why is the church still brain washing kids

whats newxt

baptising, i mean literally brain washing kids.

MrPudding

whats newxt wrote: »

baptising, i mean literally brain washing kids.

I think it would be more accurately described as hair and/or scalp washing. I have been to a few christenings and I have not, literally, seen any brains being washed.

MrP

whats newxt

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it would be more accurately described as hair and/or scalp washing. I have been to a few christenings and I have not, literally, seen any brains being washed.

MrP

ya, well you know what i mean. am i the only on this planet that thinks we're better off without religious dogma, i know it's heading that way but why can't we speed it up and just outright ban all religions. Anyone who believes in some sort of sky daddy is mentally ill and should be treated as such.

frostyjacks

whats newxt wrote: »

ya, well you know what i mean. am i the only on this planet that thinks we're better off without religious dogma, i know it's heading that way but why can't we speed it up and just outright ban all religions. Anyone who believes in some sort of sky daddy is mentally ill and should be treated as such.

I think someone here is mentally ill.

J C

whats newxt wrote: »

ya, well you know what i mean. am i the only on this planet that thinks we're better off without religious dogma, i know it's heading that way but why can't we speed it up and just outright ban all religions. Anyone who believes in some sort of sky daddy is mentally ill and should be treated as such.

All your wishes have been executed, by various totalitarian government in the past (and indeed in the present).
Unfortunately, from your point of view, such opression has had the opposite effect ... and religion actually expanded under persecution!!!

Killing religion with kindness might be a better way to achieve your desired result ... although, come to think of it, that mightn't work either ... and you might end up with mega feel-good churches, like in America.

I think you are going to have to accept the right of everyone to believe as they see fit ... and you need to start accepting difference ... and stop gratutiously insulting people who don't share your beliefs by calling them mentally ill.

To paraphrase Ali G ... respect ... it's the way to go.;)

haveringchick

whats newxt wrote: »

ya, well you know what i mean. am i the only on this planet that thinks we're better off without religious dogma, i know it's heading that way but why can't we speed it up and just outright ban all religions. Anyone who believes in some sort of sky daddy is mentally ill and should be treated as such.

I think following EPL football teams is a waste of energy and money and the thousands who travelled from here to there to watch matches are mentally ill so following EPL should be banned outright.
And Rugby too.
And people playing Bingo. Hundreds of thousands of them. Idiots. Banned.
OP what kind of punishments were you thinking of for breaking the new law forbidding practicing religion?

Rabo Karabekian

J C wrote: »

All your wishes have been executed, by various totalitarian government in the past (and indeed in the present).
Unfortunately, from your point of view, such opression has had the opposite effect ... and religion actually expanded under persecution!!!

I agree with you that banning religions is not the way to go (either morally or if you want to limit membership of whatever church) but things like baptism is different. The child doesn't actually have a say one way or the other.

haveringchick

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I agree with you that banning religions is not the way to go (either morally or if you want to limit membership of whatever church) but things like baptism is different. The child doesn't actually have a say one way or the other.

So you want to make it against the law for people to practice their religion?

J C

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I agree with you that banning religions is not the way to go (either morally or if you want to limit membership of whatever church) but things like baptism is different.
The child doesn't actually have a say one way or the other.

I'm not a fan of infant Baptism myself ... but then I'm not a Chelsea fan either ... but I wouldn't dream of proposing that my views should result in the banning of either infant Baptism or Chelsea!!!

The point you make about the child having no input is a bit moot IMO ... as infants have no input into anything that they are subjected to by their parents, including endless football games on TV, in many homes !!!:D

On a more serious note, I don't think that infant Baptism can do any possible harm to a child ... and if the parents believe that it will do good, then they have every moral and legal right to have their children Baptised in accordance with their faith.

J C

haveringchick wrote: »

So you want to make it against the law for people to practice their religion?

That seems to be what Rabo Karabekian and whats newxt are saying.
This seems to be a worryingly common belief among some Atheists and Secularists nowadays.
The ruthless suppression of people with different beliefs to their oppressors has been a common and sinister theme down through history.

