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

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

Well, we were talking about Catholic schools, not Christian ones, but how many Protestant schools are more on the fence than the Catholic ones I've mentioned? Is there a reason to think they're likely to suddenly start condoning homophobic bullying?

Is there any reason at all to think your idea of oddness will lead to any schools becoming more tolerant of homophobic bullying?
Well... you could go by their stated policies on homophobic bullying. That should give you a reasonable idea of where you stand with them, surely?

Regardless of how hurtful the Church's stance is (or is perceived to be), it's pretty obviously not translating into Catholic schools failing to deal with homophobic bullying if their policies are anything to go on though, is it?
That wasn't what you were saying, you were saying that 90% of our schools are run by an organisation that has a fundamental problem with gay people and particularly gay parents, and it'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with homophobic bullying. As if they're suddenly going to change how the'll deal with homophobic bullying for some reason?
Anyways, perhaps it doesn't make sense because you haven't looked at what these organisations do from their point of view? Or considered that perhaps your perspective on their position doesn't accurately reflect their position.
For instance compare your idea that the Church is 'officially anti-gay' with the Church position that you yourself have pointed out 'hate the sin love the sinner'. That doesn't sound like an official anti-gay position, does it? More an officially anti gay-act position. I appreciate the nuances may not lend themselves to the picture you're tying to paint, but case in point; homophobic bullying. Pope Benedict is on record as saying "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs... The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law." Now I don't think the Pope is the worlds greatest supporter of Gay Rights (far, far, from it in fact), but as far as homophobic bullying goes, it appears that Catholic school policies are in line with the head of the Church's thinking on the subject, so where does a concern for how how they'll deal with homophobic bullying suddenly arise?
You're trying to shoehorn the Church's position on homosexuality (or, to be more accurate, your perception of the Church's position on homosexuality) into the potential actions of schools under Catholic patronage, and immediately finding yourself at odds with how those schools are demonstrably behaving right now. The fact that that is not making sense to you may not be because the Church is being two faced; it may be because you haven't accurately expressed the Church's position, it may be because you're not considering the amount of influence the Church imposes on Catholic school boards, it may be because you're ascribing motivations to Catholic schools without considering the more immediate motivations they have as schools in the Irish State.
But so far, it seems that the position of both the Catholic Church and of Catholic schools is to oppose homophobic bullying, regardless of how 'officially anti-gay' you think they are....

Hmm...

To be honest that makes them sound even worse. They're grand with gay people as long as they don't do anything gay?!

A tad hypocritical, no?

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

Hmm...To be honest that makes them sound even worse. They're grand with gay people as long as they don't do anything gay?! A tad hypocritical, no?

It seems to be consistent with the Catholic moral position, so as far as I can tell, no, it doesn't seem hypocritical.
Luckily, despite any concerns you might have about the internal consistency of their position, it seems you can rest assured that your concerns about their position on homosexuality negatively impacting their desire to combat homophobic bullying are unfounded; from the Pope on down it appears it is both condemned and actively discouraged.

SpaceTime

I'm going way off topic here but that's still trying to have it both ways.

It just reminds me of the mentality that "helped" "fallen women" in the past.

Hypocrisy like that can cause serious problems.

You can't really put someone in a position where some aspect of their being, that is totally acceptable in civil law and normal society, is being condemned as sinful.

Being gay does actually involve an attraction to the same gender and wanting to get physical with them. It's not an abstract philosophical stance and is as hardwired to your brain as breathing and eating.

So, to put someone in a position where you're asking them to deny something and repress something just makes absolutely no sense.

This is why I think most religions are bonkers!
It's all condemn, oppress, sacrifice, control and dressing this up as "love" through some rather amazing feats of philosophical acrobatics!

Seems to be be one thing that unites all the major religions that came out of the Middle East.

I just find it difficult to believe that an organisation with those views of homosexuality could possibly have a gay friendly environment. Just does not add up.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

But they're not tins of baked beans, they're people. Unlike tins of baked beans, regardless of the label you put on them they are capable of describing themselves.

Who labels the tins is irrelevant in my analogy. If the label doesn't match the contents then the label is meaningless and useless.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, you got there in the end so I guess that's what counts.

So you admit to wasting everyones time, some progress finally.

Absolam wrote: »

even the Heinz of your example isn't going to say the description they choose is inaccurate...

Because it would cost them to do so, just like it would cost the RCC to tell people they aren't really catholic.

SpaceTime

So to bong or not to bong...

Whatever about the slightly bizzare and insulting suggestion to broadcast a non religious Angulus on RTE television, how exactly are they going to spin this on radio?

Remixed Angulus for everyone ?!?

Maybe someone can beatbox and rap over it some days and a trance remix other days?


RTE : this is a bit of a joke and it's actually offensive to those of us looking towards a secular Ireland where religion and state bodies are not merged together and also probably offensive to Catholics to whom the Angulus is something sacred and not be messed about with.

Either have the Angulus, grow a pair and take the flack for being a theocratic broadcaster from the 1950s or move with the times and ditch it.

