Did you baptise your kids? (Atheist parents poll)

lazygal

redfacedbear wrote: »

On every single issue to do with secularisation and the separation of church and state I am walking the walk though. Even with respect to my kids - I've made sure they were counted when ET was looking to get up and running here in Wexford even though both were years away from starting. I've lobbied politicians and made clear I'm very unhappy that come secondary their choice is between the tech and some rank hypocrasy on my part. They've gone on the census and any other form that has asked (hospitals etc) as no religion - I agree with Dades that these are more important than any stats the church itself is likely to produce. But I'm not going to compromise their educational prospects on a point of princple either.

As I said the driving force for their baptism was their mother and my concession to this was motivated by worries about deep inadequacies in the educational system here in Ireland. Yes it stinks and yes I'm doing all I can to change it but for me there is no way I'm going make my daughters be the ones to suffer for the state's inadequacies

Will your children do communions and confirmations?

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

And the Knights of Columbanus. There's a reason the church wants to maintain those elite private schools and turn out business and political leaders from a select sector of all male religious schools. All with the support of the state of course, who nicely pay for the teachers in said schools.

Or this lot http://www.thecatenians.co.uk/

They used to meet up at a now closed but well known Cork hotel about every two months for a dinner and...well, we never did get to know what the 'and' was as all members of staff had to leave and they locked all the doors.

They presented themselves as a kind of Catholic Freemasons who did unspecified good works.

One of the owners of the hotel had been a trainee nun and two of her sisters were nuns and she did actually go to Mass and all that so was all curious and interested and asked a few questions only to be met with a stonewall.
Eventually, after about 10 years of this she 'borrowed' one of their top secret members only club rules books that had been left lying around [they used to insist on having this bloody huge locked chest stored in a secure room - we fecked it out the back of reception as soon as they were gone] and not sure what she read in there but she went from giving them dinner and room (for anywhere between 50-200 people) for just over cost to charging them up the wazoo until they went away.

She was appalled and went around mumbling about the Inquisition and misogynistic ****heads ...this from a woman who apologised if she said 'feck' in the heat of the moment.

Sarky

Yo dawn I heard u liek cults so we put a cult in yo' cult?

eyescreamcone

A guy once was trying to impress me by telling me that he had been recently made a Knight Commander of these Knights Who Like To Say Ni

As Shania said "that don't impress me much"!

I think he went to see the Pope for his promotion/medal/chain of office or whatever they give out.

Crazy sh!t!

lazygal

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A guy once was trying to impress me by telling me that he had been recently made a Knight Commander of these Knights Who Like To Say Ni

As Shania said "that don't impress me much"!

I think he went to see the Pope for his promotion/medal/chain of office or whatever they give out.

Crazy sh!t!

Where did you meet this eligible bachelor?

eyescreamcone

lazygal wrote: »

Where did you meet this eligible bachelor?

A good customer of mine.

I'll take coin from anyone.

gaynorvader

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A good customer of mine.

I'll take coin from anyone.

Harlot!

eyescreamcone

gaynorvader wrote: »

Harlot!

A godless harlot

Morag

There is a genuine fear that if there is not at least a christian ethos pressed upon children in school that they will turn out to be moraless and doom society. The reason the is given to justify taking non RC kids into RC schools is that it is an act of charity for the greater good of society, nothing to do with the need for numbers to keep teachers or the capitation grant which is per child of course.

Dades

Morag wrote: »

There is a genuine fear that if there is not at least a christian ethos pressed upon children in school that they will turn out to be moraless and doom society.

Who fears this?

It's perfectly possibly to teach morality without religion. And I'd suggest that the RC has done plenty to show why it shouldn't be the one teaching it.

J C

Dades wrote: »

Who fears this?

It's perfectly possibly to teach morality without religion. And I'd suggest that the RC has done plenty to show why it shouldn't be the one teaching it.