I thought we had gone beyond this TBH ... and it is even more ironic that it is certain Atheists and Secularists, who usually pride themselves as liberals, that have this illiberal tendency, when it comes to how they would like to treat people with different views to themselves.

I have no doubt that there are many liberal Atheists and Secularists who would repudiate the suppression of religion and people of Faith, as I know some of them personally. It would be nice to hear from them on this forum, to balance the cries for religious suppression.

GreatDefector

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think someone here is mentally ill.

Same can be equally said for taking to a fictitious man who lives the clouds

The Randy Riverbeast

Banning religion never works. Should just focus on preventing some people from enforcing their religion on others. If someone wants to cover themselves in bacon and dance for the bacon God then let them, just don't allow them to make me take part. I'll just sit over here with a bacon sandwich.

J C

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Banning religion never works. Should just focus on preventing some people from enforcing their religion on others. If someone wants to cover themselves in bacon and dance for the bacon God then let them, just don't allow them to make me take part. I'll just sit over here with a bacon sandwich.

Nobody is going to make you take part ... and I'll join you over there, for a bacon sandwich ... if you will allow me to !!!:)

That's how tolerance should work.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by whats newxt
Anyone who believes in some sort of sky daddy is mentally ill and should be treated as such.

Originally Posted by frostyjacks
I think someone here is mentally ill

GreatDefector
Same can be equally said for taking to a fictitious man who lives the clouds

... and where does all this name-calling get us ... precisely nowhere!!

Lets all accept that both Atheists and Theists are sane and rational people ... with different beliefs.

haveringchick

J C wrote: »

That seems to be what Rabo Karabekian and whats newxt are saying.
This seems to be a worryingly common belief among some Atheists and Secularists nowadays.
The ruthless suppression of people with different beliefs to their oppressors has been a common and sinister theme down through history.

I thought we had gone beyond this TBH ... and it is even more ironic that it is certain Atheists and Secularists, who usually pride themselves as liberals, that have this illiberal tendency, when it comes to how they would like to treat people with different views to themselves.

I have no doubt that there are many liberal Atheists and Secularists who would repudiate the suppression of religion and people of Faith, as I know some of them personally. It would be nice to hear from them on this forum, to balance the cries for religious suppression.

It's not worrying really. I find most AA people to be mature rational calm people. Some of the opinions expressed on this thread are clearly those of extremely stupid insecure slightly disturbed people. An irrelevance, kinder to ignore.

J C

haveringchick wrote: »

It's not worrying really. I find most AA people to be mature rational calm people. Some of the opinions expressed on this thread are clearly those of extremely stupid insecure slightly disturbed people. An irrelevance, kinder to ignore.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the A & A on the Boards.
I agree that practically every AA person I encounter personally are rational calm and liberal people.
However, I don't agree with you that the opinions expressed on this thread are stupid or from disturbed people.
There is a tendency towards extreme illiberalism in some of the posters comments ... but I think the people promoting this agenda are totally rational and committed to the eradication of religion - and it would be a serious mis-judgement to dismiss their commitment to this objective as 'an irrelevance'.

haveringchick

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the A & A on the Boards.
I agree that practically every AA person I encounter personally are rational calm and liberal people.
However, I don't agree with you that the opinions expressed on this thread are stupid or from disturbed people.
There is a tendency towards extreme illiberalism in some of the posters comments ... but I think the people promoting this agenda are totally rational and committed to the eradication of religion - and it would be a serious mis-judgement to dismiss their commitment to this objective as 'an irrelevance'.

I should have been clearer. 2 of the posters on this thread are for the birds. Probably trolls. As I said, irrelevant in every way. We have to find a way to coexist on this island, people of all faiths and none without treading too badly on one another's tootsies.

J C

haveringchick wrote: »

I should have been clearer. 2 of the posters on this thread are for the birds. Probably trolls. As I said, irrelevant in every way. We have to find a way to coexist on this island, people of all faiths and none without treading too badly on one another's tootsies.

