A chance to scrap the Angelus - Nutella, Croissants and Pineapples.

expectationlost

Michel Nugent of Atheist Ireland Angelus on The Right Hook http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/9/19588/25th_June_2015_-_The_Right_Hook_Part_2/ about half way through

lazy people saying the atheist ireland should concentrate on more important things, not bothered to check their website and see that they were over in the UN last week dealing with various Human Rights issues and their extensive and detailed briefs and lobbying on education etc

frostyjacks

expectationlost wrote: »

lazy people saying the atheist ireland should concentrate on more important things, not bothered to check their website and see that they were over in the UN last week delaing with various Human Rights issues and there extensive and detailed briefs and lobbying on eduaction etc

Looks like we could use some of that eduaction a bit closer to home.

In fairness, I can think of a lot more things in this country that people could be ploughing their energies into instead of a ringing bell.

Hotblack Desiato

Symbolism matters.

that's why there's a fcuking great big cross on top of Carrauntoohil.

'We own this fcuking country, boy'

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

so religious propoganda is better than commercial propoganda?
And on a state broadcaster too, which is supposed to cater to all Irish, the non-religious majority as well as the tiny minority of paleolithic era catlicks.

And the 84% who identify as Roman Catholic of course. Which I think counts as a religious majority, unless there is a truly astonishing number of paleolithic era catlick Mammys desperately hiding the census forms from their enormous broods of apostate children still living at home.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think there is a need for people to have at least one moment of reflection during the day. It's not really a call to prayer anymore, it's 60 seconds of calm and meditation, they've done away with the Catholic imagery.

Calm?
I find euro news no comment programs more calming then what RTE have that you claim is calm. The church bells don't make it calm, they are ensuring it's linked to the Christian faith.

If you want it calm then remove the bells and use images from all religious and none, a Muslim praying, a scientology person doing a emeter session, a Catholic in Ireland not going to mass. You know, images that reflect the majority of each faith in Ireland

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Looks like we could use some of that eduaction a bit closer to home.

In fairness, I can think of a lot more things in this country that people could be ploughing their energies into instead of a ringing bell.

I'm sure you'd be saying the exact same thing if RTE broadcasted a Muslim call to prayer, hmm there's a thought.

Maybe RTE should do a 6 month rotation of all faiths and none, 6 months of Muslim call to prayer, 6 months of bells etc.

I'm sure you'd have no issue with this? Who cares if the call to prayer will have to be aired more throughout the day

If anything, these times can still be used for meditation... Sure its no different to some bells. It has no meaning to a none Muslim... Apparently

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, if it scrapped it's religious output it wouldn't really be catering for all, would it?

How are they catering for non Catholics at the moment exactly?

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

How are they catering for non Catholics at the moment exactly?

By including non-Catholic material in their religious programming?

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure you'd be saying the exact same thing if RTE broadcasted a Muslim call to prayer, hmm there's a thought.

It would surprise me if they did that, for reasons I have already pointed out. But it wouldn't bother me in the least. Why should it?

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

How are they catering for non Catholics at the moment exactly?

According to their site, they "broadcast over 100 hours each year on both television and radio, including documentaries, discussions, interviews, festival features and worship programmes, reflecting the full diversity of religious belief and practice in Ireland."

Key words here are "full diversity". They are not promoting one religion over another.

lazygal

There's tens of thousands of Christian sects alone. How can rte cater for the full range of diversity of them, as well as the myriad other religions out there? Why do we need a broadcaster to have two moments of reflections based on a Catholic call to prayer at all? Can people not chose when to reflect themselves if they want to?

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

There's tens of thousands of Christian sects alone. How can rte cater for the full range of diversity of them, as well as the myriad other religions out there?

There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many of them are divided geographically, not by doctrine. It's not the case that every denomination needs or demands ring-fenced time available exclusively to it.

Yes, catering to the "full range of diversity" in any society can be difficult. This is not something confined to religion. But the challenges presented by recognising and reflecting diversity are not a good reason to abandon the attempt entirely.