It may be possible to teach a form of morality in the absence of religion ... but such morality will be somewhat limited ... something like 'my morality may not be your morality' for the liberally inclined ... and for the less liberal it will be something like 'morality is no more and no less than the strict obedience of all of the laws of the land at any point in time'.
Neither types of morality are acceptable to Christian parents who believe that morality is Divinely revealed and eternal, as distinct from Humanly constructed and varying from place to place and time to time.
It would be nice to think that both constructs of morality could be taught side by side, so that children of all faiths and none could receive a truly pluralist education ... but this doesn't seem to be something that Secularists want ... they seem entrenched in their demands for the total exclusion of God from the classroom ... which is quite illiberal, especially when this is contrasted with the modern liberal religious and moral educational programmes that are taught in various church-run schools - that respectfully encompass the secular and non-Christian moral and faith positions as well as the Christian one.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

It may be possible to teach a form of morality in the absence of religion ... but such morality will be somewhat limited ... something like 'my morality may not be your morality' for the liberally inclined ... and for the less liberal it will be something like 'morality is no more and no less than the strict obedience of all of the laws of the land at any point in time'.
Neither types of morality are acceptable to Christian parents who believe that morality is Divinely revealed and eternal, as distinct from Humanly constructed and varying from place to place and time to time.
It would be nice to think that both constructs of morality could be taught side by side, so that children of all faiths and none could receive a truly pluralist education ... but this doesn't seem to be something that Secularists want ... they seem entrenched in their demands for the total exclusion of God from the classroom ... which is quite illiberal, especially when this is contrasted with the modern liberal religious and moral educational programmes that are taught in various church-run schools - that respectfully encompass the secular and non-Christian moral and faith positions as well as the Christian one.

Why is it better to do something good out of fear rather than to do something good for no other reason than it's the right thing to do?
I don't think they want the total exclusion of God from the classroom, they just don't want it to be taught that there definitely is a god either way. Which is certainly how it was put to us in religious class when I was in school. Not to mention the prayer every morning in assembly and the church services at Christmas, Easter, End of term and midterms.

clairefontaine

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why is it better to do something good out of fear rather than to do something good for no other reason than it's the right thing to do?
I don't think they want the total exclusion of God from the classroom, they just don't want it to be taught that there definitely is a god either way. Which is certainly how it was put to us in religious class when I was in school. Not to mention the prayer every morning in assembly and the church services at Christmas, Easter, End of term and midterms.

When my little one would come home with god questions, I felt I was in a bit of a bind. It's not that I don't believe in god, and its not that I do either, I just don't think it matters that much either way.

So he'd have these god questions, and I didn't want to ruin the credibility of his teachers as that would undermine them and confuse him, so I'd just tell him gods not that important. I would have preferred not to have to encounter this stuff from a young child.

Kungfu

Two kids. So far one baptized and the other will be soon. I am an Atheist and proudly so. Their mother....wel I never really asked. She doesn't go to church but then neither do so many who still class thmselves as Catholic or whatever.


I certainly won't be teaching my kids about such mumbo-jumbo claptrap. If the other half wants them baptized, confirmed or whatever then so be it. Way I see it they can blurt out whatever gobbledygook they want in the church....it doesn't change the fact that there is no God, no Allah....no Easter Bunny etc.

If my kids grow up and decide to believe in that load of crap then that will be their choice. But I won't brainwash them. In fact I will make a point of telling them the opposite. I will tell them that the baptism and other stuff they went thru were just a bunch of old, cobweb covered traditions. No more important or factual than witches, warlocks, wizards, werewolves etc. And that the bible is no more true than Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic mythology. Just a book of ancient Hebrew myths.

Baptisms etc are just dusty old traditions to please the old folk.

Tim Robbins

Kungfu wrote: »

Baptisms etc are just dusty old traditions to please the old folk.

I see them as mechanism to support a facist institution which has abused so many young children, still openly speaks in a bigotted fashion against gays and
is responsible for way more crap than any good (spread of HIV in Africa).

They are a despicable organisation by any metric but like Syria I feel a lot of Irish people are happy to turn a blind eye and act in a way that is self benefiting.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why is it better to do something good out of fear rather than to do something good for no other reason than it's the right thing to do?

It's obviously best to do things because they are the right thing to do ... but there are two potential problems with this Utopian vision:-
1. One man's 'right thing to do' is very often another man's 'wrong thing to do'.
2. Many people would do the 'wrong thing' if they thought that they could get away with it ... that's why billions are spent on law enforcement ... and our prisons are full.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think they want the total exclusion of God from the classroom, they just don't want it to be taught that there definitely is a god either way. Which is certainly how it was put to us in religious class when I was in school. Not to mention the prayer every morning in assembly and the church services at Christmas, Easter, End of term and midterms.