I agree that we have to peacefully live with our neighbours and the key to doing this is by respecting them and not threatening to legally proscribe the practice of their faith.
I don't think the posters you refer to are trolls ... I think they sincerely hold these illiberal views ... and they appear to have considerable support on the A & A for these views.

haveringchick

I have posted a couple of times on AA but I admit I don't read it much. I find it difficult to believe tthat adults would think it was reasonable to suggest that you could ban religion

J C

haveringchick wrote: »

I have posted a couple of times on AA but I admit I don't read it much. I find it difficult to believe tthat adults would think it was reasonable to suggest that you could ban religion

Not only do some adults believe this ... but totalitarian governments have tried to do so.

Its a mockery of what secularism, liberalism and pluralism should be about.
... but that clearly hasn't stopped it happening.

username2013

whats newxt wrote: »

ya, well you know what i mean. am i the only on this planet that thinks we're better off without religious dogma, i know it's heading that way but why can't we speed it up and just outright ban all religions. Anyone who believes in some sort of sky daddy is mentally ill and should be treated as such.

Yes. Currently you are the only person on the planet who believes this.

J C

username2013 wrote: »

Yes. Currently you are the only person on the planet who believes this.

Hardly the only one who does so!!
The atheisitic regimes of Soviet Russia, amounting to millions of people, believed that religion should be exterminated ... and the North Koreans think that they have succeded in doing so.
... and the Chinese only tolerate state controlled and certified 'churches' ... with everything else proscribed as illegal.

robindch

whats newxt wrote: »

ya, well you know what i mean. am i the only on this planet that thinks we're better off without religious dogma,

I think most A+A regulars would agree with you on that.

why can't we speed it up and just outright ban all religions.

Because the most successful religions feed on persecution, or in the absence of it, on perceived persecution. Banning religion outright will achieve nothing. And that's quite apart from the belief that most atheists + agnostics hold, which many religious people don't, that all people are free, and should be free, to believe whatever they wish to. If you want to see what happens when you attempt to control people's beliefs, then go visit North Korea - a place I've visited which has more than its fair share of christian thought-relics.

whats newxt wrote: »

Anyone who believes in some sort of sky daddy is mentally ill and should be treated as such.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think someone here is mentally ill.

None of that please, kids. Mental illness is not something to be made light of, and most religious people - like most atheists and agnostics - are not mentally ill.

Levels of observed religious belief are positively correlated to other quantities - lack of education being one the most prominent - but mental illness isn't one of them.

Rabo Karabekian

haveringchick wrote: »

So you want to make it against the law for people to practice their religion?

J C wrote: »

I'm not a fan of infant Baptism myself ... but then I'm not a Chelsea fan either ... but I wouldn't dream of proposing that my views should result in the banning of either infant Baptism or Chelsea!!!

On a more serious note, I don't think that infant Baptism can do any possible harm to a child ... and if the parents believe that it will do good, then they have every moral and legal right to have their children Baptised in accordance with their faith.

J C wrote: »

That seems to be what Rabo Karabekian and whats newxt are saying.

I probably phrased my post badly: I don't think infant baptisms should be banned, but I don't agree with them, and think that adult baptisms are the way forward.

robindch

haveringchick wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that adults would think it was reasonable to suggest that you could ban religion

I've been around atheists and agnostics a long while at this stage and I can honestly say that I've never met one who's wanted to ban religion, or who thought it would be a good idea to try.

I have, however, met many, many christians who think that atheists, agnostics and just about everybody else is trying to outlaw their own particular religious views. As above, persecution is one of the things upon which religion thrives.

Kiwi in IE

I certainly believe that the planet would be better off without religion.

I also believe that the planet would be very drastically worse off if religion were banned.

Hotblack Desiato

Why do they brainwash kids?

Because they can, and the Irish state assists and funds them to do so.

haveringchick

robindch wrote: »

I've been around atheists and agnostics a long while at this stage and I can honestly say that I've never met one who's wanted to ban religion, or who thought it would be a good idea to try.

I have, however, met many, many christians who think that atheists, agnostics and just about everybody else is trying to outlaw their own particular religious views. As above, persecution is one of the things upon which religion thrives.