It may well be that there are religious traditions in Ireland who consider that they are not adequately catered for in RTE's religious broadcasting. If so, the appropriate response may be to adjust the mix somewhat. But it wouldn't be reason to ban religious broadcasting altogether. Especially when, as at present, we are merely hypothesising that there could be perspectives who say they feel excluded; nobody as yet has produced any evidence that there actually are any such.

lazygal wrote: »

Why do we need a broadcaster to have two moments of reflections based on a Catholic call to prayer at all? Can people not chose when to reflect themselves if they want to?

Indeed they can. And I don't see that broadcasting the angelus prevents them from making that choice.

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

There's tens of thousands of Christian sects alone. How can rte cater for the full range of diversity of them, as well as the myriad other religions out there? Why do we need a broadcaster to have two moments of reflections based on a Catholic call to prayer at all? Can people not chose when to reflect themselves if they want to?

Tens of thousands of Christian sects in Ireland? I doubt that. I imagine RTE bases it's output on a religious demographic or similar. And yes, people can choose to reflect themselves if they want to. I don't see anyone stopping that from happening.

Peregrinus

frostyjacks wrote: »

Tens of thousands of Christian sects in Ireland? I doubt that. I imagine RTE bases it's output on a religious demographic or similar.

It isn't simply a mathematical calculation. For example, broadcasts of Christian services are more or less equally divided between Catholics and non-Catholics although, obviously, that does not reflect the numerical representation of the various Christian traditions in Ireland. For minority non-Christian traditions, broadcasts of services are occasional, but measured by time may be more than proportionate to their numbers, or less. As already pointed out, you can't broadcast services or devotions which no-one is observing; that consideration alone explains why the Muslim call to prayer is not broadcast in Ireland.

When it comes to panel discussions and the like, the focus will be on getting a diversity of participants with views to express; that could easily lead to a panel of, say, one Catholic, two Protestants, a Muslim and a secular participant. No (sane) person would criticise this on the basis that 84% of panel discussion participants should be Catholic, 6% unbelievers, etc. And there's no presumption that people who are interested in religious and related issues are only interested in coverage of those issues which reflects their own perspective. Same goes for documentary coverage; there will definitely be an attempt to cover stories and events reflecting a variety of perspectives, but no attempt to make this proportional to the numerical representation of those perspectives in Ireland.

the block

Zamboni wrote: »

Tell them.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PssOption2English

Takes 5 minutes.

No way.its d funniest thing on telly.

Huntergonzo

Absolam wrote: »

And the 84% who identify as Roman Catholic of course. Which I think counts as a religious majority, unless there is a truly astonishing number of paleolithic era catlick Mammys desperately hiding the census forms from their enormous broods of apostate children still living at home.

And why would 84% (let's say for argument sake that figure is 100% accurate) of people in Ireland identify themselves as catholic anyway? Also of the '84%' how many of those believe in the virgin birth, purgatory or transubstantiation for example, I bet a lot of them believe in same sex marriage, condoms and sex before marriage though, most of my mates certainly fall into that category!

I mean on what level can people like that even call themselves catholic, they're closer to being protestants than catholics but try to tell them that (as I've told my friends in the past for fun) and you nearly always get the FCUK OFF I'M CATHOLIC!!! response.

Peregrinus

Huntergonzo wrote: »

And why would 84% (let's say for argument sake that figure is 100% accurate) of people in Ireland identify themselves as catholic anyway?

You'd have to ask them. But we know that 84% of them (in the Republic) do identify as Catholics.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Also of the '84%' how many of those believe in the virgin birth, purgatory or transubstantiation for example, I bet a lot of them believe in same sex marriage, condoms and sex before marriage though, most of my mates certainly fall into that category!

Again, if you want to know the answer to that you'd have to ask them.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I mean on what level can people like that even call themselves catholic, they're closer to being protestants than catholics but try to tell them that (as I've told my friends in the past for fun) and you nearly always get the FCUK OFF I'M CATHOLIC!!! response.