That sounds superficially reasonable ... until we think about the fact that what you are actually looking for is a wall to wall 'No God' working assumption within our schools ... with no dissenting voice allowed ... ever. Please bear in mind that schools are in loco parentis i.e. they are educating children in the place of and on behalf of parents ... who happen to be largely Christians, in this country.
The in loco parentis also applies to Atheists and their children ... but this doesn't give Atheists the right to have an exclusively atheistic education programme with a veto on all positive mention of God in the school day.
Atheists have the right to have their views respected and recognised within schools ... but the same right to respect and recognition also applies to Christian parents and their children.

Banbh

We are talking about Ireland where the overwhelming majority of schools are in the hands of the Catholic Church which, as the posts here show, intimidates weak-willed parents into signing their children up for instruction in their views. The possibility of Atheists being able to send their children to secular schools extremely remote and I have never heard of an atheist that wanted 'atheist education' whatever that might be.

Fortunately there is a tiny but growing number of parents who insist on their children knowing the truth about the world and everything in it.

And as regards the ridiculous notion of 'religious morality', it is so full of holes, contradictions and downright lies as to be useless.
Thou shalt not kill although all warships and tanks are blessed by padres. Thou shalt not tell lies but contraception is a sin that will get you sent to eternal fire! Thou shalt not steal but it's all right to be a financier or a banker and take the labour of others.
Luckily even those who openly support religion, don't believe it or ignore it.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

1. One man's 'right thing to do' is very often another man's 'wrong thing to do'.

Usually because one man is religion A and the other is religion B...

J C

Banbh wrote: »

We are talking about Ireland where the overwhelming majority of schools are in the hands of the Catholic Church which, as the posts here show, intimidates weak-willed parents into signing their children up for instruction in their views.

Replacing the Roman Catholic Church with agressive Secularism isn't progress as far as any Christian that I know is concerned.

Banbh wrote: »

The possibility of Atheists being able to send their children to secular schools extremely remote and I have never heard of an atheist that wanted 'atheist education' whatever that might be.

... and because Atheists don't have the numbers to establish Secular schools ... Christian schools should voluntarily implode and hand their children and their schools over to Secularists to run them???
... so Christians all over Ireland should surender their schools and voluntarily allow the banning of all positive mention of God because some Secularist might choose to be be offended at the idea of a Just and Good God.

Banbh wrote: »

Fortunately there is a tiny but growing number of parents who insist on their children knowing the truth about the world and everything in it.

That's exactly what Christian parents want (that their children should know the truth about the world and everything in it) ... and they are currently getting this for their children in the current school system.

... and if some other 'tiny but growing number of parents' want something else ... they should have reasonable accommodation for their views ... but not the wholesale Secular take-over of the school system to the exclusion of the Christian viewpoint in these schools.

Banbh wrote: »

And as regards the ridiculous notion of 'religious morality', it is so full of holes, contradictions and downright lies as to be useless.

This is exactly the kind of prejudice that will guarantee that Christians will not hand their precious children over to be indoctrinated with such intolerant anti-christian viewpoints.

Banbh wrote: »

Thou shalt not kill although all warships and tanks are blessed by padres.

What does armies having chaplains (of all faiths and none nowadays) have to do with anything?

Banbh wrote: »

Thou shalt not tell lies but contraception is a sin that will get you sent to eternal fire!

Different Churches have different positions on the type of contraception that is morally licit - and they are quite entitled to make well thought out moral pronouncements on such issues ... that their congregations are free to accept or to ignore.

Banbh wrote: »

Thou shalt not steal but it's all right to be a financier or a banker and take the labour of others.

... the sin of ursury already covers this one.

Banbh wrote: »

Luckily even those who openly support religion, don't believe it or ignore it.

To believe it or to ignore it, our children must first know about Christianity ... and that's all Christian parents want.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

Usually because one man is religion A and the other is religion B...

Could be.
However it could also be that one man is a Christian and the other man is an Atheist.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

Could be.
However it could also be that one man is a Christian and the other man is an Atheist.

The women don't matter obviously.

J C

lazygal wrote: »

The women don't matter obviously.

Of course women matter very much indeed.

Myself and ninja900 were using the word 'man' in the generic Human sense of the word.