What about the 2 posters on this short thread who want religious observation banned? You only have to look at page 1?

haveringchick

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why do they brainwash kids?

Because they can, and the Irish state assists and funds them to do so.

How did the state assist or fund me to baptise my child?

Hotblack Desiato

It incentivises you to do so by making it a requirement for priority in 90+% of primary schools, therefore if any school is oversubscribed and your child is not baptised you will not get a place.

Then once they get in there, the state employee paid to educate your child spends a not insubstantial proportion of their working week ramming bronze age nonsense into kids' heads.

Then there's sacramental preparation, again carried out by state employees during their working week.

Yet the Constitution guarantees religious freedom and bans the State from endowing any religion :rolleyes:

robindch

haveringchick wrote: »

What about the 2 posters on this short thread who want religious observation banned? You only have to look at page 1?

Because I've a dreadful suspicion - no idea where it could have come from - that one or two posters on this thread might be trolling A+A.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Mental illness is not something to be made light of, and most religious people - like most atheists and agnostics - are not mentally ill.

Levels of observed religious belief are positively correlated to other quantities - lack of education being one the most prominent - but mental illness isn't one of them.

Indeed not - but firm belief despite an utter lack of evidence is indeed a delusion, and often not a harmless one either. It leaves many people broken with pointless guilt and shame.

Then there's the correlation between actual mental illness and theistic delusions, why do so many schizophrenics think that they are god or that god is talking to them?
One of the 'moments of clarity' (as AA call them) for me when I was still fighting off the religious mental fog was the realisation that if JC2 somehow did materialise on this earth, he would undoubtedly be locked up in a secure institution, just like all the other people who think they're god, and there'd be no more reason to believe him than there is for any of the others.

Kiwi in IE

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Indeed not - but firm belief despite an utter lack of evidence is indeed a delusion, and often not a harmless one either. It leaves many people broken with pointless guilt and shame.

Then there's the correlation between actual mental illness and theistic delusions, why do so many schizophrenics think that they are god or that god is talking to them?
One of the 'moments of clarity' (as AA call them) for me when I was still fighting off the religious mental fog was the realisation that if JC2 somehow did materialise on this earth, he would undoubtedly be locked up in a secure institution, just like all the other people who think they're god, and there'd be no more reason to believe him than there is for any of the others.

Also many of JC1's behaviours as described in the bible are consistant with the symptoms of what we recognise today as bipolar disorder.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), American Psychiatric Association, which is the 'bible' of the psychiatric profession, intentionally add get out clauses for religious doctrine in their definition of delusional ideation. If those get out clauses were not written in, religious belief would certainly fit the definition.

Hotblack Desiato

At least they no longer regard epilepsy as demonic possession. That's a relief to someone close to me if they should ever forget to take their pills.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I think most A+A regulars would agree with you on that.Because the most successful religions feed on persecution, or in the absence of it, on perceived persecution. Banning religion outright will achieve nothing.

It's true that most beliefs (religious and secular) thrive on attempted suppression ... it's the 'forbidden fruit' phenomenon - and it's certainly not confined to religious ideas.

robindch wrote: »

And that's quite apart from the belief that most atheists + agnostics hold, which many religious people don't, that all people are free, and should be free, to believe whatever they wish to.

I think there are liberals and illiberals within all religions and none and the above quote shows that you accept this too.

robindch wrote: »

If you want to see what happens when you attempt to control people's beliefs, then go visit North Korea - a place I've visited which has more than its fair share of christian thought-relics.

Its objective is an atheistic communist society - and it seems to have largely achieved this ... and I agree with you, it's not a pretty sight. Whether this is due to its atheism or its communism (or both) may be open to debate. I personally think that it's both. Whilst Atheism (like most beliefs) is relatively benign (and sometimes even 'a breath of fresh air') when in a pluralist environment, just like any other belief system, it can become quite oppressive when it teams up with the state to have its beliefs (and only its beliefs) promulgated by the state.

robindch wrote: »

None of that please, kids. Mental illness is not something to be made light of, and most religious people - like most atheists and agnostics - are not mentally ill.

