Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Pherekydes · 05-01-2014 12:35am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Complexities?
There are no complexities. You ask every single person in the country to tell you their religious affiliation (if any), allow them to answer freely and then count up the results.

How many children do you think selected their own religion (or lack of) on the census form?

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 12:41am

Pherekydes wrote: »

How many children do you think selected their own religion (or lack of) on the census form?

How would you expect me to answer that? And what would be the point of speculating?

Pherekydes · 05-01-2014 12:45am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How would you expect me to answer that? And what would be the point of speculating?

There are no complexities, remember?

alaimacerc · 05-01-2014 1:16am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't doubt your sincerity but this is just anecdotal and is dubious at best.

There is no getting around the fact that a census is far more accurate than any number of sample surveys.

You're a living marvel of confirmation bias.

If we lived in a country that had sent a letter of homage and fealty to the international vegetarian society, had schools and hospital run by the vegetarians, people felt massive social pressure to have vegetarian weddings and christenings, and the vegetarians generally pumping out ludicrous propaganda utterly unchecked by any other outlet, you'd doubtless likewise dismiss surveys in which large numbers of people reported "yeah, I had a Big Mac last week, but of course I'm still a Cultural Vegetarian" as similar "inaccuracies".

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 1:23am

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're a living marvel of confirmation bias.

If we lived in a country that had sent a letter of homage and fealty to the international vegetarian society, had schools and hospital run by the vegetarians, people felt massive social pressure to have vegetarian weddings and christenings, and the vegetarians generally pumping out ludicrous propaganda utterly unchecked by any other outlet, you'd doubtless likewise dismiss surveys in which large numbers of people reported "yeah, I had a Big Mac last week, but of course I'm still a Cultural Vegetarian" as similar "inaccuracies".

Yeah...Terrific...

Do you dispute anything that you actually responded to? Specifically:

Anecdotal evidence is dubious at best.
a census is far more accurate than any number of sample surveys.

COYW · 05-01-2014 1:25am

As others have correctly pointed out, the census provides us with the answer to this question. It showed that well over 90% of the population is Christian.

robindch · 05-01-2014 1:32am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you dispute anything that you actually responded to?

Did you actually read any of the replies to your earlier "the census is 100% accurate"-type comments?

Can't say there's much point in anybody replying to this, as it's been answered before and the replies were entirely ignored.

Days 298 · 05-01-2014 1:36am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I more or less agree with you but let's be honest your "compromise" is non-existent. You aren't prepared to offer the sizable majority of Christians anything at all beyond no anti-clericalism. You just insist you are right and they are wrong

What is the compromise of fundamentalist Christians? They have fought/moaned against all change that makes the country. I insist equal treatment of all citizens of the Republic of Ireland should be treated equal and not feel out of place. Do you not see whats wrong when for you to feel your culture is included in the Government, others Muslims, Atheists, Jews are excluded.

Is the compromise of Christians to allow non-Christians and atheists to exist and live in their utopia. What is their compromise.

From my point of view. All religion in the state is wrong. Why? Im atheist! You clearly view Christianity as the truth. And have no problem with its display and advertisement by the state. My compromise and it isnt much to ask, keep religion out of Government.

I dont care if Christians make up 9% or 99.9%. The constitution and the belief of the youth and younger generations is that the state should not endow a religion. The pews are not filled with young people no matter what the stats say. They are voting with their feet whether they feel the church is a core influence in the modern Irish persons life.

I want to be treated and feel equal and included in state bodies and speeches. Thats not much to ask for. I applaud the president for not caving to conservative pressure. Does it matter if my "group" is a minority?

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 1:44am

robindch wrote: »

Did you actually read any of the replies to your earlier "the census is 100% accurate"-type comments?

Can't say there's much point in anybody replying to this, as it's been answered before and the replies were entirely ignored.

They weren't ignored. You listed I think 5 issues that you said made the census wrong. I asked you to take each claim of yours one by one, tell me what the actual effect is to the totals and to support your claims with scientific evidence.

I am still waiting.