That could have something to do with the fact that they reckon they have a greater right to determine their own religious identity than you do.

Mr. CooL ICE

Peregrinus wrote: »

That could have something to do with the fact that they reckon they have a greater right to determine their own religious identity than you do.

And Rachel Dolezal identified herself has black when she clearly wasn't...

I think Huntergonzo's point was that if they were in any way honest with themselves, they wouldn't call themselves catholics

SpaceTime

What about the Pastafarian traditions?!

Ireland's fastest growing carbohydrate based religion.

Peregrinus

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

And Rachel Dolezal identified herself has black when she clearly wasn't...

I think Huntergonzo's point was that if they were in any way honest with themselves, they wouldn't call themselves catholics

That's because huntergonzo thinks that "Catholic" is defined as "someone who believes in the virgin birth and transubstantion and rejects the virgin birth and condoms".

The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means. More to the point, that's not what the Catholic church thinks, or says, that "Catholic" means.

So it comes down to this; you say huntergonzo thinks people are "dishonest" if they don't accept huntergonzo's somewhat unusual decrees about what common words mean. You can see how that's not a position that has a lot of appeal. Is it any wonder that they tell him, in his own words, to FCUK OFF?

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

What about the Pastafarian traditions?!

Ireland's fastest growing carbohydrate based religion.

Again, we can't expect RTE to broadcast what doesn't happen. From my observations the only manifestation of pastafarianism in Ireland has been one bloke applying for a driving licence and offering a photograph of himself wearing a colander. There's a limit to the amount of religious broadcasting you expect RTE to get out of that.

Huntergonzo

Peregrinus

You'd have to ask them. But we know that 84% of them (in the Republic) do identify as Catholics.

I don't know what the actual figure is but I accept that the majority of people on this Island do consider themselves catholic. But this is obviously because they're indoctrinated with catholicism from a very early age, as were their parents and their grandparents and their great grandparents etc etc etc, notice a pattern?

Again, if you want to know the answer to that you'd have to ask them.

True but do what do you think the general consensus is these days compared to say the 40s, 50s and 60s for example or even the 80s!

That could have something to do with the fact that they reckon they have a greater right to determine their own religious identity than you do.

Of course they do, but it is just an identify for them (as in be different to the English, some of them are that petty), they don't actually believe in most of the catholic doctrine, so are they really catholic? Don't get me wrong I know the church is not in the powerful position is used to be so they're trying to cling on to as many followers as possible but these people would have certainly been condemned and possibly excommunicated for their 'sins' in Ireland half a century ago.

Huntergonzo

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's because huntergonzo thinks that "Catholic" is defined as "someone who believes in the virgin birth and transubstantion and rejects the virgin birth and condoms".

The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means. More to the point, that's not what the Catholic church thinks, or says, that "Catholic" means.

So it comes down to this; you say huntergonzo thinks people are "dishonest" if they don't accept huntergonzo's somewhat unusual decrees about what common words mean. You can see how that's not a position that has a lot of appeal. Is it any wonder that they tell him, in his own words, to FCUK OFF?

Believes in and rejects the virgin birth??? You are clearly a confused person, like most religious people I suppose

The catholic church teaches the virgin birth and transubstantiation as literal fact, surely you know that?

Anyway you're talking about people just making up their own religion, a la carte style, call it what you want but it's not catholicism.

Peregrinus

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Peregrinus

You'd have to ask them. But we know that 84% of them (in the Republic) do identify as Catholics.

I don't know what the actual figure is but I accept that the majority of people on this Island do consider themselves catholic. But this is obviously because they're indoctrinated with catholicism from a very early age, as were their parents and their grandparents and their great grandparents etc etc etc, notice a pattern?

Of course. Catholicism is part of their inheritance.

But so what? That's not an argument for saying that they aren't Catholic. After all, Irishness is another identity which we largely acquire by inheritance. Are you saying that, because of that, we aren't really Irish?