Watering it down is just weird.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

Well no, not really. I'm not arguing the semantics of your question; you're asking me to provide an analysis of the Nicene Creed without providing me a reason for doing so, and I'm trying to understand from you why you're doing so.
Or, as you put it, I'm not questioning the relevance of the reference I brought in; I already demonstrated it's relevance to the question you asked. I am, however, questioning the relevance of your questions about the content and purpose of a document beyond the reference I made to it. I'm quite happy to discuss my own reference, which was that Catholic is one of the four marks of the Church set out in the Nicene Creed; not, you'll notice, that professing the Nicene Creed is a requisite of being Catholic, which is what you appear to be trying to infer was the purpose of my reference (I say appear, because you're not being terribly forthcoming with your answers).
Would taking the reference I offered and trying to make it appear to be a different argument so that you can refute it, be something that you would consider strawmanning by any chance?

I didn't actually quote the Nicene Creed, I quoted the Catechism, but I linked the Nicene Creed for you. Regardless, I don't think the fact that I linked it (or even if I had quoted it) puts me under any obligation to analyse it on your behalf, does it?

So... you asked for an actual papal decree or official vatican document of what the catholic church says "catholic" means.
I provided an answer; including a link to an official vatican document which specifically includes the Catholic Church's answer to the question "What does Catholic mean?".

How exactly is providing precisely what you asked for 'trying to derail a discussion on what a catholic is supposed to be'?

I will admit, the attempt to slide in 'a direct official RCC document, recited every mass!' as if the Nicene Creed document isn't actually a different one from the one recited in every Mass (remember, you yourself actually said it's the Apostles Creed; a direct official RCC document I haven't actually mentioned until now), and to pretend that this is unassailable proof of something unspecified, is certainly ballsy.
You also seem to have seamlessly transitioned from what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, to what a catholic is supposed to be, but we can probably take it that's because I provided you an answer to what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, and you didn't like it?

With regards to your triumphal assertion that the Nicene Creed, like the Apostles Creed is a declaration of faith used by the church, i.e. a list of things that the followers declare faith in, can I draw your attention to the difference between:
'a list of things that the followers declare faith in'
and
'a list of things that Catholics are required to declare faith in in order to be Catholics'
Whilst the Nicene Creed, like the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed is an example of the former, none of these are examples of the latter.
Since we were discussing what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, and not what Catholics can do in church, I think the 2nd list would be a tad more relevant than the 1st? I don't know if
It.
Would.
Be.
Glorious!
but it would be relevant.....

Wow, you are really panicing aren't you? :pac:
You brought up the Nicene Creed, but it's my job to explain why it is relevant?
I ask a few very short and simple questions that you keep skirting and outright avoiding, but it's me who is not forthcoming in my answers?
Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this crap?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The argument against having anything sectarian on a public broadcaster is apparent. But I'm not seeing the argument that the agelus is sectarian.

You glide rather glibly between saying that the Angelus is Catholic and saying that it is sectarian. "Catholic" does not equal "sectarian" any more than "Jewish" or "humanist" equals sectarian. A public service broadcaster should cover a diversity of perspectives on religious questions (including humanist, sceptical, atheist, etc perspectives). I don't see that you can arbitrarily pick one set of perspectives and label them "sectarian". Is it "sectarian" if RTE broadcasts a Methodist communion service or Jewish passover celebration, or if they cover a humanist conference or offer airtime to an Atheist spokesperson? If none of those are "sectarian", why is the angelus "sectarian"?

What is the point in posters pointing out, time and again, that the Angelus is not a broadcast about a religion, but a broadcast on behalf of a (specific) religion if you are just going to pretend like the said nothing? How exactly can discussion work if you are just going to outright ignore the points you don't like?

The angelus is not a documentary about religion, it's not a perspective or discussion on religion, it's not a once off or yearly broadcast of a religous observance to coincide with a religious festival. It is an advertisment, a daily call to prayer, given for free at peak time everyday, for one specific religion.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm going way off topic here but that's still trying to have it both ways. It just reminds me of the mentality that "helped" "fallen women" in the past. Hypocrisy like that can cause serious problems.

I don't think so; again I think you're applying your perspective to the Church's position and coming up with hypocrisy simply because it's at odds with your perspective. For it to be hypocritical it has to be at odds with the Church's own perspective, and it evidently isn't. To be fair, they

SpaceTime wrote: »

You can't really put someone in a position where some aspect of their being, that is totally acceptable in civil law and normal society, is being condemned as sinful.

You're suggesting that what is acceptable in civil law and society should be somehow connected to what is sinful. Why?

SpaceTime wrote: »

Being gay does actually involve an attraction to the same gender and wanting to get physical with them. It's not an abstract philosophical stance and is as hardwired to your brain as breathing and eating. So, to put someone in a position where you're asking them to deny something and repress something just makes absolutely no sense.

You're trying to present a reasoned argument to counter what God says? That makes absolutely no sense.

SpaceTime wrote: »

This is why I think most religions are bonkers!
It's all condemn, oppress, sacrifice, control and dressing this up as "love" through some rather amazing feats of philosophical acrobatics!

Again, I think you're imposing your own perspective on something without giving consideration to the perspective of others. If no one had ever experienced anything positive as a result of religion, it probably would have stopped as soon as it started. The fact that religions survive and prosper is, contrary to popular A&A opinion, not because of the astonishing indoctrination provided by religious schools, but because people find something positive in it that adds something to their lives.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Seems to be be one thing that unites all the major religions that came out of the Middle East.

I suspect you could probably find a few more if you made the effort.

SpaceTime wrote: »

I just find it difficult to believe that an organisation with those views of homosexuality could possibly have a gay friendly environment. Just does not add up.