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 1:49am

Days 298 wrote: »

What is the compromise of fundamentalist Christians? They have fought/moaned against all change that makes the country. I insist equal treatment of all citizens of the Republic of Ireland should be treated equal and not feel out of place. Do you not see whats wrong when for you to feel your culture is included in the Government, others Muslims, Atheists, Jews are excluded.

Is the compromise of Christians to allow non-Christians and atheists to exist and live in their utopia. What is their compromise.

From my point of view. All religion in the state is wrong. Why? Im atheist! You clearly view Christianity as the truth. And have no problem with its display and advertisement by the state. My compromise and it isnt much to ask, keep religion out of Government.

I dont care if Christians make up 9% or 99.9%. The constitution and the belief of the youth and younger generations is that the state should not endow a religion. The pews are not filled with young people no matter what the stats say. They are voting with their feet whether they feel the church is a core influence in the modern Irish persons life.

I want to be treated and feel equal and included in state bodies and speeches. Thats not much to ask for. I applaud the president for not caving to conservative pressure. Does it matter if my "group" is a minority?

I never said fundamentalist Christians are prepared to compromise. It is a zero-sum game for them with winners and losers and it is apparently is for you too. You won't bend at all from the standard secular ideal. So again, does your John Stewart quote also apply to you? Do you also want "everything your own way"?

Days 298 · 05-01-2014 2:02am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never said fundamentalist Christians are prepared to compromise. It is a zero-sum game for them with winners and losers and it is apparently is for you too. You won't bend at all from the standard secular ideal. So again, does your John Stewart quote also apply to you? Do you also want "everything your own way"?

No I want to be treated equal and that's exactly what the president did. Am I be greedy and selfish to ask for equal treatment? In what way should I bend exactly? Allow myself to be excluded. In what way has the Catholic lobby bended ever?

Lucy8080 · 05-01-2014 2:17am

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're a living marvel of confirmation bias.

If we lived in a country that had sent a letter of homage and fealty to the international vegetarian society, had schools and hospital run by the vegetarians, people felt massive social pressure to have vegetarian weddings and christenings, and the vegetarians generally pumping out ludicrous propaganda utterly unchecked by any other outlet, you'd doubtless likewise dismiss surveys in which large numbers of people reported "yeah, I had a Big Mac last week, but of course I'm still a Cultural Vegetarian" as similar "inaccuracies".

I think that most Atheists would blush at the above argument.

alaimacerc · 05-01-2014 9:14pm

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I think that most Atheists would blush at the above argument.

Whereas you're quite happy with Brown Bomber's "la-la-lah, surveys on belief in the population are all wrong because they contradict my prejudices"? Because that's what it's rebutting. (I'm sensing you need pointers as to the course of the debate, given the lack of any actual counter-argument.)

alaimacerc · 05-01-2014 9:26pm

Days 298 wrote: »

No I want to be treated equal and that's exactly what the president did. Am I be greedy and selfish to ask for equal treatment? In what way should I bend exactly? Allow myself to be excluded. In what way has the Catholic lobby bended ever?

As I said earlier, BB's "argument" is that in an amazingly liberal and generous move, the supposed monoculture has already moved from 100% theocracy. Likely moved too far, given his "the country is still solidly 90% faithfully Catholic" flights of fantasy. Whereas obviously a liberal secular democracy would be "atheist tyranny", hence something has to be conceded from that as an objective in the interests of "moderation". Obviously for this "negotiation" to work as advertised, we need to get some agents provocateur to suggest banning religious practice and instituting state-sponsored atheism.

Essentially it's the same attempt to make the "paradox of liberalism" a rhetorical judo move. Compare with the RCC trying to turn discriminating against women and gays into an issue of the "human rights" of those discriminating, the way that likes of McDowell try to cover moving from a "socially liberal" political party to an embryonic rampantly socially reactionary one, by mumbling "freedom of conscience", and so on.

alaimacerc · 05-01-2014 9:27pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They weren't ignored. You listed I think 5 issues that you said made the census wrong. I asked you to take each claim of yours one by one, tell me what the actual effect is to the totals and to support your claims with scientific evidence.

