Civil "communion" for 8 year old girl

magicbastarder

Isn't the word easter derived from the name of a non Christian goddess?

dubrov

magicbastarder wrote: »

Isn't the word easter derived from the name of a non Christian goddess?

Google says it was derived from the "goddess of fertility and spring, perhaps originally of sunrise"

Says a lot about its evolution really

ABC101

recedite wrote: »

What we have here is a misunderstanding based on terminology. What you both are describing would be more properly called "cultural catholics" around here. The media seem to prefer the term "bouncy castle catholics".
The term "lapsed catholics" does not say anything about the person's current beliefs, only that they used to be catholics. Most likely then they would have defaulted to atheist or agnostic, but they could be any religion. It might seem pedantic, but because we are mostly pedants, we like to have an exact meaning.

Having said that, I'm aware that within religious communities the term "lapsed" is often used to describe an ex member who is seen to be "resting" in some way from active involvement in the church. Its as if the members want to believe that the person has become too lazy, or too busy of late, but may yet return to active membership.
The term atheist is often reserved for someone who is seen to be openly hostile, critical or aggressive towards the church. These are seen as lost souls.
Obviously, we have a different understanding of these terms around here.

I would tend to agree with your second paragraph (about Lapsed Catholics).

Never heard the term "Bouncy Castle Catholics" before. Never seen it mentioned in the media. A google.ie search pulls up some articles around 2014 in the IT and the Offally express etc and the Daily edge (2017).

Seems to be a term which describes those Catholics who are more interested in the events after the religious ceremony, i.e. eating / drinking / and watching the kids play on a bouncing castle etc

Perhaps I am a bit out of it, but no matter.

Getting back to the point about Lapsed Catholic!! It would appear the plot thickens...

From wikipedia...

A lapsed Catholic is a baptized Catholic who is non-practicing.[1] Such a person may still identify as a Catholic[2] and remains a Catholic according to canon law

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "lapsed" in relation to "lapsed Catholic" is "no longer believing or following the teachings of a religion".[4] Lapsing is thus not necessarily connected with a lack of belief.[5] However, Daniel Ford links being a lapsed Catholic with rejection of Catholic teaching, either totally or by being an "à la carte Catholic".[6] Other sources associate the term with abandonment of practice of the Catholic religion rather than with rejection of its doctrine. Thus the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "lapsed", again in relation to "lapsed Catholic", as "no longer involved in an activity or organization",[7] and the Oxford Dictionary speaks only of "no longer following the rules and practices of a religion or doctrine".[8] Richard John Neuhaus distinguished between Catholic and Protestant ideas of what it means to be "lapsed" by quoting G.K. Chesterton, who remarked that a Protestant typically says he is a good Protestant, while a Catholic typically says he is a bad Catholic. For many, being a lapsed Catholic is just another way of being a Catholic

From my reading of the above, it would appear there are several definitions / interpretations of what Lapsed Catholic actually means.

It would appear that Lapsed Catholic does not have a definitive definition.

Just have a read of the first paragraph.... it contradicts itself. See here..

"no longer believing or following the teachings of a religion".[4] Lapsing is thus not necessarily connected with a lack of belief.

Or does it mean, you can chose not to believe... but still be described as a believer????

Talk about double think / double speak ...

In the absence of a definitive official definition... perhaps it should be left to the RCC to define what a Lapsed Catholic is.

As a member of the RCC... my understanding is that it is a person who still believes in the teachings of the RCC (and all that it entails), but does not physically practice.

A "a la Carte Catholic"... I understand as a person who believes themselves to be Catholic, but does not necessarily agree 100% on RCC doctrine, i.e. they may believe in contraception / divorce / abortion within certain limits / or maybe no limits... depending on how A la carte they are.

Under the section "Colloquial Names" there is no mention of Bouncy Castle Catholics... perhaps you could edit it?