Inheritance explains how it comes to be that so many Irish people are Catholic. That observation does nothing, though, to suggest that they aren't really Catholic.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Again, if you want to know the answer to that you'd have to ask them.

True but do what do you think the general consensus is these days compared to say the 40s, 50s and 60s for example or even the 80s!

What of it? Are you suggesting that the attitudes common to Catholics in Ireland in the 40s or 50s or 60s define what it is to be Catholic for all all people at all times? Why?

I'll cheerfully accept that the beliefs and understandings and practices of Catholics change over time. So what? By what authority does Pope Huntergonzo proclaim that the beliefs of that time and place define True Catholicism, and that all others are fake?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

That could have something to do with the fact that they reckon they have a greater right to determine their own religious identity than you do.

Of course they do, but it is just an identify for them (as in be different to the English, some of them are that petty), they don't actually believe in most of the catholic doctrine, so are they really catholic? Don't get me wrong I know the church is not in the powerful position is used to be so they're trying to cling on to as many followers as possible but these people would have certainly been condemned and possibly excommunicated for their 'sins' in Ireland half a century ago.

Well, if we go by the understanding that Catholics themselves have (and who better to say what "Catholic" means that Catholics?) they are Catholics if they are Christians whose primary eucharistic community is the Catholic church. They may or may not be good Catholics, or fervent Catholics, or observant Catholics, or any other kind of Catholic that you might think up but, yep, they're Catholics. Why not?

Turn this around. If someone was lecturing you about whether or not you are real atheist on the basis of their self-serving assumptions about what atheism requires, would you take their views at all seriously? Well, no offence, but that is how you are coming across to your Catholic friends.

Huntergonzo

Peregrinus

Of course. Catholicism is part of their inheritance.

But so what? That's not an argument for saying that they aren't Catholic. After all, Irishness is another identity which we largely acquire by inheritance. Are you saying that, because of that, we aren't really Irish?

Inheritance explains how it comes to be that so many Irish people are Catholic. That observation does nothing, though, to suggest that they aren't really Catholic.

I disagree, I don't think religion should be part of an inheritance, it should be a choice, most people in Ireland are baptized catholic before they can talk, ie without their consent, that's not choice. Choice is the freedom to choose any religion or none without state run bias.


What of it? Are you suggesting that the attitudes common to Catholics in Ireland in the 40s or 50s or 60s define what it is to be Catholic for all all people at all times? Why?

They were closer to the actual teachings of the church, and Ireland at the time was an oppressive theocracy.


I'll cheerfully accept that the beliefs and understandings and practices of Catholics change over time. So what? By what authority does Pope Huntergonzo proclaim that the beliefs of that time and place define True Catholicism, and that all others are fake?

Of course they change over time, because people are more educated now and have access to the internet and so they won't stand for the churches iron rule like they used to. So the church has to be dragged kicking and screaming into change, they rarely seems to change willingly.


Well, if we go by the understanding that Catholics themselves have (and who better to say what "Catholic" means that Catholics?) they are Catholics if they are Christians whose primary eucharistic community is the Catholic church. They may or may not be good Catholics, or fervent Catholics, or observant Catholics, or any other kind of Catholic that you might think up but, yep, they're Catholics. Why not?

A la carte religion again.


Turn this around. If someone was lecturing you about whether or not you are real atheist on the basis of their self-serving assumptions about what atheism requires, would you take their views at all seriously? Well, no offence, but that is how you are coming across to your Catholic friends.

There's not much to atheism, it's not a belief system it's just a name made up for people who don't believe in God. I don't believe in God and would like to see a day where the word atheist isn't even necessary, I just want to be known as a person, that's all, nothing special.

Mark Hamill

frostyjacks wrote: »

According to their site, they "broadcast over 100 hours each year on both television and radio, including documentaries, discussions, interviews, festival features and worship programmes, reflecting the full diversity of religious belief and practice in Ireland."