I am still waiting.

i.e., you played entry-level deflection and burden-of-proof games. Bush league stuff.

robindch · 05-01-2014 9:30pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They weren't ignored.

I am still waiting.

alaimacerc · 05-01-2014 9:32pm

COYW wrote: »

As others have correctly pointed out, the census provides us with the answer to this question. It showed that well over 90% of the population is Christian.

Provided your criterion for "is Christian" consists entirely of "can be cajoled into ticked a particular box on the form". If it were as simple as that, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time, trouble, and firewood in the Reformation and Wars of Religion, no? Neatly detached in its entirety from such minutiae as "practice", "belief", and so on.

expectationlost · 05-01-2014 10:50pm

isn't it the case that everybody has to be there, ie in the house, when your filling in the census

wench · 05-01-2014 11:00pm

expectationlost wrote: »

isn't it the case that everybody has to be there, ie in the house, when your filling in the census

No, the main householder can fill it in for everyone.
They are the one signing the bottom of it, and swearing it's accuracy.

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 11:11pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Whereas you're quite happy with Brown Bomber's "la-la-lah, surveys on belief in the population are all wrong because they contradict my prejudices"? Because that's what it's rebutting. (I'm sensing you need pointers as to the course of the debate, given the lack of any actual counter-argument.)

A) What "prejudices" are you referring to?

You are merely "rebutting" a strawman that you have created.

I never said the surveys are "wrong". I said that they are are flawed in that they only get the opinions of a fraction-of-a-fraction of the population which is then made to represent the whole. A census by definition has no such error, it is the ultimate survey. It is self-evident that a sample survey can never supercede or contradict a census - now matter how much you wish it to be true.

Delirium · 05-01-2014 11:17pm

Recent polls show the majority of voters support marriage equality, even though most of them probably ticked Roman Catholic in the census. That's a very simple and obvious contradiction between the census and recent polling.

AerynSun · 05-01-2014 11:18pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A census by definition has no such error, it is the ultimate survey.

Only if you're thinking in purely quantitative terms, giving no mind to qualitative issues. Also, as far as the quantitative data is concerned, there are substantive issues that have been raised a number of times on this thread that demonstrate the flaws inherent in using the census as a measure of religious identity or practice.

But this has been said many times, in many ways. I fully expect your rebuttal to simply be a restatement of your opinion, rather than an engagement with the issues that were raised.

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 11:23pm

Days 298 wrote: »

No I want to be treated equal and that's exactly what the president did. Am I be greedy and selfish to ask for equal treatment? In what way should I bend exactly? Allow myself to be excluded. In what way has the Catholic lobby bended ever?

Not talking about any Catholic lobby, I've been trying to find a single thing that will compromise on. So far, nothing...

How about something trivial? Could you have got on with your day if our President had mentioned Christ in his CHRISTmas address to a population which are officially overwhelmingly Christian? Could you excercise tolerance towards your fellow Christian citizens, again the overwhelming majority, in allowing the the Angelus to be continued to be broadcast?

If you had the power would you ban the ringing of church bells?

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 11:27pm

koth wrote: »

Recent polls show the majority of voters support marriage equality, even though most of them probably ticked Roman Catholic in the census. That's a very simple and obvious contradiction between the census and recent polling.

It's only a contractdiction if it's IMPOSSIBLE to be both a Catholic AND in favour of gay marriage. Is it...?

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 11:29pm

AerynSun wrote: »

Only if you're thinking in purely quantitative terms, giving no mind to qualitative issues. Also, as far as the quantitative data is concerned, there are substantive issues that have been raised a number of times on this thread that demonstrate the flaws inherent in using the census as a measure of religious identity or practice.

But this has been said many times, in many ways. I fully expect your rebuttal to simply be a restatement of your opinion, rather than an engagement with the issues that were raised.