Colloquial names[edit]
Some lapsed Catholics attend Mass on special occasions like Christmas and Easter. Such lapsed Catholics are colloquially referred to by such terms as Cultural Catholics, Submarine Catholics, Two-Timers, Chreasters,[22][23] C&E Catholics, Poinsettia & Lily Catholics,[23] APEC (Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Easter, and Christmas), CEOs (Christmas and Easter Only), CAPE Catholics (Christmas, Ash [Wednesday], Palm [Sunday], Easter), PACE Catholics (Palm [Sunday], Ash [Wednesday], Christmas, Easter), CASE Catholics (Christmas and Sometimes Easter), CMEs (Christmas, Mother's Day and Easter), or A&P Catholics (for Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday).[24]

Walter H Price

neverever1 wrote: »

Since they're celebrating christmas, easter, communion, confirmation etc I think it's best described as lapsed catholics.

nope people have literaly been feasting at mid winter and the begining of spring for forever and a day , Christisnity just piggy backed on that , and the commercialism of xmas has literaly nothing to do with jesus or mass , Feasting , Presents , Santa , Trees etc... in fact most modern christmas traditions come from victorian times including the popularisation of christmas trees ... the church cut and paste existing feast dates and adopted customs of existing cultures (such as santa) to make conversion easier, Easter is a celebration of spring and fertility its still named after the nothern god of fertility ffs , eggs, bunnys etc ... Want to try again ?

ABC101

recedite wrote: »

The term atheist is often reserved for someone who is seen to be openly hostile, critical or aggressive towards the church. These are seen as lost souls.
Obviously, we have a different understanding of these terms around here.

Again I have to say I do not agree here... however I am coming from my own personal perspective.

I would never see all Atheists as been openly hostile, critical or aggressive towards the Church.

First and foremost... I see a Atheist as somebody who either lacks belief, or as a person who has rejected belief in God/Gods.

That is not the same as a person who lacks belief / rejected belief in God and is openly hostile towards various organisations of belief.

For example, there are many things I don't believe in, other religious faiths for example... but I would not be hostile towards them. I know of one particular faith which worships fire. I don't believe in that faith, even though I know there are some people practising that particular form of religion, but I am not hostile / critical of them. They are just a bunch of people over there doing their own thing, not for me to judge them. But is it my cup of tea... no.

Yes there are some people who describe themselves as Atheist, and are very critical sometimes openly hostile to the presence of religious faith.

Perhaps there should be a separate definition, for a person who just so happens to lack belief and a person who is anti belief?

ABC101

Walter H Price wrote: »

nope people have literaly been feasting at mid winter and the begining of spring for forever and a day , Christisnity just piggy backed on that , and the commercialism of xmas has literaly nothing to do with jesus or mass , Feasting , Presents , Santa , Trees etc... in fact most modern christmas traditions come from victorian times including the popularisation of christmas trees ... the church cut and paste existing feast dates and adopted customs of existing cultures (such as santa) to make conversion easier, Easter is a celebration of spring and fertility its still named after the nothern god of fertility ffs , eggs, bunnys etc ... Want to try again ?

Yes... but how do rabbits lay eggs?

Or do rabbits just collect them? If so .... who lays the eggs?

Is the term "ride of the Valkyries" all about rabbits then?

recedite

ABC101 wrote: »

In the absence of a definitive official definition... perhaps it should be left to the RCC to define what a Lapsed Catholic is.

No, I don't think so. It suits them to claim as many members as possible. And they withdrew the "count me out" service a few years ago, which allowed people to officially leave the church.

ABC101 wrote: »

As a member of the RCC... my understanding is that it is a person who still believes in the teachings of the RCC (and all that it entails), but does not physically practice.

Like a lapsed vegetarian, who now eats meat?
I find that concept difficult to understand, unless you consider that such a person is simply an ex member, but still carrying some of the cultural baggage. A "cultural catholic" then.

A "a la Carte Catholic"... I understand as a person who believes themselves to be Catholic, but does not necessarily agree 100% on RCC doctrine, i.e. they may believe in contraception / divorce / abortion within certain limits / or maybe no limits... depending on how A la carte they are.

Well, I would tend to call this person a protestant.
But also a cultural catholic, if that makes sense

Under the section "Colloquial Names" there is no mention of Bouncy Castle Catholics... perhaps you could edit it?

Sadly I'm not a licensed wiki editor. But my understanding of the term is that its not so much for people who like attending the "afters" of religious events. Its more the people who are very keen on organising and participating in the religious events, and maintaining religious schools, simply because they would miss these kind of events if they disappeared.
It would be a loss of their culture, their family traditions. But they have already lost their religion. As parents they concentrate on the party aspect of these occasions, leaving the school to teach the spiritual aspect.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As with the other poster , neverever1, there's a bang of telling people they can't celebrate the milestones they want unless they pay homage to a religion. Very limited thinking.