As a matter of interest, do you think that we hould we also remove the word 'man' from the word Woman ... so that females of the species will all be known as Wo's instead???:D

In relation to the OP, could I also point out that members of some Christian denominations also don't baptise children ... but I respect the fact that the poll only applies to Atheist parents and baptism.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

It's obviously best to do things because they are the right thing to do ... but there are two potential problems with this Utopian vision:-
1. One man's 'right thing to do' is very often another man's 'wrong thing to do'.
2. Many people would do the 'wrong thing' if they thought that they could get away with it ... that's why billions are spent on law enforcement ... and our prisons are full.

This also applies to many "interpretations" of the bible. I certainly never claimed it to be a utopian vision, that's you trying to inflate my point to make it seem ridiculous.
Many people do the wrong thing whether they're religious or not, it has nothing to do with my point, that's you trying to confuse the issue.

J C wrote:

That sounds superficially reasonable ... until we think about the fact that what you are actually looking for is a wall to wall 'No God' working assumption within our schools ... with no dissenting voice allowed ... ever.

Neither what I said, nor what I implied. You are arguing against what you want my argument to be. I advocate an open discussion about all religions. I just don't like that kids are constantly exposed to God in schools and told He is real as if it were fact as opposed to a matter of faith.

J C wrote:

Please bear in mind that schools are in loco parentis i.e. they are educating children in the place of and on behalf of parents ... who happen to be largely Christians, in this country.

Ah, so we shouldn't cater for the minorities? Why is that? Why should atheists be forced to pay money to teach their kids someone else's religious dogma? I think schools should deal in facts, not faith.

J C wrote:

The in loco parentis also applies to Atheists and their children ... but this doesn't give Atheists the right to have an exclusively atheistic education programme with a veto on all positive mention of God in the school day.

Again, not what this is about. Religions and their beliefs can be taught without presenting them as fact. Which they're not. If they want to have a Bible study group they are perfectly entitled to do so at lunch time, like so many other activities. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to having an optional class where they could have a small service. The key word being optional.

J C wrote:

Atheists have the right to have their views respected and recognised within schools ... but the same right to respect and recognition also applies to Christian parents and their children.

Yes, but that doesn't mean there should be a class where the teacher gets up and says something along the lines of "There is no such thing as a god. There is a God who gave his only Son to save you from sins. That God though didn't actually give his only Son though. That guy was actually a prophet, who wasn't even as important as this other prophet. Who wasn't as important as this other guy who read from some gold plates God gave him....". And I haven't even left the Abrahamic God or gotten into some of the other places different branches of Christianity can clash.
You say that both sides have the right to have their views respected, and you are correct. However, going by what you've said in the rest of this post, it seems you believe atheists should not be allowed preach their views in schools, but Christians should (never mind other religions). This isn't respectful. Neither side should be allowed to preach their views, that should be left out of mandatory school life.

jimmytwotimes 2013

i/we did, purely for school enrollment down the line.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by gaynorvader
Why is it better to do something good out of fear rather than to do something good for no other reason than it's the right thing to do?

Originally Posted by J C
It's obviously best to do things because they are the right thing to do ... but there are two potential problems with this Utopian vision:-
1. One man's 'right thing to do' is very often another man's 'wrong thing to do'.
2. Many people would do the 'wrong thing' if they thought that they could get away with it ... that's why billions are spent on law enforcement ... and our prisons are full.

gaynorvader
This also applies to many "interpretations" of the bible. I certainly never claimed it to be a utopian vision, that's you trying to inflate my point to make it seem ridiculous.
Many people do the wrong thing whether they're religious or not, it has nothing to do with my point, that's you trying to confuse the issue.

You originally asked why it would be better to do something good out of fear rather than doing something good for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
I gave two reasons why this could be the case ... nothing more or less.

wrote:

gaynorvader
Neither what I said, nor what I implied. You are arguing against what you want my argument to be. I advocate an open discussion about all religions. I just don't like that kids are constantly exposed to God in schools and told He is real as if it were fact as opposed to a matter of faith.

Firstly the positions that the faith holds needs to be fairly presented for any discussion to occur.
... and if by 'discussion' you meant that any negative viewpoints on faith are to be aired ... then the downsides and weaknesses of anti-theism and atheism also needs to be presented.

wrote:

gaynorvader
Ah, so we shouldn't cater for the minorities? Why is that? Why should atheists be forced to pay money to teach their kids someone else's religious dogma? I think schools should deal in facts, not faith.