OK, let's take them one-by-one. Tell me what these issues are and the specific effect it would have on the census results and we will see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Delirium · 05-01-2014 11:30pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's only a contractdiction if it's IMPOSSIBLE to be both a Catholic AND in favour of gay marriage. Is it...?

according to the rules of the club, yes. Marriage is a union of man and woman b before God.

Brown Bomber · 05-01-2014 11:33pm

koth wrote: »

according to the rules of the club, yes. Marriage is a union of man and woman b before God.

And the moment you don't agree you stop becoming Catholic...???

Is that what you are saying?

expectationlost · 05-01-2014 11:33pm

wench wrote: »

No, the main householder can fill it in for everyone.
They are the one signing the bottom of it, and swearing it's accuracy.

The census is an account of everybody in the country on census night
http://www.cso.ie/en/census/censusforms/ The main household form caters for up to six persons present in the household on Census Night. The household form also seeks limited information about persons who were temporarily away from the household on Census Night

AerynSun · 05-01-2014 11:34pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, let's take them one-by-one.

I'm glad you're finally willing to engage with the issues. But you're going to have to go back through the thread yourself and make notes of what you want to answer, because the issues are all there, in a number of previous posts. I'm too tired and too grumpy tonight to sit here and make up a new summary, please forgive me for that. The thread is mostly still there though, after today's tech hiccup, so you should find everything fairly easily.

Days 298 · 05-01-2014 11:36pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not talking about any Catholic lobby, I've been trying to find a single thing that will compromise on. So far, nothing...

How about something trivial? Could you have got on with your day if our President had mentioned Christ in his CHRISTmas address to a population which are officially overwhelmingly Christian? Could you excercise tolerance towards your fellow Christian citizens, again the overwhelming majority, in allowing the the Angelus to be continued to be broadcast?

If you had the power would you ban the ringing of church bells?

OMG. You just don't get it do you? He is the president of Ireland. Not Catholic Ireland. The majority of Irish people do not enter a church once a week.

No I dont agree with the angelus on RTE. Im sure your smart phone could set an alarm to remind you to stop and stare into the horizon at 6.01 every day.

If I had the power I wouldnt ban church bells. Why you may ask shocked! A church is a private organisation. The government is not. It represents the people not just "the majority". You know that the majority dont practice Christianity in Ireland. The pews are emptying. They are running out of priests!

Can you give one example where the Christian lobby in Ireland has allowed the removal of religion without complaint.

Again I applaud the president for including all citizens in his address. Maybe in the future he should call it the Holiday address but again I would presume you would give out at the secularist tyranny of equality.

Days 298 · 05-01-2014 11:38pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the moment you don't agree you stop becoming Catholic...???

Is that what you are saying?

How many catholic doctrines, beliefs and rules can you dismiss and still be a Catholic? Is simple being a deist and ticking the Catholic box on the census make you Catholic.

Next theyll be telling us belief in Jesus is optional!

Delirium · 05-01-2014 11:43pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the moment you don't agree you stop becoming Catholic...???

Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying it's a contradiction between stating a person is Catholic and supporting marriage equality. They are two exclusive points of view. This shows that there is a contradiction between surveys and the census, which is what I was addressing.

AerynSun · 05-01-2014 11:57pm

koth wrote: »

I'm saying it's a contradiction between stating a person is Catholic and supporting marriage equality. They are two exclusive points of view. This shows that there is a contradiction between surveys and the census, which is what I was addressing.

They're not exclusive points of view in reality - just in terms of the official RCC PR. The one great thing about RCC doctrine is that there is a little-known caveat in Catholic moral theology called "supremacy of conscience". Basically, it boils down to the fact that every Catholic is obliged to inform themselves and then follow their conscience - and doing something according to official church teaching when your own conscience tells you it's wrong... is in itself wrong.

Give that man a Bells. At 6:00 and at 12:00!

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 12:01am

koth wrote: »

I'm saying it's a contradiction between stating a person is Catholic and supporting marriage equality. They are two exclusive points of view. This shows that there is a contradiction between surveys and the census, which is what I was addressing.