Who did that? Who told anyone they could / couldn't / shouldn't celebrate whatever they like, whenever they like, however they like? neverever1 certainly didn't do it, I certainly didn't do it.

In fact the only people I see ever see doing that are people like the guy smacl linked to in the IT article - people with their heads so far up their own asses that they assume the world should revolve around them, the obsessive victimhood complex, expecting everyone else's lives should revolve around them too while they themselves, should have no consideration for anyone else.

People are more than welcome do do as they please, and the OP posted asking about a ideas for what they termed a "civil Communion". I got where they were coming from, and they didn't really have a point to it other than giving their child a day similar to the children making their Communion. That was before you attempted to add significance to an event where it didn't exist before. The event had more to do with religious ceremonies than it doesn't as the OP wants all of the trimmings with none of the stuffing (never was a fan of stuffing, opinion may vary, other people love the stuff).

Point being - the OP didn't know what they wanted, until they were told. They had to be given a meaning for their event, that was otherwise looking like your average having a few friends over for a barbeque. I went to a barbecue once on the invite of a friend who was celebrating her son's Communion. All the relatives and friends were there, about 150 or so in attendance. The thing she may have forgotten to mention was that they were all black! I was a bit apprehensive at first, but it turned out we all had a fantastic day - the kids all played with each other and the adults ate, drank, and were very, very merry!! :pac:

There's only one of us engaged in limited thinking here, and it sure as hell ain't me.

Hotblack Desiato

infogiver wrote: »

If you lived in a big city in the UK and your child's friends were celebrating Eid, Hanukkah, Bar Mitzvah, Holi etc you'd soon tell your child that your family just does Birthdays and Anniversarys, because if you had to pay for an expensive compensatory outing every time your child was "left out" you'd soon run out of money.

Your child would be in a secular school so the situation the OP describes here would not arise.

Talk about hypocrisy. RC religion must be rammed down the throats of kids in practically all schools here, then the RCers get all shirty when anyone objects.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Your child would be in a secular school so the situation the OP describes here would not arise.

Notwithstanding the fact that wouldn't necessarily be true either, even then the parents would find something else to complain about and something else to compete about. Your statement suggests that if only all schools were secular, everything would be hunky dory.

Talk about hypocrisy. RC religion must be rammed down the throats of kids in practically all schools here, then the RCers get all shirty when anyone objects.

Think you're seeing things you want to see there tbh, not solely a phenomenon confined to people who are religious then, nor is hypocrisy or passing judgement upon others for not abiding by their standards and getting shirty about it when people don't.

smacl

ABC101 wrote: »

Never heard the term "Bouncy Castle Catholics" before. Never seen it mentioned in the media. A google.ie search pulls up some articles around 2014 in the IT and the Offally express etc and the Daily edge (2017).

Interesting how personalised Google searches have become. First hit for me was an Irish Times article, the Avondhu (???), bunch of twitterati, and the Journal.

Loads of terms out there such as lapsed Catholics, cultural Catholics, a-la carte Catholics, bouncy castle Catholics etc... but we really don't know much about their beliefs as we've never properly asked. In terms of practise the pattern appears to be greatly reduced mass attendance outside of the major days, and use of the Church primarily for weddings, funerals, christenings and communions. Whether they believe in God or not is anyone's guess, but given they're into a second generation at this point I'd say what belief was there is diminishing over time. Kids of lapsed Catholics who never practised outside or the bare necessities can't really be said to have lapsed as their pattern of practise hasn't changed. What is also obvious is that Irish Catholics don't adhere to moral and ethical values set out by the Vatican, as can be seen from availability of contraception and the morning after pill, attitudes to same sex marriage, and attitudes to abortion. I would wonder how many don't regularly attend mass because they're openly hostile to the hierarchy for all the obvious reasons, or just too lazy? Probably a mix.

A Atheist is a person who chooses not to believe in God / Spirituality / after life etc.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God or gods. When you think about it, it is the default position, religion is the choice. People are religious because they were taught to be religious, primarily by their parents. Children of lapsed/cultural/bouncy castle Catholics aren't taught this particularly well or at all, and hence revert to the default. Note that the words atheist and atheism are actually common nouns and not proper nouns like religions and should not be capitalised as atheism is not a religion.

infogiver

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Your child would be in a secular school so the situation the OP describes here would not arise.

Talk about hypocrisy. RC religion must be rammed down the throats of kids in practically all schools here, then the RCers get all shirty when anyone objects.