Catering for minorities is fine ... as long as by 'catering' you don't mean the banning of the majorities worldview and their pastors from the school premises.

Christians are already paying good money to have their children taught the basic assumptions of Secular Atheism under the guise of 'science' and other Secular constructs that sometimes conflate facts with opinions ... at points where science and faith overlap.

wrote:

gaynorvader
Again, not what this is about. Religions and their beliefs can be taught without presenting them as fact. Which they're not. If they want to have a Bible study group they are perfectly entitled to do so at lunch time, like so many other activities. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to having an optional class where they could have a small service. The key word being optional.

... and what happens if a secularist objects to such activities on the basis that they should only take place in church or for some other equally spurious reason?
Attending religion classes is already optional for Secularists - what more do you want?

wrote:

gaynorvader
Yes, but that doesn't mean there should be a class where the teacher gets up and says something along the lines of "There is no such thing as a god. There is a God who gave his only Son to save you from sins. That God though didn't actually give his only Son though. That guy was actually a prophet, who wasn't even as important as this other prophet. Who wasn't as important as this other guy who read from some gold plates God gave him....". And I haven't even left the Abrahamic God or gotten into some of the other places different branches of Christianity can clash.
You say that both sides have the right to have their views respected, and you are correct. However, going by what you've said in the rest of this post, it seems you believe atheists should not be allowed preach their views in schools, but Christians should (never mind other religions). This isn't respectful. Neither side should be allowed to preach their views, that should be left out of mandatory school life.

The only problem with this approach is that the Atheist view (and its assumptions) is already widely preached in the media and in other classes in all schools where there is a working assumption of materialism all the way.

Hotblack Desiato

J C, as expected (but not as I forlornly hoped) you didn't address the question.

Using religion as a basis of morality only raises a further question - which religion is valid?

You know and I know that that is an unanswerable question. You can't e.g. prove Christianity correct and Hinduism wrong - can you?

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

J C, as expected (but not as I forlornly hoped) you didn't address the question.

Using religion as a basis of morality only raises a further question - which religion is valid?

You know and I know that that is an unanswerable question. You can't e.g. prove Christianity correct and Hinduism wrong - can you?

... no more than you can prove Atheism or anti-theism (and its moral constructs) to be correct either.

However, I know that Judeo-Christian morality is correct ... and is superior to the attempts of mankind to replace it with fallible laws that are inevitably full of loopholes and vary arbitrarily with time and place.

The thread is drifting off the OP ... so I'll bow out respectfully.

Thanks for the discussion and the civility shown me by you all.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

You originally asked why it would be better to do something good out of fear rather than doing something good for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
I gave two reasons why this could be the case ... nothing more or less.

There certainly was more. I'm not going to get caught up in this though, if you don't want to discuss it fine.

J C wrote:

Firstly the positions that the faith holds needs to be fairly presented for any discussion to occur.
... and if by 'discussion' you meant that any negative viewpoints on faith are to be aired ... then the downsides and weaknesses of anti-theism and atheism also needs to be presented.

Ok.

J C wrote:

Catering for minorities is fine ... as long as by 'catering' you don't mean the banning of the majorities worldview and their pastors from the school premises.

My issue continues to be pretending faith is fact.

J C wrote:

Christians are already paying good money to have their children taught the basic assumptions of Secular Atheism under the guise of 'science' and other Secular constructs that sometimes conflate facts with opinions ... at points where science and faith overlap.

Discussion for another thread (or two).

J C wrote:

... and what happens if a secularist objects to such activities on the basis that they should only take place in church or for some other equally spurious reason?

I don't know, nothing? How is this relevant?

J C wrote:

Attending religion classes is already optional for Secularists - what more do you want?

It's not.

J C wrote:

The only problem with this approach is that the Atheist view (and its assumptions) is already widely preached in the media and in other classes in all schools where there is a working assumption of materialism all the way.

The facts are presented. No more, no less.

J C wrote: »

... no more than you can prove Atheism or anti-theism (and its moral constructs) to be correct either.

No idea what you're talking about here.