Key words here are "full diversity". They are not promoting one religion over another.

There is a difference between programming about different religions (which I have no problem being on RTE) and programming on behalf of different religions (calls to prayer, broadcasts of masses etc.). RTE generally doesn't broadcast any free advertising for for-profit corporations, why should religions be any different?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means. More to the point, that's not what the Catholic church thinks, or says, that "Catholic" means.

This discussion has come up many times before, always ending on essentially the same point - if "Catholic" can mean anything to anyone then it means nothing to everyone.

And as for what the catholic church says about what "catholic" means, that has come up before, did you ever find an actual papal decree or official vatican document of what the catholic church says "catholic" means?

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This discussion has come up many times before, always ending on essentially the same point - if "Catholic" can mean anything to anyone then it means nothing to everyone.

Which does nothing to refute the point that if 84% of the population say they're Catholic, then 84% of the population say they're Catholic. If some people think they're not Catholic enough, and some think their reasons for being Catholic aren't good enough, it doesn't change the fact... 84% of the population say they're Catholic. Whatever that means to them it has sufficiently substantial meaning in their eyes for them to choose that description rather than any other.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And as for what the catholic church says about what "catholic" means, that has come up before, did you ever find an actual papal decree or official vatican document of what the catholic church says "catholic" means?

Catholic is one of the four marks of the Church set out in the Nicene Creed; it's a simple English (well, Latin originating from Greek really..) word meaning universal, or of broad scope. Used by the Roman Catholic Church to indicate it's inclusivity, oddly enough

But if you're looking for the 'official vatican document', the catechism states:
III. THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC
What does "catholic" mean?
830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.
831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:310
All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.311

Huntergonzo

Absolam wrote: »

Which does nothing to refute the point that if 84% of the population say they're Catholic, then 84% of the population say they're Catholic. If some people think they're not Catholic enough, and some think their reasons for being Catholic aren't good enough, it doesn't change the fact... 84% of the population say they're Catholic. Whatever that means to them it has sufficiently substantial meaning in their eyes for them to choose that description rather than any other.

But how do we know that 84% of the population actually consider themselves catholic? I don't believe in God nor have I for about 12 years now but I was officially registered as a catholic in the last census because mammy filled out the forms. Nobody specifically asked me what my beliefs were and there may be many more people like that in Ireland, now you can ignore that point for comfort sake but it's still very relevant.

Anyway the only reason catholicism is the predominant religion in this country is because the vast majority of our primary schools are run by the catholic church and so children are indoctrinated from birth, they're not given proper choice. States and schools should be secular, they should not be recruiting people into any religion without their consent nor should they be telling children there is no god, they should stay neutral, and give children the tools to make their own minds up, that's fair.

Absolam

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But how do we know that 84% of the population actually consider themselves catholic? I don't believe in God nor have I for about 12 years now but I was officially registered as a catholic in the last census because mammy filled out the forms. Nobody specifically asked me what my beliefs were and there may be many more people like that in Ireland, now you can ignore that point for comfort sake but it's still very relevant.

You're right, a lot of mammies might very well have filled out census forms on behalf of everyone in the house during the census. And their children might well have not told them they weren't of the religious persuasion their mammy assumed they were, for whatever reason. Just how many do you think it would take to reduce that 84% from a majority to a minority? What basis is there for thinking we're talking about a statistically significant number here?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Anyway the only reason catholicism is the predominant religion in this country is because the vast majority of our primary schools are run by the catholic church and so children are indoctrinated from birth, they're not given proper choice.

That may well be the case, though I'd suggest that the number of atheist and agnostic posters on this forum who have received catholic educations makes it a little dubious. However, why 84% of the population identify themselves as Roman Catholic wasn't really the point; regardless of their reasons, 84% of the population did identify themselves as Roman Catholic in the last census.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

States and schools should be secular, they should not be recruiting people into any religion without their consent nor should they be telling children there is no god, they should stay neutral, and give children the tools to make their own minds up, that's fair

That may not be the opinion of a majority of people in Ireland though.