So my child only mixes with other children at school? My child doesn't play out in the estate with the other children of other faiths? Or at the park? Or play sports with the other kids?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Atheism is of course the antithesis of theism, they're fundamentally different concepts.

Atheism is actually the absence of theism, antitheism is the antithesis of theism. Atheism informs us only about a lack of belief in a God or gods by a person, it says nothing about their attitude to other peoples beliefs. Many atheists and (and theists) are also secularists, which basically states that people are free to openly follow whatever belief system they choose, but are not free to use the state to force their beliefs on others. The sole reason so many secularists come across as antitheists to theists is because the theists insist on forcing their religious beliefs and religiously inspired morality on those who don't want either.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

Who did that? Who told anyone they could / couldn't / shouldn't celebrate whatever they like, whenever they like, however they like? neverever1 certainly didn't do it, I certainly didn't do it.

Neverever1 is telling people that if they eat Easter eggs and have a big meal with family then they're lapsed catholics. Lol. You're doing likewise by pretending the OP is having a pretend communion.

One eyed Jack wrote:

People are more than welcome do do as they please, and the OP posted asking about a ideas for what they termed a "civil Communion". I got where they were coming from, and they didn't really have a point to it other than giving their child a day similar to the children making their Communion. That was before you attempted to add significance to an event where it didn't exist before. The event had more to do with religious ceremonies than it doesn't as the OP wants all of the trimmings with none of the stuffing (never was a fan of stuffing, opinion may vary, other people love the stuff).

Here's the OP's clarification of what they are looking for. They say they used the term secular communion as a term of convenience not to be taken literally.

mar12345 wrote:

I am sorry that my wording has caused so much upset. In my post I called our ceremony a civil "communion" so people could relate to the concept of a child ceremony marking their reaching the age of reason.

I have no intention of emulating a religious ceremony. There will be no little white dress, no big amounts of cash, no eucharist (although there will be wine!). Just a nice gathering of family and friends that would mean the world to a little kid.

I'm not trying to impose it on anyone. I posted this in the "Atheism and Agnosticism" section so as to get some useful suggestions from like-minded people, and I wasn't expecting such unhelpful and decidedly unchristian comments from some.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Point being - the OP didn't know what they wanted, until they were told.

LOL. Is it that easy for you to dismiss what they OP says and make up your alternative version?

One eyed Jack wrote:

They had to be given a meaning for their event, that was otherwise looking like your average having a few friends over for a barbeque. I went to a barbecue once on the invite of a friend who was celebrating her son's Communion. All the relatives and friends were there, about 150 or so in attendance. The thing she may have forgotten to mention was that they were all black! I was a bit apprehensive at first, but it turned out we all had a fantastic day - the kids all played with each other and the adults ate, drank, and were very, very merry!!

One eyed Jack wrote:

There's only one of us engaged in limited thinking here, and it sure as hell ain't me.

Oh I know, yeah. Sure you went to a BBQ with black people once it was just like hanging out with regular people. You must be fierce open minded. I can't tell if you're being serious or just arguing for the sake of it.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God or gods. When you think about it, it is the default position, religion is the choice.

I genuinely don't know that it actually is tbh. What I mean by that is that some people are spiritual, some people aren't. Some people are able to convince themselves of the existence of a greater power than themselves, and some people don't give the idea any thought whatsoever, and are quite content to never give the idea any thought. I used argue myself even that atheism was the default position from birth, until it was actually in this very forum that the concept of atheism is in itself an ideology, a world view, not so much the rejection of the concept of a greater power, but the absence of belief required to give any meaning to the concept of theism. Theism then I interpreted it as the idea of building an ideology around the belief of there being a greater power (I try and avoid the idea of monotheistic deities when I'm talking about this stuff as I've often gotten into it with Hindus and they'll have a different take again on how their ideology is built around a belief in a greater power). In other words - it's not that theism or atheism is the default position, but rather that we use language and story-telling to explain and express either spirituality or lack thereof. This would tend to apply even to those people who identify as atheist or non-religious (people who aren't interested in religion, atheism, theism, deism, etc), but can't start their day without reading their horoscope first before they head off to their mindfulness session... you get the idea hopefully! On some level their spirituality is fulfilled by rituals and communion with others who share their philosophy (I used a small C to denote communion, as opposed to the religious Communion).

smacl wrote: »

Atheism is actually the absence of theism, antitheism is the antithesis of theism. Atheism informs us only about a lack of belief in a God or gods by a person, it says nothing about their attitude to other peoples beliefs. Many atheists and (and theists) are also secularists, which basically states that people are free to openly follow whatever belief system they choose, but are not free to use the state to force their beliefs on others. The sole reason so many secularists come across as antitheists to theists is because the theists insist on forcing their religious beliefs and religiously inspired morality on those who don't want either.