I agree - calling people mentally ill is an ad hominem and one of the nastier ones at that.
Those whom 'the powers that be' would destroy, they first declare to be mad.

robindch wrote: »

Levels of observed religious belief are positively correlated to other quantities - lack of education being one the most prominent - but mental illness isn't one of them.

There has been are recent fashion for many people to reject faith in God for faith in a lack of God.
This has been caused in no small measure by both sins of omission and comission by many churches, with the Roman Catholic Church being the greater source of scandal in this regard.
Historically, observed religious belief has been positively correlated with education level ... and educational qualifications have always been prized and achieved by Saved Christians - and this continues to be the case.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I've been around atheists and agnostics a long while at this stage and I can honestly say that I've never met one who's wanted to ban religion, or who thought it would be a good idea to try.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that not banning religion is a matter of practicality and not one of principle for you. You have said that you want religious dogma to be eradicated ... its only the practicalities of doing so (and avoiding counter productive results) that makes you propose avoiding the outright banning of religion.
Indeed, the demands from Atheists and Secularists for irreligious education in all schools, the banning of any public expression of religious belief and (in some cases) the banning of faith transmission to children under 18 years old comes quite close to an outright legal proscription of religion.

robindch wrote: »

I have, however, met many, many christians who think that atheists, agnostics and just about everybody else is trying to outlaw their own particular religious views. As above, persecution is one of the things upon which religion thrives.

It's Human Nature to want one's own beliefs to be shared by the maximum number of people.
Where this 'crosses a line' is when somebody demands that their beliefs (and only their beliefs) be priveliged by the state - or where they outlaw the beliefs of others.
A free exchange of ideas is a healthy thing - and any idea that cannot stand rigorous examination shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas, to keep it alive. Indeed, even if it can stand rigorous examination, it still shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas.

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Also many of JC1's behaviours as described in the bible are consistant with the symptoms of what we recognise today as bipolar disorder.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), American Psychiatric Association, which is the 'bible' of the psychiatric profession, intentionally add get out clauses for religious doctrine in their definition of delusional ideation. If those get out clauses were not written in, religious belief would certainly fit the definition.

Some religious people, just like some irreligious people sadly suffer from mental illness.
However, faith in God's existence (or indeed non-existence) isn't a symptom of mental illness.
The American Psychiatric Association would be a laughing stock, if they didn't exclude religious (and irreligious) belief as delusional ideation - and that is why their 'bible' doesn't do this.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It incentivises you to do so by making it a requirement for priority in 90+% of primary schools, therefore if any school is oversubscribed and your child is not baptised you will not get a place.

Then once they get in there, the state employee paid to educate your child spends a not insubstantial proportion of their working week ramming bronze age nonsense into kids' heads.

Then there's sacramental preparation, again carried out by state employees during their working week.

Yet the Constitution guarantees religious freedom and bans the State from endowing any religion :rolleyes:

Yes the state cannot endow any religion i.e. discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. However, a state whose citizens have various religious beliefs must endow all persons equally - and it cannot use its powers to suppress some or all religions.
Its freedom of religion ... and not freedom from religion (or indeed, irreligion).

looksee

J C wrote: »

Its objective is an atheistic communist society

what's objective? I am not aware of a link between atheism and communism - it may suit communism to be atheistic, but not the other way round

Whilst Atheism (like most beliefs)

Lets not get into the 'whether atheism is a belief' argument again, it is boring at this stage and we can't keep accommodating the people who refuse to try and understand it. This removes several other irrelevant points in JC's post.

There has been are recent fashion for many people to reject faith in God for faith in a lack of God.

like this one for example.

Historically, observed religious belief has been positively correlated with education level ... and educational qualifications have always been prized and achieved by Saved Christians - and this continues to be the case.

Could we have just a teeny bit of evidence for this statement please?

J C wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that not banning religion is a matter of practicality and not one of principle for you. You have said that you want religious dogma to be eradicated ... its only the practicalities of doing so (and avoiding counter productive results) that makes you propose avoiding the outright banning of religion.

