A secular State is best for religious and atheist citizens

Hotblack Desiato

The clinging on to dubious census figures is hilarious. Attendance at weekly religious services tells its own story. After all it's much easier to tick a box than it is to get off your arse and go to church.

Mark Hamill

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The clinging on to dubious census figures is hilarious. Attendance at weekly religious services tells its own story. After all it's much easier to tick a box than it is to get off your arse and go to church.

Don't forget the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. Whilst 84% of people are down as RCC on the 2011 census, 62% of people voted to allow same-sex marriage, despite the RCC being entirely against it.
Either the 62% of RCC people who voted in favour of same sex marriage don't follow the RCC on one of its fundamental teachings, in which case no argument can be made based purely on the census that the whole 84% fully follow the RCC and want it involved in the state. Or the 62% do actually follow the RCC teachings on it and are against it, but they voted for it because they don't believe their personal religious beliefs should inform law/effect other people of other religious persuasions, which would make them secular theists and still not supporting of J C's position.

J C

Yes an inclusive secular state respectful of all religions and none is best for all citizens religious and atheist ... this was how the greatest secular state on Earth included representatives of various religions at the inauguration of its president today

KingBrian2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The clinging on to dubious census figures is hilarious. Attendance at weekly religious services tells its own story. After all it's much easier to tick a box than it is to get off your arse and go to church.

Do you go into every church in the country and count every parishioner or maybe calculate how many Nuns & Priests are in the country?:D

J C

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you go into every church in the country and count every parishioner or maybe calculate how many Nuns & Priests are in the country?:D

It's not about numbers per se (although the number of Christians in Ireland is impressive at 90%) ... its fundamentally about respect for all religions and none ... and taking over church run schools and converting them into irreligious institutions is disrespectful to the Christians, who run these schools.

KingBrian2

J C wrote: »

It's not about numbers per se (although the number of Christians in Ireland is impressive at 90%) ... its fundamentally about respect for all religions and none ... and taking over church run schools and converting them into irreligious institutions is disrespectful to the Christians, who run these schools.

Reality is that Ireland is becoming an increasingly secular state and we don't need religious dominated institutions reshaping the country in their image. A pluralist country will respect all religious viewpoints and not march to their beat.

Hotblack Desiato

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you go into every church in the country and count every parishioner or maybe calculate how many Nuns & Priests are in the country?:D

The catholic church's own figures show that attendance at their services is plummeting.

The average age of priests is going through the roof with many continuing well into their 80s instead of retiring, there is all of two - TWO - priests in the entire Dublin diocese under the age of 40. There are over a million 'catholic' box-tickers in this diocese.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The catholic church's own figures show that attendance at their services is plummeting.

The average age of priests is going through the roof with many continuing well into their 80s instead of retiring, there is all of two - TWO - priests in the entire Dublin diocese under the age of 40. There are over a million 'catholic' box-tickers in this diocese.

... and your point is?

looksee

J C wrote: »

... and your point is?

Really? You don't see the point? Or you don't want to see the point?

J C

looksee wrote: »

Really? You don't see the point? Or you don't want to see the point?

The point could be almost anything ... please tell me what the point is, if you know?
... and a truly pluralist secular democracy recognises and respects the rights of the majority as well as minorities within a population.

... and religion shouldn't be suppressed to the point of only being a private matter in any secular society claiming to be liberal, pluralist and tolerant of diversity.

Hotblack Desiato

For the terminally hard of comprehension, post 152.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... and religion shouldn't be suppressed to the point of only being a private matter in any secular society claiming to be liberal, pluralist and tolerant of diversity.

If religion is not a private matter then it would be a public matter. How would the state be secular in that case?

Methinks you need to equip yourself with a good dictionary...

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

If religion is not a private matter then it would be a public matter. How would the state be secular in that case?

Methinks you need to equip yourself with a good dictionary...

Just because sport, religion, rock concerts, etc. are public ... doesn't have any impact on the secular nature of the country, within which these public pursuits take place ... and only a country hell-bent on eliminating any of these things, would proscribe them to the private sphere.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The clinging on to dubious census figures is hilarious. Attendance at weekly religious services tells its own story. After all it's much easier to tick a box than it is to get off your arse and go to church.

... its true that it is easier to tick a box on the Census ... but nonetheless, the fact that the box ticked is Christian 90% of the time also tells its own story ... for anybody who would like to take over church property with the stated purpose of banning religious instruction within it.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Just because sport, religion, rock concerts, etc. are public ... doesn't have any impact on the secular nature of the country, within which these public pursuits take place ... and only a country hell-bent on eliminating any of these things, would proscribe them to the private sphere.

When religion takes place in state schools it does impact on the secular nature of the country.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

When religion takes place in state schools it does impact on the secular nature of the country.

... and the impact is very definitely for the better.:)

KingBrian2

J C wrote: »

... and the impact is very definitely for the better.:)

Only if their is a balance between church and the role of state.

looksee

J C wrote: »

... and the impact is very definitely for the better.:)

If there is religion in state schools it is not a secular state.

