run by the church. I suppose it's a by product of the indoctrination that occurs in the majority of irish schools

irishconvert

gman2k wrote: »

That's the problem alright.
They have been indoctrinated to such an extent that even though they do not practice the religion, or follow it's beliefs they are unable to switch off that part in their brain telling them they will burn in hell if they put down on the form what they really are.
If you know what I mean:D

Yup, but it doesn't matter what your opinion is about their decision. The majority of the people in this country say they are Catholic, therefore it is a Catholic country.

Killer Pigeon

Using ISAW's logic, when he says that there is a risk of a Stalinist/Maoist atheist threat because there's an atheist in power, I could easily say that there is a risk of another Inquisition if there is a Catholic in power.

NTMK

ISAW wrote: »

Atheistic regimes killed people in ther millions that is a FACT!

Religous regimes and conflicts have resulted in the deaths of 100's of millions FACT!

sensibleken

Is saying FACT! at the end of a sentence a bit like 'Jinx no come backs!'

NTMK

sensibleken wrote: »

Is saying FACT! at the end of a sentence a bit like 'Jinx no come backs!'

apparently i was really just taking the piss with mine

raymon

Predator_ wrote: »

Do you associate the British Army with invasions and killings?

Armies are killers and murderers , yes.
Paramilitaries are also killers and murderers.
What is your point ?

Dirk Gently

irishconvert wrote: »

Yup, but it doesn't matter what your opinion is about their decision. The majority of the people in this country say they are Catholic, therefore it is a Catholic country.

A lot of mothers say everyone in their house on census night is a catholic. Not the same thing. My own mother use to do it all the time when I lived at home, even though she was the only catholic in the house. Our census should have read 75% atheist, 25% catholic but instead it read as 100% Catholic. How many people tick Catholic without thinking just because they were baptised?

ISAW's 95% figure is way off. I could count on one hand the number of practising catholics I know under the age of 40. Even if it was correct there's still no place for religion in the class room. If you want religious instruction then go to mass / mosque / synagogue etc.

irishconvert

clown bag wrote: »

How many people tick Catholic without thinking just because they were baptised?
.

It doesn't matter, these are grown adults answering a question. If they say they are cathoic, who are you to override their answer because it does not suit you or your agenda?

mike65

The census question is deeply flawed, there should be two parts to it. As it stands it says

What is your religion?

and lists faiths, other and no religion.

It should ask

Which faith are you baptised into?

followed by

Do you practice that faith?

irishconvert

mike65 wrote: »

The census question is deeply flawed, there should be two parts to it. As it stands it says

and lists faiths, other and no religion.

It should ask

followed by

That question is flawed also, you don't get baptised into Islam, Hindu, Buddism, etc ;-)

Also you can consider yourself to be a particular religion without practising it. I know many friends who do not go to mass, etc, but genuinely do still consider themselves to be Catholic.

EDIT: Your two questions don't take account people who have converted to another religion. I would be excluded by your version of the questions.

At the end of the day, an adult should be trusted to answer a simple question, what religion are you.

mike65

Okay "inducted", that covers all bases.

At the end of the day, an adult should be trusted to answer a simple question, what religion are you.

Tis a messy question esp in a country where an unthinking bending the knee to the 'powers that be' is an issue. People will go "ah but I was baptised a Catholic and therefore I am still a Catholic despite having not darkened a church doorway since my niece got married or having a "faith thought" in decades" sort of thing.

irishconvert

mike65 wrote: »

Okay "inducted", that covers all bases.

What about people who have converted to another religion? They would not be counted using your two questions.

mike65

irishconvert wrote: »

What about people who have converted to another religion? They would not be counted using your two questions.

Granted, a third question to take account of converts is required

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hatz7 wrote: »

Specifically Catholic schools do education well, that's what I mean, In lots of different countries many of the best schools are catholic run schools.

Now secularism is fine, however funnily enough that's not the issue, what is, is what can the 'Irish state' provide in terms of secular education?

I think my view may be influenced by 'better the devil you know', I not think that the Irish state can provide a better service than the CC.

This is a service we are discussing and the delivery of a service. Who trusts the Irish State????

Again, I need to know what, specifically, does the church do that the state doesn't?

The state is the one that sets the syallabus, sets the exams and trains the teachers, not the church. Therefore, if something is working at the moment, I would argue that it's the state and not the church that is behind it.

ISAW wrote: »

The Schools are mostly roman Catholic run and also Church of Ireland. Matter of fact my own children went to a school with no religion allowed and the oldest one is now going to a school which is not RC or CoI but does have a religious ethos. The schools and the peopel are almost entirely RC and CoI. That is a fact! If ther are people who want something different then the constitution supports then too. But it isn't for the one percent of atheists to demand 50 per cent of schools have no mention of God!

What is it with you and athiesm? I'm not an athiest and I would like to see 100% of Irish public schools to be state-run. I don't think it really matters what your religious (or lack thereof) background is, there is enough support for the seperation of chuch and schools to make Deputy Quinn want to tackle the issue.

If a school wishes to push a religious ethos, fine - but it should finance itself independently of taxpayers. You want a catholic school? Set it up and pay for it yourself. (As with any other faith, obviously.)

irishconvert wrote: »

Last Census, I thought the majority of the people said they were Catholic?

Nope. The majority of Irish people ticked a box inaccurately, I would say, judging by the discussion I'm reading here and having elsewhere.