There is no particular demand to ban religion - people are free to believe what they like - PROVIDED religion does not impose itself on those who do not want it. Like using schools to indoctrinate for example.

Indeed, the demands from Atheists and Secularists for irreligious education in all schools, the banning of any public expression of religious belief and (in some cases) the banning of faith transmission to children under 18 years old comes quite close to an outright legal proscription of religion.

Check out the difference between irreligious and non-religious.

You are referring to Baptism presumably? Most atheists are not concerned about baptism - the OP's reference is not entirely without an agenda - except to the extent that baptism to ensure school access is used to 'prove' the popularity of the Catholic church and therefore keep its position of authority in the State.

It's Human Nature to want one's own beliefs to be shared by the maximum number of people.
Where this 'crosses a line' is when somebody demands that their beliefs (and only their beliefs) be priveliged by the state - or where they outlaw the beliefs of others.
A free exchange of ideas is a healthy thing - and any idea that cannot stand rigorous examination shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas to keep it alive. Indeed, even if it can stand rigorous examination, it still shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas.

Amazing, for once we agree on something, if I let you away with describing atheism as a belief, I could not have put it better myself.

whats newxt

haveringchick wrote: »

I have posted a couple of times on AA but I admit I don't read it much. I find it difficult to believe tthat adults would think it was reasonable to suggest that you could ban religion

I'm not talking about "thought police" but why not tax them out of existence for example.

eviltwin

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.

looksee

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.

But apart from the 'numbers in the church' thing, what does it matter. If you believe then it is a 'good' thing. If you do not then it doesn't matter either way. It is not making any difference at all to the child. If for some reason the child were brought up away from family it would not know whether it had been baptised or not.

eviltwin

looksee wrote: »

But apart from the 'numbers in the church' thing, what does it matter. If you believe then it is a 'good' thing. If you do not then it doesn't matter either way. It is not making any difference at all to the child. If for some reason the child were brought up away from family it would not know whether it had been baptised or not.

I think it should be left to the child to make that decision for themselves.

endacl

whats newxt wrote: »

I'm not talking about "thought police" but why not tax them out of existence for example.

Have you met Notavirus.exe? One of you is the other's evil twin!

whats newxt

You can delete this thread if you want, all i'm saying is if we do want to truly exist on this planet and build a utopia religion has no place in this idea as it's funda'mentally' detriment to human co-existence.

endacl

whats newxt wrote: »

You can delete this thread if you want, all i'm saying is if we do want to truly exist on this planet and build a utopia religion has no place in this idea as it's funda'mentally' detriment to human co-existence.

I do truly exist already. The notion of a 'utopia' is crackers, by the way. Everybody happy all the time? What would be the point?

haveringchick

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.[/quote

One billion 1000000000 baptised Catholics on the planet at the moment and rising all the time. Are you annoyed with all the parents or only the Irish ones?

haveringchick

whats newxt wrote: »

You can delete this thread if you want, all i'm saying is if we do want to truly exist on this planet and build a utopia religion has no place in this idea as it's funda'mentally' detriment to human co-existence.

Are you starting 2nd or 3rd year philosophy?

haveringchick

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it should be left to the child to make that decision for themselves.

But it's part of the promise I made during the sacrament of matrimony to bring my children up as Catholics. It's part of the religion to baptise your child. Baptism is one of the sacraments. I wouldn't be a Catholic if I didn't baptise my child.

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.

Many parents feel they have no choice as if they don't they can't make use of the local tax payer paid for school

Cabaal

haveringchick wrote: »

But it's part of the promise I made during the sacrament of matrimony to bring my children up as Catholics. It's part of the religion to baptise your child. Baptism is one of the sacraments. I wouldn't be a Catholic if I didn't baptise my child.

You're also not a Catholic of you don't regularly go to mass and follow the Catholic on its beliefs and rules.

For example, I take it you think sex before marriage is a big no no and also condoms are wrong and should never be used? After all these are official Catholic Church teachings... You wouldn't ignore them as a Catholic would you?

Also, I take it you fully believe in transubstantiation? After all this is a really really big thing for the Catholic Church.