J C wrote:

However, I know that Judeo-Christian morality is correct ... and is superior to the attempts of mankind to replace it with fallible laws that are inevitably full of loopholes and vary arbitrarily with time and place.

So raped girls should be stoned to death, women shouldn't speak in church, homosexuals should be put to death, shellfish should go untasted, etc, etc?

smacl

J C wrote: »

However, I know that Judeo-Christian morality is correct ... and is superior to the attempts of mankind to replace it with fallible laws that are inevitably full of loopholes and vary arbitrarily with time and place.

The thread is drifting off the OP ... so I'll bow out respectfully

Morality outside religion doubtless deserves an entirely different thread, though ethics is already a well understood subject, and to pose that Judeo-Christian morality is the only reasonable basis for living in a responsible manner suggests a very narrow and judgemental world view.

Multi-denominational education in Ireland does not involve the strict secularism you describe, and I find it divisive to present it in that light. Certainly Educate Together neither promotes nor denies one belief system over another. I take your point about teachers acting in loco parentis to some degree, but believe that religious education should be optional. In terms of conflicting views with teachers, this happens as a matter of course as soon as science is introduced onto the syllabus, notably Darwin. What is taught to Christians as part of their faith is already in stark contrast to what is taught in terms of the knowledge we've gained through observation and measurement. What is interesting is that you feel the need for the education system to instill faith in your belief system within your children. My eldest girl chose to go to an all girls Catholic secondary over a non-denominational school, because that's where her friends were going. Myself and her mother would have no fears that she might drift towards Catholicism, and I'd hazard that she has a moral compass at least as strong as that of her class mates. The only issue I have with here being taught religion in school is that it is a waster of time in an already busy academic workload.

Lingua Franca

I did not have my children baptised.

kylith

J C wrote: »

However, I know that Judeo-Christian morality is correct ...

Please explain how a moral code which states that it is acceptable to force a woman to marry her rapist, or to sell her or other humans into slavery, is 'correct'

and is superior to the attempts of mankind to replace it with fallible laws that are inevitably full of loopholes and vary arbitrarily with time and place.

Like all those pesky laws that say we're not allowed to murder people who are a different religion to us, or to own slaves?

I've said it before and I'll say it again; anyone who thinks that the bible is a suitable basis for morality has never read the bible, or has only read the nice bits.

lazygal

Which are the 'nice' bits?!

Sarky

Ugh, J C's back.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Which are the 'nice' bits?!

I was wondering that too - I even went to the trouble of getting a postage stamp so I could write them down.

Edit: The stamp now contains the following text:
'And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God' Ruth1:16.

One woman's declaration of love to another woman.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was wondering that too - I even went to the trouble of getting a postage stamp so I could write them down.

Edit: The stamp now contains the following text:
'And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God' Ruth1:16.

One woman's declaration of love to another woman.

She was just worn down by a bossy mother in law. I always chuckle to myself when couples choose that as a wedding reading. Burial plans just scream romance.

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

Which are the 'nice' bits?!

They were given out free in school, and back in my day, the local 2nd hand book shop would give you 10p for them, which equated to three bags of Perri crisps and a couple of black jacks. Those were the nice bits

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

She was just worn down by a bossy mother in law. I always chuckle to myself when couples choose that as a wedding reading. Burial plans just scream romance.

Or she only married the son to get close to his mother - context and all that.

Strange choice for a heterosexual wedding vow all the same....
Bride says : 'I promise to live with your Mammy, and never leave your Mammy - I love your Mammy.'

kylith

lazygal wrote: »

Which are the 'nice' bits?!

Ah, you know, all the new hippy-drippy love your neighbour stuff. The 'Jesus loves me, this I know' parts. Mainly the nativity scene, really.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was wondering that too - I even went to the trouble of getting a postage stamp so I could write them down.

Edit: The stamp now contains the following text:
'And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God' Ruth1:16.

One woman's declaration of love to another woman.

Ah, I like Ruth. A nice story about loyalty and looking out for those who need help. Not particularly religious either, for a bible story.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or she only married the son to get close to his mother - context and all that.

Strange choice for a heterosexual wedding vow all the same....
Bride says : 'I promise to live with your Mammy, and never leave your Mammy - I love your Mammy.'

That because they don't know it's about the MiL. They just know the 'where ever you go I will go/ wherever you live, I will live' bits.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

That because they don't know it's about the MiL. They just know the 'where ever you go I will go/ wherever you live, I will live' bits.