When I used the word antithesis, I was more using it in this context -

NOUN

antitheses (plural noun)
a person or thing that is the direct opposite of someone or something else:
"love is the antithesis of selfishness"
synonyms: (direct) opposite · converse · reverse · reversal · inverse · obverse · the other extreme · the other side of the coin · the flip side
a contrast or opposition between two things:
"the antithesis between occult and rational mentalities"
synonyms: contrast · opposition
a rhetorical or literary device in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed.
"figures of speech such as antithesis" · "his sermons were full of startling antitheses"
(in Hegelian philosophy) the negation of the thesis as the second stage in the process of dialectical reasoning. Compare with synthesis.

Origin
late Middle English (originally denoting the substitution of one grammatical case for another): from late Latin, from Greek antitithenai ‘set against’, from anti ‘against’ + tithenai ‘to place’. The earliest current sense, denoting a rhetorical or literary device, dates from the early 16th cent.

Antitheism on the other hand, I would see as setting itself up in conflict with theism, as in I know that the vast, vast majority of people who identify as either theist or atheist, get on grand with each other, but it is people who are antitheist who are the equivalent of the WBC of theism. They're a tiny, tiny subset of a much larger group of people, and as I was saying to a friend last night - all the good apples will never make the one bad apple into a good apple, but the one bad apple can poison the whole barrel. By that I mean that there are fundamentalists in every ideology who use the ideology to express their misanthropic world view. Most people pay them no heed whatsoever as they can tell the difference between a fundamentalist and a secularist. I believe in secularism myself; I have all the time in the world for spirituality, atheism, theism, deism, etc... fundamentalism though, of any ideology, is just facepalm inducing. Ain't nobody got time for that!

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neverever1 is telling people that if they eat Easter eggs and have a big meal with family then they're lapsed catholics. Lol. You're doing likewise by pretending the OP is having a pretend communion.

Please, if you wouldn't mind, would you point out to me the post which gave you the impression I was pretending the OP is having a pretend communion? I neither implied nor suggested any such thing, but given your mastery for misinterpretation, I shouldn't be surprised that you may have misunderstood the intent of my posts.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's the OP's clarification of what they are looking for. They say they used the term secular communion as a term of convenience not to be taken literally.

I didn't take it literally. I knew what they were talking about from their opening post -

mar12345 wrote: »

Hi,

My daughter who is in 2nd class will not be making her communion, so we decided to have a ceremony at home to make her feel special too. We invited friends and family, will have a bbq so she doesn't feel left out.

Have any of you done something like this? I am looking for nice texts / poems / music and songs that would be meaningful.

Any suggestions much appreciated!!!!

And this was my initial reply -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've heard of it done before alright.

This article might give you some ideas OP -

Communion without the Catholicism

I couldn't possibly have been any more straightforward in giving the OP exactly what they wanted - ideas for a ceremony so her daughter wouldn't feel left out and would feel special. I personally don't see it as necessary, but I chose to reserve judgement. As Frankie would say - "Who am I to judge?"

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. Is it that easy for you to dismiss what they OP says and make up your alternative version?

Not nearly so easy as it appears for you to reject the reality of what actually happened, and substitute it with your own narrative which you came up with based upon your own misinterpretation of other peoples intentions. So much for your whole nonsense about other people's limited thinking and basic grasp of human development and culture then.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I know, yeah. Sure you went to a BBQ with black people once it was just like hanging out with regular people. You must be fierce open minded. I can't tell if you're being serious or just arguing for the sake of it.

Wasn't really the point of that anecdote, but I have no doubt you're set to continue on your crusade to be as obtuse as possible rather than the thought occur to you that someone would be apprehensive about what they may or may not have in common with people who would be of a different ethnicity and culture than they are, but would want to keep an open mind and realise afterwards that they had far more in common with those people than their differences. For such a culture vulture as yourself though, no doubt you're aware that Catholicism in Uganda is a completely different beast altogether to Catholicism in Ireland. These differences of course being influenced by culture, no different really to the way in which attitudes regarding Catholicism in Ireland would be influenced either positively or negatively by cultural values and traditions, which is why the OP was influenced to host a ceremony for her daughter so she wouldn't feel left out and would feel as special as those children who were making their Communion.