Huntergonzo

Absolam wrote: »

You're right, a lot of mammies might very well have filled out census forms on behalf of everyone in the house during the census. And their children might well have not told them they weren't of the religious persuasion their mammy assumed they were, for whatever reason. Just how many do you think it would take to reduce that 84% from a majority to a minority? What basis is there for thinking we're talking about a statistically significant number here?

I'm not interested in reducing catholics to a minority, catholics should be treated with respect and equality just like everyone else but not with special treatment as is the case now. Whether a group of people are a majority or a minority shouldn't matter at all when it comes to how they're treated, especially by a state, if a state recognizes you as a second class citizen then you're really in trouble.

Absolam wrote: »

That may well be the case, though I'd suggest that the number of atheist and agnostic posters on this forum who have received catholic educations makes it a little dubious. However, why 84% of the population identify themselves as Roman Catholic wasn't really the point; regardless of their reasons, 84% of the population did identify themselves as Roman Catholic in the last census.

That may not be the opinion of a majority of people in Ireland though.

There's no question that the majority of people on this island identify themselves as catholic because of our education system which heavily favours catholicism and does not provide neutral education.

Again all I'm saying is that I think a secular education system which favours no faith and doesn't tell children that there is no god either is fair for all, would you not agree?

expectationlost

RTE said it might change the name of the Angelus (one day a week) http://atheist.ie/2015/06/rte-title-angelus/ think AI is trying to get them to contradict themselves by saying it is and isn't the Angelus

Eugene Norman

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But how do we know that 84% of the population actually consider themselves catholic? I don't believe in God nor have I for about 12 years now but I was officially registered as a catholic in the last census because mammy filled out the forms. Nobody specifically asked me what my beliefs were and there may be many more people like that in Ireland, now you can ignore that point for comfort sake but it's still very relevant.

Anyway the only reason catholicism is the predominant religion in this country is because the vast majority of our primary schools are run by the catholic church and so children are indoctrinated from birth, they're not given proper choice. States and schools should be secular, they should not be recruiting people into any religion without their consent nor should they be telling children there is no god, they should stay neutral, and give children the tools to make their own minds up, that's fair.

Religions can easily survive secular schools as America proves. People are culturally or actually Catholic because their parents were.

Eugene Norman

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure you'd be saying the exact same thing if RTE broadcasted a Muslim call to prayer, hmm there's a thought.

Maybe RTE should do a 6 month rotation of all faiths and none, 6 months of Muslim call to prayer, 6 months of bells etc.

I'm sure you'd have no issue with this? Who cares if the call to prayer will have to be aired more throughout the day

If anything, these times can still be used for meditation... Sure its no different to some bells. It has no meaning to a none Muslim... Apparently

Yes we should do this. It would be pluralistic.

Cabaal

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Religions can easily survive secular schools as America proves. People are culturally or actually Catholic because their parents were.

Cultural or actual and they still can't be bothered to go to mass, something that is such a basic requirement of the religion they claim to be part of.

Only 30% of the "catholic" pop regularly goes to mass and out of those around 10% don't even believe in a god. Most parents only do the communion etc stuff because the feel pressured into by parents, schools and they also have some weird misguided belief that their kid must have this day.

You take religion out of school and baptisms, communions etc will drop through the floor, you know that, I know that and the church know that.

Hell, take the civil marriage registration part out of a church wedding and and church weddings will drop through the floor. Once again, you know that, I know that and the Bishops sure as hell knew that when they made their baseless threat before the marriage equality vote.

Most people won't bother with stuff if it requires extra work, if a parent has to bring their kid to "Sunday School" every Sunday throughout the year so their kid can do communion then most parents won't bother their arse doing it.

As it is, most parents dislike going to mass in the few short weeks coming to a communion, most kids do to.