I agree it is a a contradiction, but not to the point where one loses the right to self-identify as Catholic anymore than a Muslim having a glass of wine with a meal stops being Muslim.

Aren't you just falling victim to the no true Scotsman fallacy?

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 12:13am

Days 298 wrote: »

OMG. You just don't get it do you? He is the president of Ireland. Not Catholic Ireland. The majority of Irish people do not enter a church once a week.

No I dont agree with the angelus on RTE. Im sure your smart phone could set an alarm to remind you to stop and stare into the horizon at 6.01 every day.

If I had the power I wouldnt ban church bells. Why you may ask shocked! A church is a private organisation. The government is not. It represents the people not just "the majority". You know that the majority dont practice Christianity in Ireland. The pews are emptying. They are running out of priests!

Can you give one example where the Christian lobby in Ireland has allowed the removal of religion without complaint.

Again I applaud the president for including all citizens in his address. Maybe in the future he should call it the Holiday address but again I would presume you would give out at the secularist tyranny of equality.

Why do you keep asking me about the Catholic Lobby? I don't know anything about them.

Just so we are clear, is it this kippah-wearing President we are talking about?

http://www.jewishireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MCMDH.jpg

Michael D sends best wished to Muslim community in Ireland on conclusion of Ramadan

http://www.labour.ie/press/2011/08/31/michael-d-sends-best-wished-to-muslim-community-in/

Why mention Muslims at Ramadan and not Christians at Christmas?

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 12:23am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you keep asking me about the Catholic Lobby? I don't know anything about them.

Kinda the way my (then)fellow Catholics would insist I was part of 'the gay cabal'. What frigging gay cabal?! Just because I believe in marriage equality doesn't mean I've joined Lady Gaga in the Illluminati - people are very quick to invent a "them" to castigate.

I guess in a way... since I was adding my voice to the gay lobby, that made me an honourary member of The Gay Cabal. And BB, I mean this kindly now: since you're adding your voice to a debate in a public forum and you're arguing in favour of a Catholic perspective and Catholic values... I guess that makes you an honourary member of the Catholic Lobby. Congrats

Why mention Muslims at Ramadan and not Christians at Christmas?

Because nobody but Muslims celebrate Ramadan. Christmas is a much broader cultural holiday than a purely Christian one. Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer... "It's A Wonderful Life"... yep, nothing specifically Christian about a LOT of that. Why do you think parts of the Christian church runs an annual campaign about "Let's put Christ back into Christmas"? Because Christmas isn't all about Christ anymore, as far as the broader population is concerned.

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 12:51am

AerynSun wrote: »

Kinda the way my (then)fellow Catholics would insist I was part of 'the gay cabal'. What frigging gay cabal?! Just because I believe in marriage equality doesn't mean I've joined Lady Gaga in the Illluminati - people are very quick to invent a "them" to castigate.

I guess in a way... since I was adding my voice to the gay lobby, that made me an honourary member of The Gay Cabal. And BB, I mean this kindly now: since you're adding your voice to a debate in a public forum and you're arguing in favour of a Catholic perspective and Catholic values... I guess that makes you an honourary member of the Catholic Lobby. Congrats

Because nobody but Muslims celebrate Ramadan. Christmas is a much broader cultural holiday than a purely Christian one. Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer... "It's A Wonderful Life"... yep, nothing specifically Christian about a LOT of that. Why do you think parts of the Christian church runs an annual campaign about "Let's put Christ back into Christmas"? Because Christmas isn't all about Christ anymore, as far as the broader population is concerned.

I'm sorry, but any dictionary will tell you that Christmas is a Christian Festival that celebrates the birth of Christ. Anything else that has attached itself to this Christian festival -- be it through tradition or commercialisation - doesn't change this. Christmas is as much as Christian festival as Ramadan is a Muslim one.

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 12:56am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry, but any dictionary will tell you that Christmas is a Christian Festival that celebrates the birth of Christ. Anything else that has attached itself to this Christian festival -- be it through tradition or commercialisation - doesn't change this. Christmas is as much as Christian festival as Ramadan is a Muslim one.