Or, I dunno, you could carry on continuing to parse what I've written through the lens of your own persecution complex and continue to read them that way if you like, but I won't be entertaining your bizarre notions any further.

smacl

atheism is in itself an ideology, a world view, not so much the rejection of the concept of a greater power, but the absence of belief required to give any meaning to the concept of theism

I've seen this notion put forward by groups such as Atheist Ireland on this forum too and strongly disagree with it. I would challenge you to find any broadly accepted definition of the word atheist that includes any shared world view or common ideology.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I used the word antithesis, I was more using it in this context

Look more closely at the definition you've provided though, it speaks repeatedly of being in opposition to a thing. This is borne out by looking at the origin of the word from the same definition;

from late Latin, from Greek antitithenai ‘set against’, from anti ‘against’ + tithenai ‘to place’

Antitheism on the other hand is direct opposition to theism, as opposed to secularism which is direct opposition to theistic interference in running of the state.

I have all the time in the world for spirituality, atheism, theism, deism, etc... fundamentalism though, of any ideology, is just facepalm inducing. Ain't nobody got time for that!

Agreed, I'm all for diversity so long as one group doesn't attempt to impose their belief system on others. Going back to the OP, I'd say celebrate what you want, how you want, when you want, and don't get overly concerned with what other people are doing.

magicbastarder

is there an A&A term, similar to godwinning, for when a thread starts out about topic X, but becomes a debate about what 'atheist' means, or who qualifies as such?

Hotblack Desiato

infogiver wrote: »

So my child only mixes with other children at school? My child doesn't play out in the estate with the other children of other faiths? Or at the park? Or play sports with the other kids?

Does RC sacramental preparation normally take place in an estate, park or playing field? What a ridiculous reply.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

I've seen this notion put forward by groups such as Atheist Ireland on this forum too and strongly disagree with it.

You must be imagining things. AI have other goals apart from promoting atheism - e.g. secularism - but that doesn't make those things part of atheism and AI do not say they are.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You must be imagining things. AI have other goals apart from promoting atheism - e.g. secularism - but that doesn't make those things part of atheism and AI do not say they are.

Nope, had a conversation with Michael Nugent on this forum about it some years back where his definition of atheism included an optional shared world-view. Specifically when asked to define atheism;

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheism can mean any position on a scale ranging from a belief that gods do not exist with or without an associated natural worldview, to an absence of belief that gods do exist with no associated ideas or worldviews.

My current take on it is if people want to self identify as atheists and then pin some extra philosophy onto it, they are of course in their rights to do so. I'd still dispute that this a common or broadly accepted use of the term, as per my post here, and think it muddies the water quite as can be seen where Irish Catholics often consider atheism to be similar to a godless religion.

Hotblack Desiato

An atheist can occupy any position along that spectrum and still be an atheist. I don't think that's in dispute.

I don't read Michael's statement there as saying that atheism incorporates an ideology at all, merely that some atheists may have a particular worldview while others don't. I can't imagine there are too many atheists who are not secularists. But many atheists aren't too keen on the humanist label. These are things commonly associated with atheism, but they are not atheism, and are viewpoints not exclusive to atheists.

Perhaps there are other posts in the thread which better illustrate this question?

smacl

An atheist can be any number of other things as well as being an atheist, but the only thing the defines them as being an atheist is that they don't believe in a God or gods. Throwing in bits about worldviews has little to do with atheism, in much the same way as capitalising Atheism to suggest the word is a proper noun similar to a religion. The issue I have with it is there are very many different worldviews that different groups of atheists are likely to share. For example, in this thread it has been mooted that many Catholics don't believe in God and hence are atheists. Many of them could well share a worldview but I rather doubt it is the same worldview that Michael is referring to. IMHO, if you want atheist to mean something above and beyond its common dictionary definition, qualify it with an adjective, e.g. in the above case Catholic atheist.

This becomes useful in the context of the OP, because they basically want to enjoy festivals associated with Catholicism at a social level but don't want the associated religious faff. Nothing wrong with that, as Frank Zappa once said, "you are what you is".

infogiver

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Does RC sacramental preparation normally take place in an estate, park or playing field? What a ridiculous reply.