J C

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Only if their is a balance between church and the role of state.

But ... a balance between church and state isn't struck if any state compulsorily sequesters church schools and bans religious instruction in them ... like Lenin did when suppressing religion in Russia.

J C

looksee wrote: »

If there is religion in state schools it is not a secular state.

Only if you define a secular state as an anti-theist state.
If it is a liberal secular democracy, supportive of diversity and pluralism ... there should be no problem with being respectful of religion to the point of allowing it in schools.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Only if you define a secular state as an anti-theist state.

As I said, you need a dictionary.

looksee

J C wrote: »

Only if you define a secular state as an anti-theist state.
If it is a liberal secular democracy, supportive of diversity and pluralism ... there should be no problem with being respectful of religion to the point of allowing it in schools.

I thought we had dealt with that rubbish. Do you take anything on board?

This is not religion or faith, it is simple language issues, as Pherekydes has suggested, get a dictionary.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

As I said, you need a dictionary.

I don't need a dictionary ... it is patently obvious that any state that suppresses religious instruction in church run schools (by taking them over or shutting them down) is behaving in an anti-theist/anti-Christian manner ... whether they call themselves 'secular' or not.

KingBrian2

J C wrote: »

But ... a balance between church and state isn't struck if any state compulsorily sequesters church schools and bans religious instruction in them ... like Lenin did when suppressing religion in Russia.

The balance was tilted towards the church for many decades spelling an era of conservative rule. The state should make the place a safe place for the citizens of all denominations and not just the majority religion. Many Irish still feel discriminated by the current church-state relationship.

robindch

J C wrote: »

I don't need a dictionary.

I'm afraid you do need a dictionary - please read your fellow-posters posts with some degree of care.

And I'd like to remind you again of the requirement to post things worth reading.

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

I'm afraid you do need a dictionary - please read your fellow-posters posts with some degree of care.

And I'd like to remind you again of the requirement to post things worth reading.

JC may feel that there is only one book he needs; but at least he can be sure who wrote the dictionary.

Qs

J C wrote: »

... and the impact is very definitely for the better.:)

Tell that to victims of paedophile priests.

J C

Qs wrote: »

Tell that to victims of paedophile priests.

Tell that to the victims of paedophile (name any occupation).

The vast majority of Roman Catholic priests are decent honourable men ... just like the vast majority of men in every other occupation.
... and (precisely because of the notorious paedophile issues with a minority of perverts that be-devilled the Roman Catholic Church) their Child Protection policies are now cutting edge and state of the art ... so that children are now safer within this church's institutions than possibly any other institution anywhere.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I'm afraid you do need a dictionary - please read your fellow-posters posts with some degree of care.

I always read everything I respond to with absolute care.

robindch wrote: »

And I'd like to remind you again of the requirement to post things worth reading.

What is worth reading is in the eye of the beholder ... and there is nothing anybody can do about that.
However, I would point out that the thoughtful and energetic responses to my posts proves that they are of deep interest to most posters on this thread.

Qs

J C wrote: »

Tell that to the victims of paedophile (name any occupation).

Tell that to the victims of paedophile (name any occupation) (where the employers covered up and protected thousands of paedophiles for decades in dozens of countries throughout the world).

J C wrote: »

The vast majority of Roman Catholic priests are decent honourable men ... just like the vast majority of men in every other occupation.
... and (precisely because of the notorious paedophile issues with a minority of perverts that be-devilled the Roman Catholic Church) their Child Protection policies are now cutting edge and state of the art ... so that children are now safer within this church's institutions than possibly any other institution anywhere.

I don't believe that there aren't still hundreds of paedophile priests working within the Catholic church, many of them with children.

J C

Qs wrote: »

Tell that to the victims of paedophile (name any occupation) (where the employers covered up and protected thousands of paedophiles for decades in dozens of countries throughout the world).

The cover-up was/is indefensible.

Qs wrote: »

I don't believe that there aren't still hundreds of paedophile priests working within the Catholic church, many of them with children.

Why should Roman Catholic priests have any more paedophiles within their ranks than any other group of men?
In any event, the Child Protection policies of the Roman Catholic Church are now so cutting edge and state of the art ... that children are now safer within this church's institutions than possibly any other institution anywhere.

Some of my children have attended secular/public school and others have attend a Roman Catholic school ... and thankfully ... I have never had any concerns about their safety at either type of school.

Qs

J C wrote: »

Why should Roman Catholic priests have any more paedophiles within their ranks than any other group of men?

I'm not sure why they have such high numbers compared to the rest of the populace. Its probably a number of factors. Often the abused become abusers so there is that if you are abused in the seminary you are more likely to become an abuser yourself. There is also the fact that they protected paedophiles so that will have attracted them to the clergy.


You keep saying the Catholic church "are now so cutting edge and state of the art", you need to elaborate a little. What have they done that rules out the chances of these monsters abusing children again?

