No Day of Mourning?

GuanYin

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

By that you mean 75% put in on the form because they don't wantto put atheist or no-religion, it doesn't mean that 75% give a moments thought to catholicism daily.

Why can't the pay tribute on their own time like every other religion has to?

Ray777

psi wrote:

Practicing or non practicing?

I don't think that matters. If you were to ask everybody in this country, what is their religion - the majority would say 'Catholic'. Regardless of how lapsed they may or may not be, it's where their allegiances lie.

As a result of the fact that the internet is largely populated by privileged under-40s, readers of discussion forums such as this would be mistaken for thinking that the majority of people in Ireland are Atheist. That is not the case.

GuanYin

Ray777 wrote:

I don't think that matters. If you were to ask everybody in this country, what is their religion - the majority would say 'Catholic'. Regardless of how lapsed they may or may not be, it's where their allegiances lie.

I think it does matter, if a percentage of these catholics didn't practice catholicism in any way shape or form, bar ticking a box on a census forum and for instance, only cared about a day of mourning so they could spendit in the pub, then I would argue that their opinion isn't valid on the matter.

As a result of the fact that the internet is largely populated by privileged under-40s, readers of discussion forums such as this would be mistaken for thinking that the majority of people in Ireland are Atheist. That is not the case.

I never thought that for a second.

Actually, I would be in favour of a day of mourning, so long as the sale of alcohol was prohibited for the 24 hour period in question.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

psi wrote:

Actually, I would be in favour of a day of mourning, so long as the sale of alcohol was prohibited for the 24 hour period in question.

It wouldn't be a proper wake then

GuanYin

The Corinthian wrote:

It wouldn't be a proper wake then

Hehe, well I'd be interested to see how many people would cause uproar.

I mean, technically it should be none, right? Because everyone would be mourning in a state of spiritual reflection......

Essey

Memnoch wrote:

hahahahahahahha... wait wait.... hahahahahaah....



if people want to follow their own idea of faith, a lifestyle based on blind ignorance based solely on the false promises a political institution (religion) has to offer than that is up to them

Why do some "atheists" feel the need to put down the opinions of people with faith? The Pope was a better human being than any of you could hope to be.
He:
Pursued his beliefs while under a totalitarian regime
Stood firm against communism
Preached unity among the differing faiths
Reached out to the poor, youth, and disenfranchised
Preach dignity in human life whether pre-birth or end of life
Had a good sense of humor (something even a few of the atheists here could learn from)
(Condoms aren't a foolproof way to control (prevent) AIDS - abstinence is)
Most of all his belived in something and stood by his beliefs even if they were unpopular.

BTW: I'm not sure I need spiritual/political/and intellectual guidance from someone who get there pen name from an Anne Rice novel eh luvely.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

psi wrote:

Hehe, well I'd be interested to see how many people would cause uproar.

I mean, technically it should be none, right? Because everyone would be mourning in a state of spiritual reflection......

why would everyone be in a state of mourning

Essey

Ziggy babe - not everything in life is a conspiracy! The Church did take action in the child abuse cases ( JPII called the Cardinal to Rome for a summit) And the result was eg: the Cardinal Law situation (as others). Not every institution is perfect - its human! and there are sex offenders out there that aren't Church members. The Church has made its fair share of mistakes - but those without errors cast yer stones. Don't ridicule a person because their beliefs differ from yours - admire him/her for swimming against the tide. At the end of the day it is your choice. With all this "anything goes" noise bombarding society - gee I don't see a whole lot of contentment going around - ever think for a second YOU might be wrong. Take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming the Church for everything! 'nuff said Ziggly pooh.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie2

Essey wrote:

Why do some "atheists" feel the need to put down the opinions of people with faith?

Because they know if they went round saying that their imaginary friend (God, Allah, Fred, whoever) tells them to do this that and the other, they'd deserve to be locked up in a mental home?

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Because they know if they went round saying that their imaginary friend (God, Allah, Fred, whoever) tells them to do this that and the other, they'd deserve to be locked up in a mental home?

Or a gulag.

Redleslie2

Or a katorga even.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Strange, isn't it!

Its almost as though if you accused Africans of genocide, you'd be branded a racist, but if you accuse "the white man" of it....thats just fine.

Same way men can typically criticise what they like about the male of the species, but say a single thing derogatory about the opposite sex......

Its not just this issue. Ppl tend to have less of a problem when you criticise a group to which you (notionally, at least) belong. I can pretty much guarantee you that if any of the posts lambasting the Pope over Christianity's record had started with "I am a Muslim", it wouldn't take long for someone to start taking offence.

The Corinthian wrote:

Which is why we get a bank holiday for Easter and two for Christmas, and why our national day is a Saint’s feast day

All of which were established while our constitution gave Catholicism a form of primacy. I cannot think of a single religious holiday which was made a national holiday since our constitution was amended in 1973.

Given that not every religious holiday is a national holiday, nor every national holiday a religious one, I can see the argument (though I don't necessarily agree with it) that post-73 there was no need to change these holidays - that they may be coincidental with religious holidays, but that they were not holidays for religious purposes. (Its a cop-out, I know, but consider teh parallel of how Catholicism came by many of these holidays in the first place.)

As an aside...I wonder if anyone has ever taken a case against the government to abolish any of them on the grounds that they were made unconstitutional by the referendum of 1973, and if so what the grounds were for finding that they weren't unconstitutional. Anyone wanna point me at where I could look this up?

No because the legitimacy for such an event is largely as a result of a government policy first enacted in 2001.

My history is failing me. What religion did the government show precedence to over others - thus setting a precedent - in 2001? The only event I can think of was the attacks of September 11th, but there was no religion shown favouritism there, so I hnoestly can't see how any policy was set there regarding our constitutional stance re: religious primacy.

Was there some other event that I'm forgetting, or some religious aspect of this one that I'm missing?

jc

Memnoch

Essey wrote:

Why do some "atheists" feel the need to put down the opinions of people with faith?

I'm not an atheist. And why do religious people feel the need to enforce their blind ignorance upon society in general and everyone else in particular?

The Pope was a better human being than any of you could hope to be.

the pope was no better than osama bin laden as far as i'm concerned.

He:
Pursued his beliefs while under a totalitarian regime

and yet tries to impose a totalitarian christian regime everywhere he can, urging governments to follow religon.

Stood firm against communism

nothing wrong with communism itself. It's a failed ideal much like countless other political instruments.

Preached unity among the differing faiths

Unity should be the goal of all humanity, you don't need religion for that.

Reached out to the poor, youth, and disenfranchised

unless they were homosexual, or decided to have sex before marriage (which is another failed ideal in countless countries, so the pope should be anti-marriage)

Preach dignity in human life whether pre-birth or end of life

another subjective statement. Esp considering the chruch's stance against a person's right to die without having to endure endless suffering to satisfy their ignorance. There is no dignity in that.

Had a good sense of humor (something even a few of the atheists here could learn from)

I have a great sense of humor, much better than the pope. But since I'm not an aethist I guess your statement doesn't apply to me anyway.

(Condoms aren't a foolproof way to control (prevent) AIDS - abstinence is)

not only is this statement wrong, but it's also foolish. Human beings are designed to have sex. At the end of the day we are a pair of gonads on a support system, and that's all we really are here to do is procreate. That's why the human sex drive is so overwhelmingly strong and can take over completely to the point of disrupting judgement. It's ironic idiocy to claim that any "creater" would have put in artificial barriers such as marriage to limit procreation when that's the very intent of our design. The FACT is that people will have sex, regardless of your pointless preaching. The only PRACTICAL and SENSIBLE thing to do is to ensure they practise safe sex. I'm sure there are people out there who can "abstain." Those are in the minority however.

Most of all his belived in something and stood by his beliefs even if they were unpopular.

oh please don't give me this tripe. The catholic chruch has had numerous times throughout history where it's beliefs have been "popular". Luckily for the human race we are waking up to the fact that blind ignorance is not the way forward. and last i checked the religious right is still very very dominant in many countries around the world. This kind of self-declared victimisation is all too commen and all too weak with such institutions.

BTW: I'm not sure I need spiritual/political/and intellectual guidance from someone who get there pen name from an Anne Rice novel eh luvely.

I'm not offering you spiritual/political or intellectual guidance, you have to prove yourself worthy of recieving it from me before i give that to you. I'm merely debating your statements in a public forum. As for my pen name, that's really no business of yours, but since you brought it up, yes it's from an anne rice novel that I read when I was 15 years old, and I enjoyed it so much that I though the whole concept of "memnoch" was cool at the time so i adopted it as a nick and that's that.
My name could be "monkeywhojumps" that doesn't increase or decrease the validity of my arguements. Try to debate the arguement rather than throw in red herrings about my pen name and what not.

Essey

Essey wrote:

BTW: I'm not sure I need spiritual/political/and intellectual guidance from someone who get there pen name from an Anne Rice novel eh luvely.

Rules around here are that you attack the post not the poster.
No more of the latter please or you will be away from here.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

the pope was no better than osama bin laden as far as i'm concerned.

I haven't heard of a war that the pope ever championed except a war on poverty.
He was an old fashioned religious zealout, with many ideas I'd disagree with, yup that I can see, but an Osama Bin Laden he was not.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

My history is failing me. What religion did the government show precedence to over others - thus setting a precedent - in 2001? The only event I can think of was the attacks of September 11th, but there was no religion shown favouritism there, so I hnoestly can't see how any policy was set there regarding our constitutional stance re: religious primacy.

Was there some other event that I'm forgetting, or some religious aspect of this one that I'm missing?

None. But the government in this case would only be giving precedence to one religion over others if it refused a similar case to the leaders of other religions in the future.

Redleslie2 wrote:

Or a katorga even.

Only if it was the wrong religion - is someone was insane enough to believe in religion in the first place then that was more a gulag speciality.

Still, it's sweet to see I'm off your ignore list, even if only temporarily.

Essey

Memnoch wrote:

And why do religious people feel the need to enforce their blind ignorance upon society in general and everyone else in particular?

Its a free membership - dont like it - leave!

the pope was no better than osama bin laden as far as i'm concerned.
The Pope conspired to murder 3,000 people - missed that in the news - gotta stop watching SKY.

and yet tries to impose a totalitarian christian regime everywhere he can, urging governments to follow religon.
Your not forced to be a Catholic - totalitarian doesnt work here babe - pick another word.

nothing wrong with communism itself. It's a failed ideal much like countless other political instruments.
Sure if you dont like to vote for your leaders - then I'm all for it.
Unity should be the goal of all humanity, you don't need religion for that.
Sadly humanity need some work on that one.

unless they were homosexual, or decided to have sex before marriage (which is another failed ideal in countless countries, so the pope should be anti-marriage)
You lost me on the pope should be anti-marriage point.

another subjective statement. Esp considering the chruch's stance against a person's right to die without having to endure endless suffering to satisfy their ignorance. There is no dignity in that.
So what - kill granny? She's in the way anywho...

I have a great sense of humor, much better than the pope. But since I'm not an aethist I guess your statement doesn't apply to me anyway.
So lets see som of this famed humor..

not only is this statement wrong, but it's also foolish. Human beings are designed to have sex. At the end of the day we are a pair of gonads on a support system, and that's all we really are here to do is procreate. That's why the human sex drive is so overwhelmingly strong and can take over completely to the point of disrupting judgement. It's ironic idiocy to claim that any "creater" would have put in artificial barriers such as marriage to limit procreation when that's the very intent of our design. The FACT is that people will have sex, regardless of your pointless preaching. The only PRACTICAL and SENSIBLE thing to do is to ensure they practise safe sex. I'm sure there are people out there who can "abstain." Those are in the minority however.

Sooooo - you have sex with everyone who asks? Hoochie momma! Marriage is an artificial barrier to procreation?? How? Without it we'd have sex with any one and Fathers day would be quite confusing...

oh please don't give me this tripe. The catholic chruch has had numerous times throughout history where it's beliefs have been "popular". Luckily for the human race we are waking up to the fact that blind ignorance is not the way forward. and last i checked the religious right is still very very dominant in many countries around the world. This kind of self-declared victimisation is all too commen and all too weak with such institutions.
If the human race is so lucky with our devil may care - why are worst off?

I'm not offering you spiritual/political or intellectual guidance, you have to prove yourself worthy of recieving it from me before i give that to you. I'm merely debating your statements in a public forum. As for my pen name, that's really no business of yours, but since you brought it up, yes it's from an anne rice novel that I read when I was 15 years old, and I enjoyed it so much that I though the whole concept of "memnoch" was cool at the time so i adopted it as a nick and that's that.
My name could be "monkeywhojumps" that doesn't increase or decrease the validity of my arguements. Try to debate the arguement rather than throw in red herrings about my pen name and what not.

So what are you now 16? How "cool"! Personally "monkeywhojumps" is catchy.

Essey

Earthman wrote:

Rules around here are that you attack the post not the poster.
No more of the latter please or you will be away from here.

Earthman?? I was merely acknowleging Mennoch's earthy choice in literature - but in future I'll behavvve.

uberwolf

Essey wrote:

So what are you now 16? How "cool"! Personally "monkeywhojumps" is catchy.

weeks ban.

abccormac

nothing wrong with communism itself. It's a failed ideal much like countless other political instruments

So there was nothing wrong with the soviet sytem? A system that denied freedom of pretty much everything to hundreds of millions of people around the world?

If you read a little about the popes attitude to free market capitalism I think you might be surprised.

"It is useful to recall the changes of the last ninety years. Although the "worker" remained the same, "work" changed. New forms of work appeared and disappeared. Though this is normal, it is necessary to watch out for ethical and social irregularities. It was such an irregularity that gave rise -in the last century- to the "worker question" or the "proletariat question," provoking a great burst of solidarity among workers, mainly in industry. It was a reaction against the degradation of the workers, their exploitation with regard to their working conditions and security; against an unjust system that safeguarded the economic initiative of the owners but did not pay attention to the rights of the workers. This reaction is in line with the church's teaching and justified from a social morality point of view. Worker solidarity has brought profound changes. Various new systems have been thought out Workers often share in running and controlling businesses, influencing working conditions, wages, and social legislation. But new systems have arisen that allow old injustices to continue and new injustices to appear. New developments and communication reveal forms of injustices more extensive than the ones that aroused workers' solidarity in the last century, not only in industrialized societies but also in agricultural countries. Solidarity movements can also be needed for social groups not previously mentioned but who find themselves in a "proletariat" situation. It can be true of the working "intelligentsia," people with degrees and diplomas, who cannot find work- a situation that arises when education is unsuited to the needs of society, or when there is less demand and less pay for work that requires education. We must consequently continue to study the situation of the worker. There is a need for solidarity movements among and with the workers. The church is firmly committed to this cause, in fidelity to Christ, and to be truly the "church of the poor."

the danger of treating work as "merchandise" -or as an impersonal "work force"-remains as long as economics is understood in a materialistic way. It is this one-sided approach that concentrates on work as the prime thing, leaving the worker in a secondary place. This is a reversal of the order laid down in the book of Genesis. The worker is treated as a tool whereas the worker ought to be treated as the subject of work, as its maker and creator. This reversal - whatever other name it gives itself- should be called 'capitalism"- an economic and social system that historically has been known as opposed to "socialism" or "communism." The error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever the worker is treated as a mere means of production, as a tool and not as a subject. To consider work and the worker in the light of humanity's dominion over the earth goes to the very heart of the ethical and social question. It is in insight that should be applied to all social and economic policy, within each country, but also internationally, to the tensions between East and West, North and South."

Quotes from here

Talliesin

I don't think there should be a national day of mourning. The Taoiseach should express condolences in the Dáil and that should be it as far as the state goes.

However if a Catholic wanted to take the day off then while he or she couldn't give enough notice to claim it their entitlement to have their holidays on religious holy days really any boss that didn't let them have it off unless they had good reason (we all have busy periods) is being a bastard and they should look at dusting off the CV.

monument

If anyone wants to mark a moment of respect, they can take 2/5/10/30min of silence by their selves doing nothing… and to mark the moment in an unselfish way, take it on your lunch break, or when you’re not at work/school/collage.

Or to really go at it - on your day off use the whole day to pray for the 'great man'. Sure, you could always come down here to Mayo and visit Knock Shrine, and pray, all day long. Make a personal sacrifice, not a superficial one, and don’t force others to…

Don’t go trying to get the state to force people to observe your religious practices (more then they already have to).

[I for one have suffered enough through the amount of media coverage need to be skipped to get to other news]

Redleslie2

Earthman wrote:

I haven't heard of a war that the pope ever championed except a war on poverty.

What war on poverty? JPII's stance on contraception and AIDS condemned a fair few poor people to misery, poverty and/or death and he backed right wing dictatorships and was fundamentally opposed to Liberation theology, a sort of progressive catholicism. Sad old reactionary tbh.

Redleslie2

Flags at half mast all over the place. Wtf.

Redleslie2

Anyone want to add a caption for this?



Looks like el presidente is regaling JP with one of corinthian's anecdotes about some unfortunate woman or other.

uberwolf

Redleslie2 wrote:

Anyone want to add a caption for this?

IMG

Looks like el presidente is regaling JP with one of corinthian's anecdotes about some unfortunate woman or other.

how's this for a caption.

"2 weeks ban."