Well, it's a bit of a leap from combating homophobic bullying to having a gay friendly environment, but I'd guess given the size and scope of the Church, you'll probably find both gay friendly and unfriendly environments within it. At least you know it's avowedly gay friendly, whilst being gay act unfriendly.

lazygal

Oh I see the cut and analyse style is back again. That's not at all an attempt to drag the discussion in a particularly pedantic direction.

SpaceTime

Ah sure it's Ireland - corruption is the norm.

I just see this church involvement in state services as exactly that. It's no different from the banks' extreme proximity to the Government.

Out state doesn't seem to understand why this kind of corporatism is a problem.

The Angulus on state television are a minor annoyance but it sums the place up.

Insiders, more insiders and control of things in non transparent processes by third parties outside the democratic process all behind closed doors.

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who labels the tins is irrelevant in my analogy. If the label doesn't match the contents then the label is meaningless and useless.

But if whether the labels match the contents is a matter of your opinion vs theirs, it's only meaningless and useless to you. Everyone else is just fine.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you admit to wasting everyones time, some progress finally.

I'm afraid I can't take responsibility for how long it takes you to get something, sorry.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because it would cost them to do so, just like it would cost the RCC to tell people they aren't really catholic.

I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of motivations for people who disagree with you, but sometimes the simplest ones are the best; the Catholic Church would agree they're Catholics simply because they are. They don't need to lie, they don't need to worry about what you imagine it will cost them; if the people satisfy their criteria for being Catholics, they can simply agree that they are. And since they do satisfy the criteria, the Church has no need to worry about costs at all....

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wow, you are really panicing aren't you? :pac:

Is that a strawman?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You brought up the Nicene Creed, but it's my job to explain why it is relevant?

Actually, I asked you what the relevance of your questions about the content and purpose of the Nicene Creed beyond the reference I made to it was. It's the fourth sentence in the text you just quoted. If it helps to illustrate the difference between that and it being your job to explain why the Nicene Creed is relevant, I did also link to where I explained how the Nicene Creed was relevant to what I posted; that was the third sentence in the text you quoted.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I ask a few very short and simple questions that you keep skirting and outright avoiding, but it's me who is not forthcoming in my answers?

They were indeed short and simple questions, yet you were a tad short on explanation for what their purpose was. Now, it does seem you were aiming for your big exposition which went rather awry, but if you can explain why you want me to analyse the Nicene Creed for you, maybe you can try again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this crap?

Not you that's for sure, eh?
I mean... answering your questions directly? That's just derailing the discussion!
Sticking to the original contention rather than altering it? Preposterous!
Not quoting the right thing and forcing you to lie about it to make your point? Downright ungentlemanly!
And to cap it all, drawing attention to you fudging things people can do with things people must do? Downright unacceptable!

Yes I can see I'll never fool you with that kind of crap.....

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How exactly can discussion work if you are just going to outright ignore the points you don't like?

But that...now that gave me a good laugh!

Huntergonzo

Absolam wrote: »

Is there something I repeated? Pretty sure the post you just quoted was the first time:
1) I asked you if you had ever met someone who told you they needed omnipotent sky fairies.
2) I pointed out that no one appears to have said " we're the catholic majority, so you can fcuk off."
3) I pointed out that thinking 7.6% should dictate to 84% in a democratic society is probably not going to be a popular notion.
4) I asked you if the State should be there to ensure a minority can't dictate to the majority.
5) I pointed out that contrary to you assertion Catholics don't have a right to hear their call to prayer.
6) Asked you what you would like to do with the five and a half seconds of airtime atheism warrants based on the sixty seconds airtime Catholicism gets.
7) I kindly answered your question about complicity in illegal activities.
8) I asked to you what degree were you actually put in fear by my post.

1. Yes many people the world over feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies and I've met plenty of them, they usually refer to them as God and there are many Gods, which is strange because most people claim that their God is the real God, who's right do you know? Anyway I'm not a believer though so I don't fully understand the need for an omnipotent sky fairy, perhaps you as a believer could better explain that to me?

2. Been covered already, not interested in going around in circles.

3. I believe you're 87.46583648% right on that, give or take 33.58476563R2D2%

4. Same as 2.

5. Expect for before the 6.01 news of course.

6. Don't want to see 'atheism' on TV to balance out the angelus, again we've been through that.

7. Thank you for that, you've been very helpful, it's always nice to hear from priggish people when you've committed heinous crimes

8. I'm not in fear of your post, you just highlighted the penchant the religious have for attempting to spread fear. I actually loved that post because you showed yourself up, it was excellent, keep it coming

Not a NSA agent

If having the majority means you get more air time why dont we do this for politics? Should the parties with least support get less time?
During the last referendum people were very quick to make complaints if they felt the minority side wasnt getting equal air time, suppose when it suits them its ok.

I dont see where 7.6% are dictating to the rest.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

Just because it's a tautology doesn't make it not true.
The point you responded to was "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, if 84% of respondants felt that being Catholic meant something different to them than it does to you, it doesn't negate the fact that they identify themselves as Catholic, regardless of whether you think they deserve to, or should, be considered Catholics.