I didn't say that Christmas isn't a Christian festival - but it is not a purely Christian festival. A subtle but significant difference: the same name is used, it happens at the same time of the year, but it has very different meanings for the various people who celebrate it - and many of the people who celebrate Christmas don't do it with any Christian intent. Whereas with Ramadan... you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't Muslim celebrating that. Hence the appropriateness of a message for Muslims on Ramadan, but a more broad message for the entire population at Christmas.

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 1:07am

AerynSun wrote: »

I didn't say that Christmas isn't a Christian festival - but it is not a purely Christian festival. A subtle but significant difference: the same name is used, it happens at the same time of the year, but it has very different meanings for the various people who celebrate it - and many of the people who celebrate Christmas don't do it with any Christian intent. Whereas with Ramadan... you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't Muslim celebrating that. Hence the appropriateness of a message for Muslims on Ramadan, but a more broad message for the entire population at Christmas.

But it is by definition a "purely Christian festival". Being celebrated by non-Christians due to our Christian heritage can't change this.

Mark Hamill · 06-01-2014 1:14am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree it is a a contradiction, but not to the point where one loses the right to self-identify as Catholic anymore than a Muslim having a glass of wine with a meal stops being Muslim.

Aren't you just falling victim to the no true Scotsman fallacy?

It's never the no true Scotsman fallacy to point out the accurate meaning of a word. No true Scotsman only applies when you try to add a defining criteria that doesn't actually have any relevance.

You really should rethink you argument here. Let's say you're right, and that people can be completely justified in calling themselves catholic, simply because they want to call themselves catholic. Then all that catholic means is "a person who wants to call themselves a catholic". "Catholic" then becomes a tautological nonsense word, utterly devoid of useful meaning.

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 1:18am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But it is by definition a "purely Christian festival". Being celebrated by non-Christians due to our Christian heritage can't change this.

Regardless of the origin of the festival, it is significant to acknowledge who celebrates it and why, in the here and now. In 2014, the reality is that many people who are not Christian celebrate a cultural festival at Christmas, and it is also their festival as much as it is a Christian festival.

I'm sure you'd agree with that approach? Recognising how the festival has evolved over time? Otherwise we have to give back the December festival to those who celebrated the Mithraic rites of the birth of the sun, at the close of the Saturnalia, and dismiss the more modern 5th Century appropriation of the festival by the Christian church (whose usage in general before this had been to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth). If we gave the festival back to its originators, then Michael D. will have to amend his address to cater specifically for the Roman population. Who don't actually live in Ireland at all, at all.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-01-2014 1:18am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Aren't Labour making moves against the church in schools and hospitals, Councillors and Chaplains for example?

No.

I wish they were.

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 1:28am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's never the no true Scotsman fallacy to point out the accurate meaning of a word. No true Scotsman only applies when you try to add a defining criteria that doesn't actually have any relevance.

You really should rethink you argument here. Let's say you're right, and that people can be completely justified in calling themselves catholic, simply because they want to call themselves catholic. Then all that catholic means is "a person who wants to call themselves a catholic". "Catholic" then becomes a tautological nonsense word, utterly devoid of useful meaning.

OK then Mark, you tell me the true meaning of the word then. If someone self-identifies as Catholic at the same time supports gay marriage are they Catholic or not?

What if they were to commit one of the gravest sins like denying Christ?...Like St Paul...Who became Pope...

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 1:33am

AerynSun wrote: »

Regardless of the origin of the festival, it is significant to acknowledge who celebrates it and why, in the here and now. In 2014, the reality is that many people who are not Christian celebrate a cultural festival at Christmas, and it is also their festival as much as it is a Christian festival.

I'm sure you'd agree with that approach? Recognising how the festival has evolved over time? Otherwise we have to give back the December festival to those who celebrated the Mithraic rites of the birth of the sun, at the close of the Saturnalia, and dismiss the more modern 5th Century appropriation of the festival by the Christian church (whose usage in general before this had been to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth). If we gave the festival back to its originators, then Michael D. will have to amend his address to cater specifically for the Roman population. Who don't actually live in Ireland at all, at all.