Ask the average kid what they want from communion and it isn't a blessing from god or Jesus, its the ability to buy a tablet or a laptop or something from the money they get.

Second on that list is having a bouncy castle or being dressed up for the day, However in saying that the last two communions I was at were for girls. Girls that wanted to get out of the dresses as soon as they could so they could go and play on the bouncy castles.

So who cares about being dressed up, the kids or the parents....my money is on the parents.

Huntergonzo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Religions can easily survive secular schools as America proves. People are culturally or actually Catholic because their parents were.

True but I'm not interested in killing religion, I'm happy for it to survive once people keep their religion out of other people's lives. Also yes religion does tend to get passed on by parents but the state should not be favouring religions or non believers, they should stay neutral.

Brian Shanahan

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, if it scrapped it's religious output it wouldn't really be catering for all, would it?

Um, yeah. At least then it wouldn't be blasting out religious propoganda.

Or are you advocating that every single religious denomination with a prescence on the island gets equal time on the state broadcaster?

Brian Shanahan

Huntergonzo wrote: »

And why would 84% (let's say for argument sake that figure is 100% accurate) of people in Ireland identify themselves as catholic anyway? Also of the '84%' how many of those believe in the virgin birth, purgatory or transubstantiation for example, I bet a lot of them believe in same sex marriage, condoms and sex before marriage though, most of my mates certainly fall into that category!

I mean on what level can people like that even call themselves catholic, they're closer to being protestants than catholics but try to tell them that (as I've told my friends in the past for fun) and you nearly always get the FCUK OFF I'M CATHOLIC!!! response.

Using the church's own numbers the maximal number of actual catlicks in this country, as Absalom well knows because this has been pointed out to him multiple times*, is a shade over 22% (based on the attendance figures for regular mass goers, one of the prequisites for being a proper catlick), a whopping 10.1% of whom don't even believe in the skyfairy they are supposed to be believing in!

*Considering that his church has a big thing about not telling lies, it's amazing how often Absalom trots out the 84% number and other blatant falsehoods.

Hotblack Desiato

84% seems to be the theists' answer to every question around here :rolleyes: it's a total BS figure as they well know, but tying any and every thread up in pointless 84% arguments is the goal.

Rights, fairness and equality are not numbers games for majoritarians to enforce their will on everyone else.

Brian Shanahan

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Religions can easily survive secular schools as America proves. People are culturally or actually Catholic because their parents were.

No they can't as proved by the increasing dominance of homeschooling amongst religious people in the US, and religious capture of schools for the indoctrination of children in the UK. Or even the 96% of Irish primary schools of catlick ethos (i.e. forcing the catlick religion down all their students throats, will they nill they).

If your conjecture held then there wouldn't be either of these things happening now, would there?

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

84% seems to be the theists' answer to every question around here :rolleyes: it's a total BS figure as they well know, but tying any and every thread up in pointless 84% arguments is the goal.

Rights, fairness and equality are not numbers games for majoritarians to enforce their will on everyone else.

Spot on,
Just because 84% tick catholic on the census means nothing when it comes to pushing the catholic agenda in Ireland.

After all 62% of the voting age of this country are pro gay marriage, this is totally against all the teachings of the catholic church and what the bishops and Vatican lobbied for.

If you could use the census figures to justify stuff staying in favor of the catholic church then we wouldn't have divorce, marriage equality, condoms for sale, abortion in cases of risks of suicide, single mother allowance....I don't think I need to go on.

In short, the 84% figure is nonsense and has no relevance to this discussion, it doesn't represent the will of the Irish public one bit when it comes to what they do want when it comes to the catholic church's influence in Ireland.

If anything we have far more meaningful proof that people have no interest in what the catholic church wants anymore or what it stands for.

frostyjacks

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No they can't as proved by the increasing dominance of homeschooling amongst religious people in the US, and religious capture of schools for the indoctrination of children in the UK. Or even the 96% of Irish primary schools of catlick ethos (i.e. forcing the catlick religion down all their students throats, will they nill they).