Well, you were asking for an actual papal decree or official vatican document of what the catholic church says "catholic" means, so that was what I provided (you're welcome by the way), but no, accepting the Nicene Creed isn't a condition of being a part of the Church. To be a part of the Catholic Church, one need only be baptised in the Catholic Church, or be baptised a Christian and enter the Catholic Church by profession of faith and formal reception. To avoid any additional confusion, since the Nicene Creed is considered a profession of faith, the statement "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." is considered sufficient profession for Christians becoming part of the Church.

Just one minor point here.

Self-identification is not something which is relevant to this debate. Just because someone says they're a catholic doesn't make them one. I could claim to be a vegetarian, but if I do so while eating an XL Bacon Double Cheese Burger then my statement is inherently untrue. This is because vegetarianism has a specified meaning. Catholicism on a theological and a practical basis carries specified meanings and requirements.

With regard to theology, imagine if you're a catholic and someone asks you what the difference between catholicism and protestantism is. This is a difficult question if self-identification is your sole arbiter of being catholic. Catholicism is the belief that the Church (i.e. the bishops and pope) in conjunction with sacred scripture and tradition are the sole authority in matters of faith. In other words, if you're a protestant then you read the bible, believe in Jesus and otherwise make up your own mind. If you're catholic then you believe what the church teaches about religion.

On a practical level, this salvation through the church idea comes out in the precepts of the church and the magisterium. The precepts are the minimum requirements that each faithful catholic must obey:

"The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor: The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.
The second precept ("You shall confess your sins at least once a year") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.
The third precept ("You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.
The fourth precept ("You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.
The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.
The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities."



Then there is the magisterium, which basically is the doctrinal hierarchy of the church, something explained in more detail here.
The magisterium ranges from ordinary magisterium which cover rules that Catholics are required to obey, even though they may disagree with the rules to ex cathedra, which requires that catholics not only obey the rule but also believe that the rule is right and good.
Let's take contraception as an example. Contraception is, according to the magisterium, intrinsically immoral and constitutes a grave sin. So faithful catholics are not only required to refrain from using condoms but also to believe that condoms are bad. Now, almost all catholics break this rule to some degree, whether it is the spirit or the letter of the law. So the question is, if you don't agree with the teachings of the church, to what extent are you really catholic. If you're a member of the Man Utd. supporters club but you think that the best team are Chelsea, then to what extent are you really a Man Utd. supporter.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

But if whether the labels match the contents is a matter of your opinion vs theirs, it's only meaningless and useless to you. Everyone else is just fine.

The whole point of the label is to describe the contents. If the label doesn't do that, then it is useless.

Absolam wrote: »

the Catholic Church would agree they're Catholics simply because they are.

The catholic church agree they are catholic because if they consistently applied there own doctrine, they would decimate their numbers in Ireland. The RCC is as hard on their doctrine as they think they environment allows, hence in the west the pope might ask "Who am I to judge gay people?" whereas in somewhere like the Phillipines he will claim that "[Sexuality, marriage and the family] realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God's plan for creation".

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

Is that a strawman?

Actually, I asked you what the relevance of your questions about the content and purpose of the Nicene Creed beyond the reference I made to it was. It's the fourth sentence in the text you just quoted. If it helps to illustrate the difference between that and it being your job to explain why the Nicene Creed is relevant, I did also link to where I explained how the Nicene Creed was relevant to what I posted; that was the third sentence in the text you quoted.

They were indeed short and simple questions, yet you were a tad short on explanation for what their purpose was. Now, it does seem you were aiming for your big exposition which went rather awry, but if you can explain why you want me to analyse the Nicene Creed for you, maybe you can try again.
Not you that's for sure, eh?
I mean... answering your questions directly? That's just derailing the discussion!
Sticking to the original contention rather than altering it? Preposterous!
Not quoting the right thing and forcing you to lie about it to make your point? Downright ungentlemanly!
And to cap it all, drawing attention to you fudging things people can do with things people must do? Downright unacceptable!

Yes I can see I'll never fool you with that kind of crap.....

But that...now that gave me a good laugh!

Again, putting all this effort into doing anything except answer a few very simple and short questions. It's clear you don't want discussion to continue on the Creeds because you know it will force to you admit that catholics are supposed to believe them, which contradicts your opening post.
it's hilarious to watch you squirm.

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so; again I think you're applying your perspective to the Church's position and coming up with hypocrisy simply because it's at odds with your perspective.

No, I'm saying it's hypocrisy because they're feigning a stance by coming out with two completely incompatible messages.

My perspective has little to do with it.

To quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

hypocrisy noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\

": a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

They're trying to have their cake and eat it.
It's a bit like saying "I'm not xenophobic and many of my friends are Irish, lovely people but... I wouldn't want to actually sit next to one.."

Likewise you can't really have a major problem with 'gay acts' and come out with statements like in the catechism describing gay people as "“intrinsically disordered” and messages describing Ireland's gay marriage referendum result as a "defeat for humanity" and then say you love gay people!?! -- My perspective is that I can see 'spin' from a mile off.

I think trying to wrap the spin the Angelus into a pretend secular thing is also the height of hypocrisy and probably a bit blasphemous too.

tirchonaill86

The angelus is part of the rock this country of ours is built on...its faith. You are entitled to whatever you believe in or choose not to believe in. That is your decision and i respect that. But whoever wants to challenge parts of what Ireland was built on can go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned. Is it that painful for you guys to respect our one minute of silent reverence? This is Ireland....we fought and died for this beautiful christian country of ours. We welcome all faiths or lack of it as equals but please respect whats important to us. God bless.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

The angelus is part of the rock this country of ours is built on...its faith. You are entitled to whatever you believe in or choose not to believe in. That is your decision and i respect that. But whoever wants to challenge parts of what Ireland was built on can go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned. Is it that painful for you guys to respect our one minute of silent reverence? This is Ireland....we fought and died for this beautiful christian country of ours. We welcome all faiths or lack of it as equals but please respect whats important to us. God bless.

But the country existed long before the Christian or Catholic faith came along. If you believe the legend, that Welsh fella Patrick robbed the country of the rock it was built on, which wasn't the angelus or Catholicism. And it's not silent at all. BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG

Skrynesaver

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

The angelus is part of the rock this country of ours is built on...its faith. You are entitled to whatever you believe in or choose not to believe in. That is your decision and i respect that. But whoever wants to challenge parts of what Ireland was built on can go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned. Is it that painful for you guys to respect our one minute of silent reverence? This is Ireland....we fought and died for this beautiful christian country of ours. We welcome all faiths or lack of it as equals but please respect whats important to us. God bless.

Tell that to James Connoloy

James_Connolly wrote:

It is neither Freethinker nor Christian, Turk nor Jew, Buddhist nor Idolator, Mahommedan nor Parsee – it is only human.

tirchonaill86

hahahahahahahaha fred i knew you would come back with that one. was expecting it. well as a good christian and more importantly human being i can take a joke and i give you that one fred. Well i like the sound of the bells personally i find it comforting. My favourite film is darby o gill and the little people. I often wonder what Darby would say if he was alive today....or indeed the little people if they saw how things are going. Well i bet King Brian would turn in his grave. Ireland be free....Ireland be brave. Or all the blood spilled in faith and honour will be meaningless. Young people of Ireland....you are called to respect the bloodline of Irish men and women who sacrificed through poverty and suffering refusing to bend with an iron will....standing together to fight united in hearts and spirits to protect this beautiful land of ours. We drove the snakes and the Brits out...now we face a more hidden, indirect, sneaky, insidious threat... the threat of secularism and the accusers of today. We can redeem ourselves even after all the mistakes and greed of the Celtic tiger...its not too late to respect the brave irish people who went before us. Them bells are in our hearts Fred....in all seriousness its about much more than the bells. The angelus is only the tip of the iceberg for whats coming. Lets take a stand IRELAND. lets stand together. We were always stronger that way.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Skrynesaver

TírChonaill a stór yours is only barely the most out there post in this thread, perhaps the sunstroke is getting to you?

lazygal

Skrynesaver wrote: »

TírChonaill a stór yours is only barely the most out there post in this thread, perhaps the sunstroke is getting to you?

Too much pineapple pizza and jaffa cakes maybe?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Brian Shanahan

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

I second on you with that.
Don't see how a minute of silence can affect a persons life ENORMOUSLY!!

It's not a minute of silence, it's a minute of religious propoganda on a state broadcaster of a supposedly secular nation disguised as a minute of quiet reflection.

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I see we've descended into semantic arguments again?

Are you suprised given the opposition's inability to make valid points and argue their position coherently?

expectationlost

what's silent about it, they are bells are you are meant to recite the hail mary both ends are not meant to be silent

tirchonaill86

I am a first timer! I come in peace! i realise that some people may be disturbed by my comments in time to come but i don't mind. You can't speak the truth and be liked at the same time in todays day and age. I am not a sheep but a shepard...a shepard who is sad to see his flock go astray. For they know not what they do. Though i am not the ruler nor control any man or beast on this island, i seek to lead or educate if you will. I am a beacon of enlightenment in a dark place. My mission is to serve. To serve others....to give to receive. I have love for my fellow brothers and sisters. I have no problem sitting on buddhas lap for a selfie. I have no problem hanging out with muhammad, as long as its doesn't involve ak s and dynamite, or having ice cream with a protestant. But people need to remember that the ligaments, tendons and organs are one unique art project that requires thanks and blind faith. Beware of the wolf who dresses like dolly....dont get roped into the worldly views...the vortex or whirlpool of lies if you will. For never forget who the father of lies is. But never ever forget no matter what you do as pat short famously once said enjoy yourselves. kids, adults, elderly alike wear nice clothes, brush your teeth and smile, everybody bring back the hug and childlike silliness. Talk rather than tweet...write rather than text. Don't read the newspapers they will only get you down. And folks....wear sunscreen because there is a heatwave coming tomorrow and I'm fair skinned i don't know about you but i only like to feel the burn on a deep squat with a fine petite bouncing bottom out front on a fast rolling treadmill. Theres nothing wrong with controlled lust or a gentle glance even in marriage. We are only human after all. Don't beat yourselves up ok? Bless.

lazygal

But we can still eat Hawaiian pizza right? RIGHT??????

tirchonaill86

As long as its not genetically modified yeah? Now hybridised pineapple trees they are a tougher climb. Even the monkeys know. You have to know your onions. Preferably organic. But never steal from the health food store. Its tempting and we are only human. Pineapples from costa rica are ok....pineapples from the USA i would leave it personally. Knock three times on the pineapple to erase suspicion.

obplayer

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

I am a first timer! I come in peace! i realise that some people may be disturbed by my comments in time to come but i don't mind. You can't speak the truth and be liked at the same time in todays day and age. I am not a sheep but a shepard...a shepard who is sad to see his flock go astray. For they know not what they do. Though i am not the ruler nor control any man or beast on this island, i seek to lead or educate if you will. I am a beacon of enlightenment in a dark place. My mission is to serve. To serve others....to give to receive. I have love for my fellow brothers and sisters. I have no problem sitting on buddhas lap for a selfie. I have no problem hanging out with muhammad, as long as its doesn't involve ak s and dynamite, or having ice cream with a protestant. But people need to remember that the ligaments, tendons and organs are one unique art project that requires thanks and blind faith. Beware of the wolf who dresses like dolly....dont get roped into the worldly views...the vortex or whirlpool of lies if you will. For never forget who the father of lies is. But never ever forget no matter what you do as pat short famously once said enjoy yourselves. kids, adults, elderly alike wear nice clothes, brush your teeth and smile, everybody bring back the hug and childlike silliness. Talk rather than tweet...write rather than text. Don't read the newspapers they will only get you down. And folks....wear sunscreen because there is a heatwave coming tomorrow and I'm fair skinned i don't know about you but i only like to feel the burn on a deep squat with a fine petite bouncing bottom out front on a fast rolling treadmill. Theres nothing wrong with controlled lust or a gentle glance even in marriage. We are only human after all. Don't beat yourselves up ok? Bless.

WUT?

tirchonaill86

Hi there! Which part do you feel you need explained? Bless.

expectationlost

Michael Martin to the big T

Did the Atheist Association, on which I have a question, raise the issue of the Angelus? It made very strong representations to RTE. I believe it is overdoing it in this regard. One cannot just excise out of existence Christian beliefs and the need for reflection. I would have believed that what now stands for the Angelus, the moment of reflection before the "Six One News", is not exactly injurious or offensive to anyone. One runs the risk of becoming offensive and intolerant of the various manifestations of spirituality and religion in the country. There is a need for balance in the public debate. I would accept the bona fides expressed in the debate on the more substantive issues but when the debate focuses on such micro elements, it offends many people.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015063000026?opendocument

AI didn't mention in their own report of the meeting http://atheist.ie/2015/02/historic-first-meeting-taoiseach/

On the fundamental issue of school patronage, resources comprise the key issue in primary schools today. Sometimes this does not get said enough. I visit many primary schools - Educate Together, Catholic and Church of Ireland schools. It needs to be said that there are people of many faiths and none on the campuses of denominational schools which cater for them in a very harmonious and effective way. There are many different nationalities and people of different religions and none in many of our primary schools who get along fine. We need to acknowledge that in terms of the development of primary and secondary school settings. Critical mass is important. We are now constructing three or four schools in very close proximity to each other and that also needs to be thought through as well in terms of the proper use of resources, a bit of common sense and an understanding of where various people are coming from. Resources at primary level are a major issue in terms of the capitation grant, pupil-teacher ratio and a range of other supports that have been taken from primary schools in recent times. Many teachers and principals are fed up with the phoney debate on patronage entered into by the previous Minister for Education and Skills. It is a load of bluster and spin with no substance behind it yet it distracts from core issues facing teachers.

think Atheist Ireland/TEach don't Preach needs to have chat with Michael Martin if they havn't already

SpaceTime

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

The angelus is part of the rock this country of ours is built on...its faith. You are entitled to whatever you believe in or choose not to believe in. That is your decision and i respect that. But whoever wants to challenge parts of what Ireland was built on can go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned. Is it that painful for you guys to respect our one minute of silent reverence? This is Ireland....we fought and died for this beautiful christian country of ours. We welcome all faiths or lack of it as equals but please respect whats important to us. God bless.

Advocating a bit of sectarian / ethnic / philosophical cleansing now are we?

You're calling on other people to respect your views while telling other Irish people to get out of their own country!

That is absolutely not the Ireland that our revolutionaries and most of our forefathers and foremothers fought for.

Absolam

Huntergonzo wrote: »

1. Yes many people the world over feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies and I've met plenty of them, they usually refer to them as God and there are many Gods, which is strange because most people claim that their God is the real God, who's right do you know? Anyway I'm not a believer though so I don't fully understand the need for an omnipotent sky fairy, perhaps you as a believer could better explain that to me?

So, would the short version of that be no, you haven't ever met someone who told you they needed omnipotent sky fairies?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

2. Been covered already, not interested in going around in circles.

No you alleged it already, you never even attempted to substantiate it.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

3. I believe you're 87.46583648% right on that, give or take 33.58476563R2D2%

I'll happily take the majority.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

4. Same as 2.

NOt at all, but feel free to quote it if you think you did.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

5. Expect for before the 6.01 news of course.

Would you care to point out where that right is specified? I think that claiming it's a right just because it happens and you don't like it is a bit of a stretch....

Huntergonzo wrote: »

6. Don't want to see 'atheism' on TV to balance out the angelus, again we've been through that.

Which is fine for you, but perhaps Catholics do want time on tv that reflects their beliefs. Why should they give up what they want just because you don't want it?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

7. Thank you for that, you've been very helpful, it's always nice to hear from priggish people when you've committed heinous crimes

You're welcome. If you didn't like the answer though, you can only blame yourself for asking the question.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

8. I'm not in fear of your post, you just highlighted the penchant the religious have for attempting to spread fear. I actually loved that post because you showed yourself up, it was excellent, keep it coming

Well, if you weren't in fear, then no fear was spread. Which excellently illustrates my own point about hyperbole being a tool heavily favoured by those trying to make a point seem more than it is.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Just one minor point here.
Self-identification is not something which is relevant to this debate. Just because someone says they're a catholic doesn't make them one. I could claim to be a vegetarian, but if I do so while eating an XL Bacon Double Cheese Burger then my statement is inherently untrue. This is because vegetarianism has a specified meaning. Catholicism on a theological and a practical basis carries specified meanings and requirements.

In fairness this particular thread of the discussion stems directly from a specific assertion about self identification by Nicolas Cage:

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

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

So whilst it may not be all that relevant to the wider debate about the Angelus, self identification is the crux of this particular (sub-sub) discussion, and it seems to have enough relevence to exercise some opinions. I agree, there are definitive conditions set out for what is required to be a Catholic, and I did offer an explanation of what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church in answer to Marks point that the word Catholicism means nothing to everyone if it can mean anything to anyone.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

With regard to theology, <...> So the question is, if you don't agree with the teachings of the church, to what extent are you really catholic. If you're a member of the Man Utd. supporters club but you think that the best team are Chelsea, then to what extent are you really a Man Utd. supporter.

I don't disagree that the Catholic Church is the ultimate arbiter of who is Catholic. However, the question (so far at least) has not been to what extent you are really Catholic, it has been whether or not you are really Catholic.
I agree that Catholics can exist in states of grave sin, can be excommunicated, and can be in greater or lesser degrees of communion with the Church. But in all of these states, and whether to the most tenuous or fullest extent, they remain Catholics.
However, I do believe there is a place for self-identification still. If a Catholic decides they are no longer Catholic, I don't see that they are bound in any way to accept that the Church has power to arbitrate their decision; by renouncing their Catholicism they renounce the Church's authority, and self-identification is the sole test of their position.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The whole point of the label is to describe the contents. If the label doesn't do that, then it is useless.

Then perhaps you shouldn't use a label that's at odds with what the authority on the subject claims is the case; a claim which is backed up by the tins themselves?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The catholic church agree they are catholic because if they consistently applied there own doctrine, they would decimate their numbers in Ireland. The RCC is as hard on their doctrine as they think they environment allows, hence in the west the pope might ask "Who am I to judge gay people?" whereas in somewhere like the Phillipines he will claim that "[Sexuality, marriage and the family] realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God's plan for creation".

Which part of Catholic doctrine would prohibit any person baptised in the Catholic Church from being Catholic, specifically?

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, putting all this effort into doing anything except answer a few very simple and short questions.

So when I answer your questions, I'm derailing the discussion.
When I question your questions, I'm avoiding the discussion.
I think you may be a little conflicted on what it is to participate in a discussion...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's clear you don't want discussion to continue on the Creeds because you know it will force to you admit that catholics are supposed to believe them, which contradicts your opening post.
it's hilarious to watch you squirm.

Hmm. Are we now moving the goalposts again to what Catholics are supposed to believe, instead of what a catholic is supposed to be, or the original what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church? I don't particularly mind discussing the Creeds, I don't even mind agreeing that Catholics should probably subscribe to and even profess quite a lot of what they say. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't contradict any of my posts. Not professing the Creeds won't make someone who is Catholic not Catholic.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

No, I'm saying it's hypocrisy because they're feigning a stance by coming out with two completely incompatible messages.
My perspective has little to do with it. To quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary: hypocrisy noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\": a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

But the Church doesn't feign to believe anything; it believes that to be gay is not sinful, and to engage in gay acts is sinful. You believe that those two messages are incompatible (which doesn't make them hypocritical since both are honestly held), but really, it's no more incompatible than saying that being heterosexual is not sinful, but engaging in heterosexual acts outside of marriage is sinful. Heterosexuals have a get out clause where homosexuals don't but that's just unfair, not hypocritical.

SpaceTime wrote: »

They're trying to have their cake and eat it.
It's a bit like saying "I'm not xenophobic and many of my friends are Irish, lovely people but... I wouldn't want to actually sit next to one.."

Well, I've no idea what cake you think they're having and eating; I don't see where any advantage to the Church arises out of this. but to your example, yes it could be like that if you honestly weren't xenophobic, yet felt morally obligated not to sit next to Irish people.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Likewise you can't really have a major problem with 'gay acts' and come out with statements like in the catechism describing gay people as "“intrinsically disordered” and messages describing Ireland's gay marriage referendum result as a "defeat for humanity" and then say you love gay people!?! -- My perspective is that I can see 'spin' from a mile off.

Well, you can; the Church obviously did (though to be fair the Catechism actually says " tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (my bold)". You may see it as 'spin', others may see it as the Church reconciling Jesus's commandment to love one another with Gods instruction that to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination.

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think trying to wrap the spin the Angelus into a pretend secular thing is also the height of hypocrisy and probably a bit blasphemous too.

Well, I don't know if any Catholics are advocating the Angelus should become a secular thing; I'd rather examine their reasoning before deciding if I thought it was hypocritical. As for blasphemous, I don't think not having the Angelus is blasphemous, and I don't think having a secular event at the time of the Angelus is blasphemous, so I'm not sure where you're going there...

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No need to suppose it, I added the last line of my post in edit, dealing with just that. After you posted I'm afraid, sorry about that, but at least you have an answer to your question!

obplayer

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also, given the number of posts and quotes within them to the 'machine gun' school of debate.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Also, given the number of posts and quotes within them to the 'machine gun' school of debate.

Consider it a token of respect for people putting effort into multi-point posts that I try to respond to as many as possible of a posters points, rather than just offering a bland catchall response aimed more at the posters than their posts

tirchonaill86

SpaceTime wrote: »

Advocating a bit of sectarian / ethnic / philosophical cleansing now are we?

You're calling on other people to respect your views while telling other Irish people to get out of their own country!

That is absolutely not the Ireland that our revolutionaries and most of our forefathers and foremothers fought for.

I most certainly am not advocating any form of cleansing. I am absolutely against any form of oppressive violence or indeed forced deportations. I am merely stating that as part of our cultural and religious identity, i find it extremely disrespectful for people whether they are Irish or indeed foreign to try to remove what is important to the majority of Irish people. We don't own very much of anything anymore here in Ireland and you want to take away the small moment of the day that we can feel at peace with ourselves in reflection. This is our history. This is the very soul of what it means to be Irish for the majority. This is the link to our past and that past isn't all dark. I am not asking anyone to leave, but i am saying that if you want to come here of different faith or you want to stay with none, you need to respect the wishes of the majority of our society. To do anything else would be social deviance and not congruent with the values of a predominantly catholic country. Im all for respecting other faiths/religions, and i don't mind facilitating other faiths wishes, thats what makes me christian but come on now space-time i don't know what your main issue is with a catholics small moment of reflection? Whats your problem with it may i ask? I respect an atheists right to their own views but they must also respect our rights as believers. Its really simple. If they don't, well maybe they are in the wrong place or need to have a good long think to themselves. Because I'm just thinking of them out of love, its not very healthy if they feel that strongly about these issues to be listening to the bells at six o clock. But maybe they could change the channel for a minute? i can't possibly accept how one could feel so offended at another human beings right to reflect on their faith. And also when i said they can go somewhere else, maybe what i should have said is they may need to go somewhere else for their own sakes as suppressed emotion or unresolved conflict is a major risk factor in premature morbidity. So i apologise for my wording it may have caused offence or been deemed aggressive so i am sorry for that. I just want everyone to get along, love one another as human beings number one, and we can all practice or faiths or lack of here in Ireland, while respecting the people that defended this island and sacrificed their lives under oppression, forced slavery and ethnic cleansing regimes. Surely you guys would respect the rock that this country was built on, surely you would have love for the men, women and children that went before us by allowing us to carry on their traditions and let us keep what we hold dear in our hearts ourselves??? We have to separate the mistakes of the catholic church from this also, their leadership was obviously flawed but our faith remains our faith. Goodnight and God bless Ireland from all threats great and small.

padohaodha

This old chestnut again...change the channel if ure offended.there are far bigger issues in ireland.get over it.

Huntergonzo

Absolam wrote: »

So, would the short version of that be no, you haven't ever met someone who told you they needed ?

So now you want to ask the questions and answer them? I told you I have meet people who feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies, I would say most people who believe in god without a shred of evidence must feel the need for one otherwise what's the point in believing in an all powerful, unproven sky fairy? And as I asked you before which god is the real one? why are there so many gods anyway? and do you believe in all those other gods?

Absolam wrote: »

Which is fine for you, but perhaps Catholics do want time on tv that reflects their beliefs. Why should they give up what they want just because you don't want it?

You seem to have a very fundamental problem understanding the idea of a state being neutral so it's fair for all, either that or I was right when I said you have the 'we're the catholic majority so you can fcuk off' attitude. Listen I really don't care which of those 2 options are correct, I am 99.46457346% sure give or take 0.24727% that it's one or the other though. So feel free to have the last word on this issue, I know people like you blow their load of getting the last word.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if you weren't in fear, then no fear was spread. Which excellently illustrates my own point about hyperbole being a tool heavily favoured by those trying to make a point seem more than it is.

Well that just means mission failed for you so because the attempt to spread fear was there, and spreading fear is the foundation which religion is built on. You highlighted that even more by the way I caught you editing the post to add in a few more sentences (rather than just correcting an error for example, but I'm sure you don't make errors anyway), it was great, someone who fancies himself getting caught with the trousers down

padohaodha

I thought the it was decorum onboards to play the topic and not the man.ure just scoring points against a poster

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So now you want to ask the questions and answer them? I told you I have meet people who feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies, I would say most people who believe in god without a shred of evidence must feel the need for one otherwise what's the point in believing in an all powerful, unproven sky fairy? And as I asked you before which god is the real one? why are there so many gods anyway? and do you believe in all those other gods?



You seem to have a very fundamental problem understanding the idea of a state being neutral so it's fair for all, either that or I was right when I said you have the 'we're the catholic majority so you can fcuk off' attitude. Listen I really don't care which of those 2 options are correct, I am 99.46457346% sure give or take 0.24727% that it's one or the other though. So feel free to have the last word on this issue, I know people like you blow their load of getting the last word.



Well that just means mission failed for you so because the attempt to spread fear was there, and spreading fear is the foundation which religion is built on. You highlighted that even more by the way I caught you editing the post to add in a few more sentences (rather than just correcting an error for example, but I'm sure you don't make errors anyway), it was great, someone who fancies himself getting caught with the trousers down