I do agree with that approach which can co-exist with acknowledging the Christian core of Christmas.

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 1:36am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I do agree with that approach which can co-exist with acknowledging the Christian core of Christmas.

And maybe as part of a gesture of goodwill on the part of the dominant culture Christians, it would be reasonable to not mention Christ for a few years, until the Christians all appreciate that Christmas is no longer a purely Christian festival and are willing to give all of the other traditions their place at the table. Fair enough?

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 2:00am

AerynSun wrote: »

And maybe as part of a gesture of goodwill on the part of the dominant culture Christians, it would be reasonable to not mention Christ for a few years, until the Christians all appreciate that Christmas is no longer a purely Christian festival and are willing to give all of the other traditions their place at the table. Fair enough?

I personally couldn't care less if he does or doesn't mention Jesus in his Christmas message, and would fully expect most reasonable people, religious and non-religious alike to feel the same. Only extremists on both sides would care.

What bothers me more is our President spinelessly pandering to these extremists and the PC crowd when mentioning Christ, in a Christmas message to a Christian-majority country is the natural thing to do.

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 2:09am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I personally couldn't care less if he does or doesn't mention Jesus in his Christmas message, and would fully expect most reasonable people, religious and non-religious alike to feel the same. Only extremists on both sides would care.

What bothers me more is our President spinelessly pandering to these extremists and the PC crowd when mentioning Christ, in a Christmas message to a Christian-majority country is the natural thing to do.

Ah now. If you don't care... then why the fuss? Leave those who care to battle it out?

Maybe it would help if you could reframe the narrative for your own peace of mind:

"What pleases me most, is our President courageously and honourably recognising the strong feelings held by conservative Catholics and militant secularists alike, and diplomatically finding a way through a religious and cultural minefield, to wish all people on the island of Ireland a happy and peaceful celebration".

Kudos to him. I believe Jesus is smiling, saying 'Good and faithful servant", because the true spirit of Christian Christmas is being lived out in this instance: peace and joy and goodwill to all.

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 2:22am

AerynSun wrote: »

Ah now. If you don't care... then why the fuss? Leave those who care to battle it out?

Maybe it would help if you could reframe the narrative for your own peace of mind:

"What pleases me most, is our President courageously and honourably recognising the strong feelings held by conservative Catholics and militant secularists alike, and diplomatically finding a way through a religious and cultural minefield, to wish all people on the island of Ireland a happy and peaceful celebration".

Kudos to him. I believe Jesus is smiling, saying 'Good and faithful servant", because the true spirit of Christian Christmas is being lived out in this instance: peace and joy and goodwill to all.

This is what Obama said:

"This is our chance to celebrate the birth of Christ and to live as he taught us to love our neighbours as ourselves, to feed the hungry and look after the sick, to be our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper. For all of us as Americans, regardless of our faith, those are values that can drive us to be better parents and better friends, better neighbours and better citizens."

It acknowledges the Christian nature of Christmas and at the same time is inclusive. Why couldn't Higgins do that?

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 2:27am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why couldn't Higgins do that?

Because Higgins is not Mr Yes-We-Can?

And because Irish Catholics are more reasonable in their love of God and neighbour than the average American Protestant is? (I don't need to mention that a good number of American Christians are "God fearing, gun carrying"?)

IRLConor · 06-01-2014 3:12am

AerynSun wrote: »

They're not exclusive points of view in reality - just in terms of the official RCC PR. The one great thing about RCC doctrine is that there is a little-known caveat in Catholic moral theology called "supremacy of conscience". Basically, it boils down to the fact that every Catholic is obliged to inform themselves and then follow their conscience - and doing something according to official church teaching when your own conscience tells you it's wrong... is in itself wrong.

Surely there's a limit to that somewhere?

Could I, for example, deny the existence of god and yet pull out the "supremacy of conscience" card and claim that I'm still a member in good standing of the RCC? How does that interact with Can 1364?

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments