are our Catholic/Christian values being brushed aside?

skooterblue2

batgoat wrote: »

So punish the son because of who the father is? Btw, since Ibrahim returned to Ireland, he hasn't come across as remotely radical. Also, imprisonment without trial isn't remotely acceptable and that's what Halawa was facing for years.

Whao whao, I didnt imprison him, Irish people didnt imprison him and the Catholic church didnt imprison him. He went there when he knew he was a "Person of Interest" to the Egyptian Government. He went protesting off his own bat. He lied several times and was caught out ...... soooo many times.

I am not saying his imprisonment was fair or legal but he went playing with fire. I Have often gone abroad and never felt the need to back answer a police officer or cause civil unrest. He was there for the Arab spring and when it went sour then he started complaining that he was Irish. He abused the Irish Ambassador after she bringing him care packages every three weeks. His sisters absconded while on bail.

I have no doubt about it we will here about him again.

sk8erboii

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Erm actually when you shouting "hate speech" and "Political Correctness" that is imposing your beliefs. "Political correctness" is a phrase borrowed from communism, meaning you towed the party line. We all know or would rather not know what happened in countries like Poland, Russia, China.

LOL

‘Political Correctness’ was first used in the US justice system. Then later prominently used by the Nazis.

The amount of uneducated people in AH astounds me


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

batgoat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Whao whao, I didnt imprison him, Irish people didnt imprison him and the Catholic church didnt imprison him. He went there when he knew he was a "Person of Interest" to the Egyptian Government. He went protesting off his own bat. He lied several times and was caught out ...... soooo many times.

I am not saying his imprisonment was fair or legal but he went playing with fire. I Have often gone abroad and never felt the need to back answer a police officer or cause civil unrest. He was there for the Arab spring and when it went sour then he started complaining that he was Irish. He abused the Irish Ambassador after she bringing him care packages every three weeks. His sisters absconded while on bail.

I have no doubt about it we will here about him again.

Cool, so you realise Amnesty intervene on human rights issues? And his imprisonment without trial very much so fell under that. So O'Gorman and the Irish government did exactly what I would expect of them. Now get over yourself, what O'Gorman did had no commonality with backing up abusers in the church. It was a reprehensible remark.

skooterblue2

sk8erboii wrote: »

LOL

‘Political Correctness’ was first used in the US justice system. Then later prominently used by the Nazis.

The amount of uneducated people in AH astounds me


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Ermmmmm That is Wikipedia. Never quote wikipedia as source. Rookie mistake, learned that the hard way in college, zero points in a report from a lecturer who kindly took me aside and told me it had no standing.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

Cool, so you realise Amnesty intervene on human rights issues? And his imprisonment without trial very much so fell under that. So O'Gorman and the Irish government did exactly what I would expect of them. Now get over yourself, what O'Gorman did had no commonality with backing up abusers in the church. It was a reprehensible remark.

He should never have been looking for the release of that guy from Egypt.
It upset me greatly to see the Irish government getting so involved in that face. I presume there was some other agenda behind it, probably doing it because some powerful idiot in Europe wanted them to.

sk8erboii

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Ermmmmm That is Wikipedia. Never quote wikipedia as source. Rookie mistake, learned that the hard way in college, zero points in a report from a lecturer who kindly took me aside and told me it had no standing.

K

First use 1793 us court

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/2/419.html

skooterblue2

batgoat wrote: »

Cool, so you realise Amnesty intervene on human rights issues? And his imprisonment without trial very much so fell under that. So O'Gorman and the Irish government did exactly what I would expect of them. Now get over yourself, what O'Gorman did had no commonality with backing up abusers in the church. It was a reprehensible remark.

No, when you take up arms in another army or terrorist organisation abroad you are on your own. Like a mercenary you are representing a change of government or alternative government. Like those two clown out in Syria and the two before them, once you are out there as a combatant you are on your own.

Yeah he does he turns a blind eye to the FGM cases here the Muslim Brotherhood against Coptic Christians in Egypt and he has his snout firmly in the trough.

skooterblue2

eagle eye wrote: »

He should never have been looking for the release of that guy from Egypt.
It upset me greatly to see the Irish government getting so involved in that face. I presume there was some other agenda behind it, probably doing it because some powerful idiot in Europe wanted them to.

Well really it was an Egyptian matter. Musch the same as if US popstar threw a wobbler on an airplane coming into Shannon at 1200 feet and an American Senator got onto to the Department of Foreign affairs to see what could be done?

I would have to say "it is an Irish matter and it is in the hands of the judicary and it would be improper to interfere". Same story here. The Halawas are very powerful and influential in the Islamic world.

batgoat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No, when you take up arms in another army or terrorist organisation abroad you are on your own. Like a mercenary you are representing a change of government or alternative government. Like those two clown out in Syria and the two before them, once you are out there as a combatant you are on your own.

Yeah he does he turns a blind eye to the FGM cases here the Muslim Brotherhood against Coptic Christians in Egypt and he has his snout firmly in the trough.

He didn't do anything violent, he didn't take up arms and was being held without trial. You think it should be human rights for just some? That's a very anti western view tbh.

Also FYI, Colm O'Gorman has always called out fgm. Here's tweets from just last year. So yep I think it's more your own extreme views that are shading your opinions here. Eg all the global conspiracies you believe in.
https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/962331752500006915?s=19
https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/962083374079905793?s=19

Dravokivich

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You vet them properly at the airport. Very little you can do in Ireland without a bank account, Photo ID and a PPS number. Any ones surplus to requirement or without a valid reason to be here back on the boat/airplane with you.

Coast

Line

As in, if someone really wants to get here and cause an problems, they don't need to use an airport or ferry.

EdgeCase

In general the values that underpin most of what we stand for in Ireland, Europe, North America but also plenty of other highly developed parts of the world like Japan, South Korea and so on are coming from post-enlightenment era thinking about democracy and trace back to notions of 'natural law' in the sense that by the nature of what a human is they have rights. Those philosophical theories predate Christianity by a long time, even if they were merged into some aspects of christian philosophers' thinking. You'll find them in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Gaelic societies, Brehon Law. You'll also find parallel notions in asian philosophies that developed separately and in parallel.

Then you see them formalised in great sparks of enlightenment like the Magna Carta and later in the Enlightenment, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France, the US Declaration of Independence and aspects of its constitution - notably the Bill of Rights. Then the moves towards universal suffrage democracies.

You had the women's rights and women's right to vote movements.

Post WWII you see the emergence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the founding of the UN, then the European institutions start to appear which are firmly part of that kind of philosophy of human rights, individual rights, solid guarantees of democracy and peaceful coexistence.

You've had those concept progressed further and further tackling issues like gender discrimination, racism and homophobia.

Also the underlying structures of our state come largely from the concepts developed by ancient republics - parliaments, senates, elected presidencies. Even in constitutional monarchies the systems are far more like a republic in many ways other than a powerless figurehead monarch. Also concepts around jurisprudence and rule of law / formalised law and legal systems, due process, equality before the law and so on. Even if there are differences in the structures of systems e.g. common law vs civil code, their concepts are all very similar.

So, my argument is that our values aren't actually Christian. They're post-enlightenment western.

If anything the way the Catholic Church behaved here in the middle 20th century very seriously undermined those values by usurping aspects of the state and pushing what was supposed to be a republic into being some kind of corporatist church/state entity, something it never should have been.

The kinds of values the church pushed here were not in line with any of that. They undermined human rights, individual rights and quite a lot of values that should've been key to our identity as a republic.

It's also very dangerous to fall into the US trap of assuming that their values are Christian. That largely came out of a combination of trying to place distance between themselves and "non-religious commies" of the USSR and a push by right wing religious communities around identity politics. The simple fact is the US' biggest achievements are all secular ones. They're nothing to do with christian values or any other religion's values for that matter either. They're part of a much broader secular philosophy that goes back many centuries.

sk8erboii

EdgeCase wrote: »

In general the values that underpin most of what we stand for in Ireland, Europe, North America but also plenty of other highly developed parts of the world like Japan, South Korea and so on are coming from post-enlightenment era thinking about democracy and trace back to notions of 'natural law' in the sense that by the nature of what a human is they have rights. Those philosophical theories predate Christianity by a long time, even if they were merged into some aspects of christian philosophers' thinking. You'll find them in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Gaelic societies, Brehon Law. You'll also find parallel notions in asian philosophies that developed separately and in parallel.

Then you see them formalised in great sparks of enlightenment like the Magna Carta and later in the Enlightenment, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France, the US Declaration of Independence and aspects of its constitution - notably the Bill of Rights. Then the moves towards universal suffrage democracies.

You had the women's rights and women's right to vote movements.

Post WWII you see the emergence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the founding of the UN, then the European institutions start to appear which are firmly part of that kind of philosophy of human rights, individual rights, solid guarantees of democracy and peaceful coexistence.

You've had those concept progressed further and further tackling issues like gender discrimination, racism and homophobia.

Also the underlying structures of our state come largely from the concepts developed by ancient republics - parliaments, senates, elected presidencies. Even in constitutional monarchies the systems are far more like a republic in many ways other than a powerless figurehead monarch.

So, my argument is that our values aren't actually Christian. They're post-enlightenment western.

If anything the way the Catholic Church behaved here in the middle 20th century very seriously undermined those values by usurping aspects of the state and pushing what was supposed to be a republic into being some kind of corporatist church/state entity, something it never should have been.

The kinds of values the church pushed here were not in line with any of that. They undermined human rights, individual rights and quite a lot of values that should've been key to our identity as a republic.

It's also very dangerous to fall into the US trap of assuming that their values are Christian. That largely came out of a combination of trying to place distance between themselves and "non-religious commies" of the USSR. The simple fact is the US' biggest achievements are all secular ones. They're nothing to do with christian values or any other religion's values for that matter either. They're part of a much broader secular philosophy that goes back many centuries.

This post is correct. In fact during the early modern period, englightenment era humanists shat on the church at every chance they get.

But uneducated apologists wouldnt know any of these words anyway.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Well, the values cited as good Christian values always just seem to me to be good values that everyone, Christian or otherwise, are taught. You know, like ‘Don’t steal’, ‘Be polite’, ‘Don’t lie’ etc. etc.

These values won’t just disappear if Catholicism continues its decline in this country, because they aren’t just Christian values, they are universal good values that anyone with a decent upbringing is taught.

Muckka

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, the values cited as good Christian values always just seem to me to be good values that everyone, Christian or otherwise, are taught. You know, like ‘Don’t steal’, ‘Be polite’, ‘Don’t lie’ etc. etc.

These values won’t just disappear if Catholicism continues its decline in this country, because they aren’t just Christian values, they are universal good values that anyone with a decent upbringing is taught.

That's why brehon law's were way better than cannon law's or the king's law.

EdgeCase

sk8erboii wrote: »

This post is correct. In fact during the early modern period, englightenment era humanists shat on the church at every chance they get.

But uneducated apologists wouldnt know any of these words anyway.

It went both ways - the church did plenty of trying to stamp them out too. Condemning scientists as heretics and so on. They only apologised to Galileo Galilei in the 1990s over 350 after his death!

If you consider what they did here with the magdalene laundries, the institutional abuses that were often justified with christian value excuses and so on, are those really Irish values? We they really ever Irish values or even human values? Personally I don't think so as most of us are absolutely shocked and appalled by what happened and we tend to stand by each other in normal circumstances.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

He should never have been looking for the release of that guy from Egypt.
It upset me greatly to see the Irish government getting so involved in that face. I presume there was some other agenda behind it, probably doing it because some powerful idiot in Europe wanted them to.

Same thing used to be said about the Birmingham six and Guildford four by a lot of Irish.

To answer your earlier question yes most non religious people associate with different types of people. Given the fact that as stated by the op the vast majority of the population are moving from religion and most young people are open to new things and cultures.
It tends to be the older says 40s onward who have issues with change. Always has been always will

splashuum

I’m not at all religious and don’t beleive in any “god” as such. However I would much prefer to live in a Christian orientated community rather than an Islamic community.

EdgeCase

splashuum wrote: »

I’m not at all religious and don’t beleive in any “god” as such. However I would much prefer to live in a Christian orientated community rather than an Islamic community.

I'd prefer to live in a secular orientated community that didn't grant deference to any 3rd party and respected human rights, individual rights, democracy and understands that its government's right to rule comes directly and only from the people, not from a divine power or inheritance through dynasty.

The choice is not you can live in a christian community or an islamic community.

You can and basically do live in a secular community that generally sees religion as a private matter.

The simple fact is that the islamic societies you're talking about are usually theocracies and are typically also authoritarian states.
General modern christian beliefs may not be as extreme and most christians are pretty secular in their approach to religion, but it's not something that's intrinsic in christianly, rather it's a feature of the secular post-enlightenment societies they grew up in.

If you combined something like evangelical christian or catholic fundamentalism with a dictatorship you can get rather extremely unpleasant results and it has happened, e.g. in Franco's Spain and to a degree here (albeit in a functioning democracy that was somehow rolled into behaving very oddly) when the church had unaccountable and absolute power in large areas of life.

You can see the results of it in some African dictatorships too with things like brutal persecution of gay people and so on.

The reality of is that universal human rights and enlightenment values are what underlies our societies and whether you're Atheist, Agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Shinto, Hindu, Muslim or anything else it can work fine.

I think most people can agree, there is a serious issue with political islam and islamic extremism turning states into authoritarian theocracies. That's not what you get if you're not a christian state, it's what you get when you lose all your human rights and hand your state over to a bunch of religious extremists to run it on the basis of a very narrow intrpretation of a particular theological belief system.

What defines the modern era are secular values. Where they're removed entirely or badly undermined you basically see a trip back to a medieval view of the world - religious dogma, anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic and rule by strongmen / kings etc.

Americans in particularly need to start appreciating what their post enlightenment state and culture actually is. They're rapidly losing sight of what the US was built on and what made it stand out as a beacon that inspired a lot of democratic developments. It was never about religious fundamentalism and strongman leadership and now what do we have? A strong man leader backed by the religious far right.

hatrickpatrick

eagle eye wrote: »

My mother is a deeply religious person who goes to mass every day and she voted for abortion and for gay marriage.

And according to the leadership of her church, she should be excommunicated for that. You don't see that as an organisation which needs to be entirely expunged from having any influence over state policy or cultural norms?

mad muffin

Religion of any kind has no place in modern society.

EdgeCase

mad muffin wrote: »

Religion of any kind has no place in modern society.

Well it has a place, as a private matter of personal freedom.

The problem is when religion is incorporated into a state or into the provision of state services, where it is directly impacting policy decisions or where people are compelled or otherwise coerced to take on a particular religious belief.

Religion shouldn't be something that the state has a position on and absolutely shouldn't be something that's forced upon anyone.

My view of it is you should both have freedom of and from religion, depending on what your personal preference is.

decky1

I think we are at the stage where nobody give 2 f##ks about anyone or anything, all out for themselves,religion is out the window, Christmas is all about presents no mention of Jesus anymore, the kids with communion + confirmation it all about how much money they get nothing about Jesus there either, I'm not a religious person myself but i think it's all changing for the worst

eagle eye

hatrickpatrick wrote:

And according to the leadership of her church, she should be excommunicated for that. You don't see that as an organisation which needs to be entirely expunged from having any influence over state policy or cultural norms?

If they have influence over state policy it's due to the amount of Roman Catholics who vote for parties who will follow their wishes.
As time goes by I'm sure they will get smaller and smaller but you using words like expunge sounds similar to ISIS or the Crusades.

sk8erboii

decky1 wrote: »

I think we are at the stage where nobody give 2 f##ks about anyone or anything, all out for themselves,religion is out the window, Christmas is all about presents no mention of Jesus anymore, the kids with communion + confirmation it all about how much money they get nothing about Jesus there either, I'm not a religious person myself but i think it's all changing for the worst

The ‘good ol days’ never existed

Muckka

mad muffin wrote: »

Religion of any kind has no place in modern society.

Or those who make a big deal out of not believing in something that doesn't exist.

I think the latter are more delusional than the believers, because there's no point in spouting off about a car without any engine and you want to drive somewhere...

I've always been confused about why people proclaim they're atheists and how religion is bollox...and they're obsessed about it.

This isn't a moral judgement or atack on atheists or believers.

But the atheism thing baffles me....

eagle eye

mad muffin wrote:

Religion of any kind has no place in modern society.

No it's people who think like what you just said that we can do without.
It's ok not to be religious but other people have an entitlement to practice religion if they so wish.

EdgeCase

eagle eye wrote: »

No it's people who think like what you just said that we can do without.
It's ok not to be religious but other people have an entitlement to practice religion if they so wish.

Well it's this kind of thing that also causes unhelpful confusion between secularism and atheism.

Wheres Me Jumper?

mad muffin wrote: »

Religion of any kind has no place in modern society.

so ironic how those folk who imagine themselves to be so secular & broadminded, come across as so dogmatic. :rolleyes:

EdgeCase

Well they're not being secular by stating that.
Secular position is one of freedom of conscience and religious beliefs or non religious beliefs being your own business.

DS86DS

If anybody doubts that our culture and Catholic traditions are under attack, then just start a thread about this exact point.

A certain left wing mod will rush in on his white horse to lock the thread before you can even blink :rolleyes:

gctest50

decky1 wrote: »

I think we are at the stage where nobody give 2 f##ks about anyone or anything, all out for themselves,religion is out the window, Christmas is all about presents no mention of Jesus anymore, the kids with communion + confirmation it all about how much money they get nothing about Jesus there either, I'm not a religious person myself but i think it's all changing for the worst

decky1 wrote: »

.........

Christmas is all about presents no mention of Jesus anymore

"Christmas" used to be Saturnalia : http://bfy.tw/7Slj

decky1 wrote: »

..................

all out for themselves,religion is out the window

If someone "needs" religion to just be a normal decent enough person, they are truly useless


.

DS86DS

DS86DS wrote: »

If anybody doubts that our culture and Catholic traditions are under attack, then just start a thread about this exact point.

A certain left wing mod will rush in on his white horse to lock the thread before you can even blink :rolleyes:

Ah poir you try starting anything other than an anti migration thread.

eagle eye

EdgeCase wrote:

Well it's this kind of thing that also causes unhelpful confusion between secularism and atheism.

Please explain.

sk8erboii

Conservatives: Multiculturalism and migration is bad!
Also conservatives: *Worships foreign religion based in Rome and culturally appropriated from the Middle East*

rob316

The whole thing is utter bollox. You live your life how you want to it has no bearing on an imaginary after life. There are laws and regulations in place that tell me when I step out of place.

There's a reason I haven't been to mass since I was 14, we are too free thinking now and realise how utterly ridiculous the notion of religion is.

Religion is like a law but thankfully I now live in an Ireland where the Catholic influence is dying by the day.

Once we separate religion from State schools that will be the end of it here. It's the only reason anyone is still baptising their children and adding to their numbers.

nozzferrahhtoo

Muckka wrote: »

I've always been confused about why people proclaim they're atheists and how religion is bollox...and they're obsessed about it.

To assist in allaying your confusion I can offer my own experiences if it helps.

I for one would like to wake up tomorrow morning and never come up against, discuss, or bother with "Religion" ever again. I am simply... not.... let.

There are many things I am personally interested in and/or very active in. Education of children is one. Science is another. Medicine another. Politics. Issues of ethics and morality. Sexuality, sexual issues, sexual health are on the list. Some issues around law. Human psychology. It is a long enough list, and it goes on.

In every single one of those, bar none, I am confronted by the faithful using their belief in god as a first level premise upon which second level premise arguments in those fields are based.

Take the analogy I use often. I think the kind of trousers worn by people in golf clubs are patently ridiculous. They look comical to me, unwieldy, obscene checkered nonsense with color choices that are an offense to my eyes.

Do I kick in their door demanding they stop wearing this awful pants? No. I do not. Never. Ever. I simply have no reason to.

SHOULD such people suddenly leave their club houses not just wearing those pants but demanding everyone else wear them too, or throwing out threats against peoples well being and happiness, or petitioning for laws that forbid commentary from non-wearers of the pants about those pants..... then I very much would not only resist their efforts, but ALSO offer them discourse on just how ridiculous their pants are.

Similarly if people wanted to pray at home, or go to their club houses that are called churches, and enjoy wearing their mental golf pants in this way, I simply would not have issue with them. At all. Ever. But this is not what they do. They instead walk into our halls of power, education and science and make the kind of noises that simply leave me unable to do anything but respond.

Especially when some of the noises they make on the subject genuinely does lead to a reduction in human well being. Such as the preaching of the sinful use of condoms in AIDS ravaged countries or the "soul enters the zygote at conception" style ideas that so heavily permeate our discourse on everything from abortion or medical stem cell research and treatments.

DS86DS

rob316 wrote: »

The whole thing is utter bollox. You live your life how you want to it has no bearing on an imaginary after life. There are laws and regulations in place that tell me when I step out of place.

There's a reason I haven't been to mass since I was 14, we are too free thinking now and realise how utterly ridiculous the notion of religion is.

Religion is like a law but thankfully I now live in an Ireland where the Catholic influence is dying by the day.

Once we separate religion from State schools that will be the end of it here. It's the only reason anyone is still baptising their children and adding to their numbers.

See how much Freedom of Association you or your children will have when Islam becomes the dominant ideology.

DS86DS

sk8erboii wrote: »

Conservatives: Multiculturalism and migration is bad!
Also conservatives: *Worships foreign religion based in Rome and culturally appropriated from the Middle East*

The usual try hard and unfunny crap from sk8erboii

sk8erboii

DS86DS wrote: »

The usual try hard and unfunny crap from sk8erboii

? Its the truth

EdgeCase

eagle eye wrote: »

Please explain.

Secularism is basically the state taking a totally neutral position on religious belief and leaving it entirely up to individuals.

Ireland is mostly like that except, notably, in primary and secondary education and come aspects of health.

Atheism is a philosophical position that there is no god(s).

In a secular society it doesn't matter what religion you are or if you're an atheist as the state simply does not take any position or place any obstacles in way of access to services and so on because of your choice of beliefs or non beliefs.

When people say secularism is atheism it's basically throwing mud into the water. Secularism isn't about abolishing religion. It's about ensuring the state takes no position on it and allows you the freedom of your beliefs.

The United States is secular (despite the best efforts of the far right to undo that). France is secular. Most developed nations are secular (although many may not be perfectly so) ... Compare that with the USSR or China which were/are atheist and basically banned or highly regulate religion.

When someone turns a debate about secularism into one about atheism, it's simply having a debate about a parallel issue that's nothing to do with secularism. They're not the same thing.

For religious people in Ireland a secular society simply means you in can be whatever religion you like and the state will respect that and won't try to mould you into being a happy little Catholic or tell you you can't get medical treatment because the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't agree with the use of tubes as they look too much like spaghetti and are blasphemous.

It also means if you're non religious it won't try to convert you or impede access to services etc.

It's a perfectly fair and reasonable way of running a pluralist society.

sk8erboii

sk8erboii wrote: »

Conservatives: Multiculturalism and migration is bad!
Also conservatives: *Worships foreign religion based in Rome and culturally appropriated from the Middle East*

At the end of the day rapeal conservatives have one god that they would step over anyone for and that's their bank balance.

Companies are always going to look for the cheapest most exploitable workforce they can find. It's been this way since the industrial revolution. Religious organizations sided with employers due to the fear of socialism/communist influence in trade unions and people thinking for themselves, while individual members tried to help the poor.

All in all someone having their own religious beliefs I've no problem with, fanatics of any religion or belief be it left or right are people I have a problem with as they can't think for themselves and just spout the same ****e that their leaders tell them.

eagle eye

DubInMeath wrote:

All in all someone having their own religious beliefs I've no problem with, fanatics of any religion or belief be it left or right are people I have a problem with as they can't think for themselves and just spout the same ****e that their leaders tell them.

I'd agree with that as long as you add fanatics of atheism.

DS86DS

DS86DS wrote: »

See how much Freedom of Association you or your children will have when Islam becomes the dominant ideology.

The whole point is we are becoming more secular, so no religion will be dominant. Your talking ****e.

Akrasia

People can believe whatever they like, but the catholic church is an institution that has committed so many atrocities against innocent children and vulnerable young women (and still covers them up)
Here's a partial list of countries that have had major child sex abuse (often rising up to child rape) scandals involving the Roman Catholic church. All of which would have been under instruction from Rome to hide the allegations and deny them, and move the priests around to avoid prosecution and protect the reputation of the church.

Kenya, Tanzania, Philippines, India, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, England, Scotland, Wales,
Canada, Mexico, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru

The only reason the list is so short is because much of the developing world have not yet properly investigated this. Everywhere there has been any kind of investigation into the church, endemic abuse and concealment of child abuse has been found. In some cases, to shockingly high levels.

Nobody should support this organisation. Not now that we know what they were doing, and still to this day, continue sheltering priests and protecting abusers, while putting children in ongoing danger of being raped.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd agree with that as long as you add fanatics of atheism.

Never met one personally despite knowing a few people who call themselves atheists and their beliefs haven't impacted on my life personally like those of the religious have

eagle eye

DubInMeath wrote:

Never met one personally despite knowing a few people who call themselves atheists and their beliefs haven't impacted on my life personally like those of the religious have

Whether you've met one or not they are out there and loads of them.
Surely you'd agree that they are as bad as the over zealous religious people?

mad muffin

EdgeCase wrote: »

Well it has a place, as a private matter of personal freedom.

The problem is when religion is incorporated into a state or into the provision of state services, where it is directly impacting policy decisions or where people are compelled or otherwise coerced to take on a particular religious belief.

Religion shouldn't be something that the state has a position on and absolutely shouldn't be something that's forced upon anyone.

My view of it is you should both have freedom of and from religion, depending on what your personal preference is.

EdgeCase wrote: »

Well it's this kind of thing that also causes unhelpful confusion between secularism and atheism.

eagle eye wrote: »

No it's people who think like what you just said that we can do without.
It's ok not to be religious but other people have an entitlement to practice religion if they so wish.

No religion period. You could never convince me that religion has ever been a force for good.

Also, I can understand people believing in “gods” thousands of years ago, when they weren’t enlightened. Not now.

I’d sooner believe that we are ruled by lizard overlords than “god”.

eagle eye

mad muffin wrote:

No religion period. You could never convince me that religion has ever been a force for good.
Also, I can understand people believing in “gods†thousands of years ago, when they weren’t enlightened. Not now.
I’d sooner believe that we are ruled by lizard overlords than “godâ€.

You remind me of a religious nut. Same thing only you've chosen the no God side. You could just as easily have been one of those vocal religious people you really despise.
You are the same as them.

mad muffin

eagle eye wrote: »

You remind me of a religious nut. Same thing only you've chosen the no God side. You could just as easily have been one of those vocal religious people you really despise.
You are the same as them.

Read my lips… n o r e l i g i o n.

rob316

DS86DS wrote: »

See how much Freedom of Association you or your children will have when Islam becomes the dominant ideology.

How would that happen? It's an even more backwards religion.