KingBrian2

Posters keep bringing up the Catholic Church child abuse horror story. Part of what made that so bad was the cover up but as we now know Child abuse occurs all across the world it happened at the BBC are we to call out every BBC presenter and if you look at Islam you got millions of potential perverts if you go down that avenue. The head-chopping and honour killings. The fact is the Vatican is the leading authority on Catholic cannon law and by allowing the church or Mosque or any religion get too strong they can turn an entire society upside down.

Their is a lot of sectarianism in this country still and in part that is down to the level of power the church still holds onto. I see this in the Muslim world in a big way in which Islamism dominates their way of life. At least with them they have an excuse they have grinding poverty but we the average Irish person is much wealthier and the church itself is also extremely wealthy in Ireland and in western Europe more broadly speaking. The church wants the benefit of being protected by the state but when you dominate so much of public life your exploiting the state. All the religious denominations must be shown respect not just the largest one otherwise we end up with religious discrimination. I realise this sounds pretty obvious but the amount of people who don't get this is shocking.

Frank Bullitt

"Teaching religion in schools"

This term alone always gets to me, if schools taught religion, as they say, then pupils would be taught about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism etc, rather than just a variation of Christianity.

A secular state would/should require variation in what it offers pupils, rather than forcing Christianity down their throat.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

Why should Roman Catholic priests have any more paedophiles within their ranks than any other group of men?

Because men of normal sexual desires (i.e. consenting adults) were discouraged from entering by the celibacy requirement, and indeed huge numbers left to start or continue a relationship with a consenting adult.

If you take away many of those with normal sexual desires, you will be left with a greater proportion of 'others'.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

"Teaching religion in schools"

This term alone always gets to me, if schools taught religion, as they say, then pupils would be taught about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism etc, rather than just a variation of Christianity.

A secular state would/should require variation in what it offers pupils, rather than forcing Christianity down their throat.

I agree ... that secular schools should teach about all religions and none ... as should Church-run schools.
But, the liberal in me, also recognises the right of church run schools to also provide instruction in their own faith in their schools.:)

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because men of normal sexual desires (i.e. consenting adults) were discouraged from entering by the celibacy requirement, and indeed huge numbers left to start or continue a relationship with a consenting adult.

If you take away many of those with normal sexual desires, you will be left with a greater proportion of 'others'.

... but 'others' should not include a significantly greater proportion of paedophiles than any other group of men.

Hotblack Desiato

There's just no point, is there.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

I agree ... that secular schools should teach about all religions and none ... as should Church-run schools.
But, the liberal in me, also recognises the right of church run schools to also provide instruction in their own faith in their schools.:)

The very problem right there.

I wouldnt have much issue with Church run schools if they were able to fund themselves. But seeing as in Ireland they don't, they should be secular and offer places to all children regardless of if they got a splash of water on their head when they were infants.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

The very problem right there.

I wouldnt have much issue with Church run schools if they were able to fund themselves.

... but they do fund themselves ... via the taxes of parents who choose the send their children to them.

An alternative system would give all parents a voucher to be used at a school of their choice for their children.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

... but they do fund themselves ... via the taxes of parents who choose the send their children to them.

An alternative system would give all parents a voucher to be used at a school of their choice for their children.

So making parents have their children baptized to allow them access to state funded education? Pretty sinister stuff right there.

Christian Brother schools get money from the government, and this money does not just come from parents who choose to send their children to them. Your red herring wont work with that one.

And your alternative system is laughable.

KingBrian2

I see hypocrisy if we allow church run schools but not Islamic run education or other religion run schools. It sets a bad precedent. All schools should be secular and leave religion to a private matter.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

So making parents have their children baptized to allow them access to state funded education? Pretty sinister stuff right there.

Christian Brother schools get money from the government, and this money does not just come from parents who choose to send their children to them. Your red herring wont work with that one.

And your alternative system is laughable.

There are many non-baptised children in all types of school in Ireland ... so your point is moot.

J C

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I see hypocrisy if we allow church run schools but not Islamic run education or other religion run schools. It sets a bad precedent. All schools should be secular and leave religion to a private matter.

... and so says every anti-theist since the dawn of Creation.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

... and so says every anti-theist since the dawn of Creation.

We've had schools ever since the big bang?

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

There are many non-baptised children in all types of school in Ireland ... so your point is moot.

Get some figures to back that up, because you know that is a rubbish statement right there.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

Get some figures to back that up, because you know that is a rubbish statement right there.

Do you know of any child currently not attending school because they aren't baptised?

J C

lazygal wrote: »

We've had schools ever since the big bang?

Whatever about schools ... we've certainly had anti-theists since then.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Whatever about schools ... we've certainly had anti-theists since then.

We've only had anti-theists since theism was invented, if you think about it logically.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

We've only had anti-theists since theism was invented, if you think about it logically.

... anti-theism exists because God exists ... and God has logically been there from the very start - so we've have anti-theism since then as well.