It's like a bad tabloid story:

'People participating in religious ceremonies with no idea what the things they are vowing mean shock horror.'

'Bride declares undying love for Mother-in-Law.'

Someone may be able to phrase that 'better' - turns out I don't speak tabloid.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's like a bad tabloid story:

'People participating in religious ceremonies with no idea what the things they are vowing mean shock horror.'

'Bride declares undying love for Mother-in-Law.'

Someone may be able to phrase that 'better' - turns out I don't speak tabloid.

"Woman married to groom's mother "should have read the passage before insisting on it as part of service", says priest"

lazygal

Does this mean *gasp* gay marriages???

Morag

Dades wrote: »

Who fears this?

It's perfectly possibly to teach morality without religion. And I'd suggest that the RC has done plenty to show why it shouldn't be the one teaching it.

the moral majority as they like to think they are, the busy bodies and the curtain twitchers.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

"Woman married to groom's mother "should have read the passage before insisting on it as part of service", says priest"

Priest refuses to marry couple when he realises bride is in love with future mother-in-law. 'It's not Christian' says Fr Dick O Toole ' if God wanted same-sex marriage the Bible would contain passage that refer to same-sex love.'
Groom, Micky Willie McJilted (36) told the Daily Blah of his shock at learning his bride to be, Jodie Gertrude Radcliffe-Hall (22) was only interested in him to get close to his mother Alice B McJilted (nee Toklas).
'The brazen hussy has only run off to Spain with me Mammy to get married and now who is going to iron my shirts and make my sammiches???' wailed Mickey Willie into his pint last night as members of the Baile ar gCúl Tiddlywinks team rallied around to try and comfort him.

gaynorvader

lazygal wrote: »

Does this mean *gasp* gay marriages???

Only for women, it still says "man shall not lie with another man" after all.

Cabaal

J C wrote: »

... no more than you can prove Atheism or anti-theism (and its moral constructs) to be correct either.

However, I know that Judeo-Christian morality is correct ... and is superior to the attempts of mankind to replace it with fallible laws that are inevitably full of loopholes and vary arbitrarily with time and place.

The thread is drifting off the OP ... so I'll bow out respectfully.

Thanks for the discussion and the civility shown me by you all.

Yeah, I liked how it never condemned slavery.
Infact Jesus never said anything negative against slavery, some great morals on that front.

Lucky the world moved on and stopped depending on the bible for its morals

andala

Neither of my kids is baptised. My parents, although not too happy about that, had to come to terms with our decision. What shocked me was the fact that my son didn't get to our local primary school as priority was given to catholic children from the catchment area. We couldn't enroll him into ET because the nearest one would be about 80km away so we were left with either catholic or coi schools. Sure my son loves his school and keeps telling me how happy he is there but I still have a feeling it's not right for public schools to discriminate on the basis of religion.

iguana

My son is not baptised and won't ever be unless he, when he is an adult, chooses to be. My parents don't care but my in laws weren't too happy about it. Luckily for me, my sister in law, who's children are a few months older than my son, also decided not to baptise her children so she paved the way for us. My mother in law did once broach the subject with my mother but my mother told her that it was our decision as parents and they were staying out of it.

I had intended for my son to go to a full Montessori primary in Dublin but we relocated to Limerick shortly after he was born and he most likely has a place in one of the two ET schools here. But it was a very easy decision for me as if it came to it, I see homeschooling as a viable alternative for our family so if he never does get a school place we will manage just fine.

aoraki

First child has come along recently and defintely will not be baptised. My wife and I are both different denominations, but both believe that it's hogwash either way. We didn't do the church wedding thing, so there will be no surprise at our decision.

I don't go along with the "What's the harm" and "Sure it's grand" line of argument. I know it's only a bit of water being poured over the babies head, and that to the athiest parent it's completely meaningless. But it helps legitimise and perpertuate the Catholic church position in Irish life, and allows them to use the baptism figures when it argues for continued influence in Irish public life. If you're an athiest and don't believe in this stuff, then why insert the CC into a part of your family's life that they have absolutely no business being part of? Having the balls to stick to your convictions is an important lesson to teach to your kids.

The "Sure it's grand" attitude can be blamed for so much sh1te in this country.