Children going out to play this week and every week all over the world will chat non stop about all the details of an upcoming family celebration, especially if the star of the show is themselves!
I don't know if your a parent or planning or hoping to be a parent but you'll find that other parents DONT generally warn their own kids not to talk about the up coming communion/Eid/bar mitzvah in case it offends Hotblacks child.
Your the one who is being ridiculous if you think that you can control the atmosphere and the company your child keeps.
Unless of course your going to wrap them up and hold them captive inside

robindch

infogiver wrote: »

Children going out to play this week and every week all over the world will chat non stop about all the details of an upcoming family celebration, especially if the star of the show is themselves!

Not sure whether you've been to any recent communion events, but if the ones I've seen over the last few years are anything to go by, the only topic of conversation beforehand, is how much money they're going to get and afterwards, is how much money they got. Outside of whatever the mandatory religious injections they receive in the classroom, religion itself - ostensibly the actual purpose of the event - doesn't figure in the slightest.

From that perspective, the event is certainly a useful introduction to the RCC.

infogiver

robindch wrote: »

Not sure whether you've been to any recent communion events, but if the ones I've seen over the last few years are anything to go by, the only topic of conversation beforehand, is how much money they're going to get and afterwards, is how much money they got. Outside of whatever the mandatory religious injections they receive in the classroom, religion itself - ostensibly the actual purpose of the event - doesn't figure in the slightest.

From that perspective, the event is certainly a useful introduction to the RCC.

I didn't say that the children out playing would be discussing the religious aspect of the upcoming religious celebration ( but I don't know because I'm not out playing with them, i'd look a bit odd, TBH) but this thread is about compensating your non religious child for missing out on the "treat" aspect (from the child's POV) of the whole thing.
My point is, some of the posters here are coming across as a bit naive in thinking that they can inure their children from exposure to other children's religions, and it's foolish to think they can.
Once again, parents don't warn their own kids not to mention the religious event in front of the non religious children. Why on earth would they?
Unless you don't let them out and then keep them close to home forever.

robindch

infogiver wrote: »

My point is, some of the posters here are coming across as a bit naive in thinking that they can inure their children from exposure to other children's religions, and it's foolish to think they can.

Must have missed something - could you point out, with quotations, which posters are trying to "inure their children from exposure to other children's religions"?

infogiver

robindch wrote: »

Must have missed something - could you point out, with quotations, which posters are trying to "inure their children from exposure to other children's religions"?

Maybe inure is the wrong word, but the whole thread is about compensating your child because another child is enjoying something your child can't.
In my opinion that's misguided parenting.
Sometimes other children get to have treats that you won't get, and the chitchat when your out playing will be about something that you can't join in on.
That doesn't mean that your being deliberately left out or that your a "victim" of anything, and it doesn't mean that you have to be thrown a party for no reason just so that you don't feel left out or victimised.
Also once again, do you think any of the Muslim children at the primary school will be having a party to compensate them for the communion parties?

pilly

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there an A&A term, similar to godwinning, for when a thread starts out about topic X, but becomes a debate about what 'atheist' means, or who qualifies as such?

Don't know, but since every single thread ends up the same there certainly should be one.

robindch

infogiver wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Must have missed something - could you point out, with quotations, which posters are trying to "inure their children from exposure to other children's religions"?

Maybe inure is the wrong word,

It's not the wrong word - it's a direct misrepresentation of what's happening - there's a Commandment about that you know! :rolleyes:

infogiver wrote: »

[...] but the whole thread is about compensating your child because another child is enjoying something your child can't.

It really is much simpler - a child sees some of his/her friends going off and earning upwards of EUR500 and he/she doesn't because their parents aren't members of the social club which thinks this is an appropriate thing for kids of seven and eight years old, to say nothing of the unbelievable inappropriateness of dressing young girls up as child brides.

While it would be better not to be put into this difficult situation in the first place, it's good that parents find some way that the kids can enjoy a similar day out so that they don't feel left out.

The RCC, of course, openly encourages this kind of out-grouping so that the majority of compliant parents and families will just shut up and go along with it - to the benefit of the RCC which claims, improbably, that this indicates that their collapsing membership is remaining solid.

As I said above, as an introduction to the way the RCC co-opts social ritual for its own benefit and regardless of what anything really means, this exercise is an excellent introduction indeed to the cynical realpolitik of the RCC.