If your conjecture held then there wouldn't be either of these things happening now, would there?

Increasing dominance? Only about 3% are homeschooled. From my memory of schooldays, there was no forcing Catholic religion down anyone's throat.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

After all 62% of the voting age of this country are pro gay marriage.

Correction, 62% of those who voted were in favour of gay marriage. We don't know how those people who didn't vote feel about it.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Increasing dominance? Only about 3% are homeschooled. From my memory of schooldays, there was no forcing Catholic religion down anyone's throat.

My memory is the opposite. While other faiths were accommodated in my admittedly quite liberal primary and secondary school all religion was the Catholic view and there was no option to opt out whatsoever. I now have two children and the stark reality of them being subjected to unwanted Catholic indoctrination during the school day is something that makes us wonder if we'd be better off educating them elsewhere. All schools must adhere to rule 68 which is that children coming to know God is the number one priority in all national schools. That's not something I'm comfortable with for my children.

Eugene Norman

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No they can't as proved by the increasing dominance of homeschooling amongst religious people in the US, and religious capture of schools for the indoctrination of children in the UK. Or even the 96% of Irish primary schools of catlick ethos (i.e. forcing the catlick religion down all their students throats, will they nill they).

If your conjecture held then there wouldn't be either of these things happening now, would there?

What a messy sentence. I'll try and pick out some meaning.

By "they" in the first sentence I think you mean the U.S., but homeschooling in the U.S. is still in tiny minority and the fact is it is still a religious country in practice, with secular schools and a secular constitution. Which disproves the point about Irish people being Catholic just because of the schools

The Catholic schools in Ireland aren't really that religious (except in the fevered minds of the new atheist) so secularising them won't change much.

Eugene Norman

frostyjacks wrote: »

Correction, 62% of those who voted were in favour of gay marriage. We don't know how those people who didn't vote feel about it.

We can assume that they weren't opposed. In fact it's likely if forced to vote they would be about 62% in favour.

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

My memory is the opposite. While other faiths were accommodated in my admittedly quite liberal primary and secondary school all religion was the Catholic view and there was no option to opt out whatsoever. I now have two children and the stark reality of them being subjected to unwanted Catholic indoctrination during the school day is something that makes us wonder if we'd be better off educating them elsewhere. All schools must adhere to rule 68 which is that children coming to know God is the number one priority in all national schools. That's not something I'm comfortable with for my children.

If it's a Catholic-run school I'm not sure what the issue is with them teaching about the Catholic faith, along with other religions.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

If it's a Catholic-run school I'm not sure what the issue is with them teaching about the Catholic faith, along with other religions.

The issue is state funded religious schools providing and imposing indoctrination while the education system provided little or no.choice in most areas other than religious schools. Of course you seem to think the state broadcaster providing free advertising for one Christian section is fine so it's not a surprise you also see no issue with the school system either.

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

The issue is state funded religious schools providing and imposing indoctrination while the education system provided little or no.choice in most areas other than religious schools. Of course you seem to think the state broadcaster providing free advertising for one Christian section is fine so it's not a surprise you also see no issue with the school system either.

Free advertising is stretching it. If an outsider was to arrive in Ireland and catch the Angelus, they'd be hard pressed to associate it with any particular religion.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Free advertising is stretching it. If an outsider was to arrive in Ireland and catch the Angelus, they'd be hard pressed to associate it with any particular religion.

Then why would there be any objection to not broadcasting it, if its become meaningless? Why do we need the state broadcaster telling us to pause twice a day for a minute before the news to stare into the middle distance at a time Catholics would observe the angelus?

frostyjacks

Eugene Norman wrote: »

We can assume that they weren't opposed. In fact it's likely if forced to vote they would be about 62% in favour.

We know they weren't opposed, because they didn't oppose it. But on the flip side, they weren't in favour of it, as they didn't vote yes. That's why those two guys took the court case afterwards; arguing the majority of the electorate didn't back the amendment.