Church and State
By Primal Sneeze ~ May 24th, 2009. Filed under: Law, Politics, Religion, State.
I am an atheist.
Moreover I class myself as a devout and fundamentalist atheist with a deep hatred of all religion.
That Ireland’s social mores and laws are based on Catholicism has made me so.
I hated having to attend a Catholic run school. But that’s all there was.
When a judge once tried to insist I swear an oath on a copy of the bible I had to fight to be allowed make an affirmation instead and was then to be told by him my evidence would therefore carry less weight.
It angers me that Good Friday is not a public holiday yet schools and State run bodies close. It angers me even more that the State deny this saying some schools and businesses close on that day.
I find it ludicrous that a bookmaker cannot open on Easter Sunday – one of the busiest days of sport in the year; that a public house is compelled to open later and close earlier on St. Patrick’s day; that Met Éireann deemed it fitting last year to forecast that Holy Saturday will remain very cold, with sunny spells and occasional showers; that the State granted €3.5 to a Catholic organisation that aims to promote a deeper understanding of Christian marriage; that the State gave €2.27m to Catholic parents to clothe their children for a religious ceremony.
The above may not bother you as it does me. However you cannot but be appalled – no, sick to the pit of your stomach – that the State would strike a deal whereby the Catholic Church in Ireland would be liable only to the tune of €128m for committing the most heinous crimes against the children of this country while you and I are left to cover the full cost of an estimated €1,300,000,000m. I am not arguing about the money per se, but that such a deal was done at all.
More sickening is that the State claims it cannot legally amend this agreement. Likewise the State claims it legally must enact a blasphemy law as blasphemy is prohibited by the Constitution. A Constitution that begins as follows:
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial …
The Irish State hides behind the law to protect and serve the interests of the Catholic Church. And the State ignores the law for the same reason. If a Bill must be passed because the act of blasphemy is against our Constitution then why has the State not yet legislated on the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments that were inserted following on from the X-Case in 1992? Why? Because it would conflict with the Catholic Church’s views.
Since last Wednesday’s publication of the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse two things have been on my mind.
Firstly, why does the State pander so to the Catholic Church? What hold has the Church got and how? Is the Church privy to some dirty little secret that they are holding over the State – one far more damaging than that revealed about them?
Secondly, is the time right to rip up our Constitution and begin anew? Rid ourselves of the Catholic-biased document drawn up by DeValera, with Archbishop John Charles McQuaid watching over his shoulder, and write a wholly secular one?
Primal,
If you and Joe public are left to cover the estimated €1,300,000,000 for the most heinous crimes against the children of this country, does that actually mean most of the victims end up paying their own compensation?
That’s an angle I hadn’t thought of. Well spotted and a very valid point.
I think you righteous anger has got you a little carried away. The Catholic Church has influence in Ireland because the majority of the population are Catholic.
That there is an unhealthy (for both Church and State) level of deference is a consequence of this. And this provided the space for abuse to happen.
The deal is not quite so simple, and there are signs that it will be amended. As it certainly should, if the orders concerned have assets which they could have contributed and didn’t.
But remember also that most of those assets came from the people as well, so its not so simple.
We need a generally more robust system of supervision of all organisations.
My worry would be that the justifiable anger at the Churches handling of these horrors will distract from taking steps to make sure they don’t happen in other settings where potential abusers have access to vulnerable people
In Ireland, the majority of the population are Catholic whether they like it or not. It is the box pre-ticked by default. Face it – only a tiny minority have faith in and adhere to that religion’s teachings. They baptise their children for fear of upsetting the grandparents, those children attend first communion as that’s what’s done at their school and so on.
I fail to understand how any of this could distract from the monitoring of current childcare institutions. If anything, it will strengthen it. I have a client that works in this space and I know quite a bit about how strict the procedures are.
Bravo!
I think it’s high time to dismantle the old fucker (The Church).
As Aonghus pointed out, most of [the Church's] assets came from the people.
Privatisation time?
So tell us what you really think Mr Sneeze!
Joke aside, you probably know how I feel abour organised crime. Oups did I say crime? I meant religion. It’s bad when holy (!) institutions use and abuse their powers, it’s worse when governments are in it and use government resources for the benefit of the criminals. Oups did I say criminals? I meant… you know what I meant.
Gx
Our two countries are very similar in this respect. Both claim to be secular states but when the test comes they side with their respective religions.
Hear hear.
Rip it up. Dev was a sinister old fucker with his comely maidens dancing at the crossroads.
As Aonghus points out below Dev never spoke those words. He did mention “happy maidens” though not “dancing at the crossroads”.
That said, I agree with you. To me the “happy maidens” bit is sinister enough.
@Primal Sneeze – Evidence that it is only a tiny minority, please? In addition, you are ignoring the fact that many who do not practice feel attached to the Church. The numbers for Dublin are that 50% of those stated as Cathoilc go to mass every Sunday.
I agree reform is needed. But you are not going to get reform if you piss people who believe off too much. Ask Tommy Tiernan!
BTW Caro, Dev never mentioned any comely maidens or crossroads. That is a convenient urban myth.
The evidence comes from my own eyes and ears. The eyes are not behind rose tinted glasses and my hearing behind rose tinted earmuffs.
Dream on Primal
Like Martin Luther King, I sleep a lot.
@Primal Sneeze – Would you prefer unhappy maidens?
I think that, by offending the sensibilities of people who believe you are going to prevent any chance of reform.
There are some things I agree with you on, but I’m not going to row in behind any “tear down everything to do with the Church” campaign for obvious reasons.
And I think the chances are large that people of my shade of opinion will be driven back to hard line conservatism by an attempt to push us too far.
And I think the chances are large that people of my shade of opinion will be driven back to hard line conservatism by an attempt to push us too far.
That day is today.
You won’t be goin’ to confession then I take it?
Me Ma still lights candles for me on a daily basis and just look how I ended up.
What a lot of wasted wax.
[...] Church and State (primalsneeze.com) [...]
Just came back from the movies. Saw Angels and Demons…
I didn’t see it. But I am reading the
bookreport about them.@Primal Sneeze – I don’t understand. Is it more important to rant about the Church than to get people in general to reform the Republic (and the Church, but that is obviously not your problem)
As far Angels and Demons, I’d be happy if the Ryan Report were just shoddy fiction a là Dan Brown. But it is hard fact, and painful.
I hope it improves the Church, and the civil service who colluded in the crimes.
I know. You do not understand.
Please try to. For your own sake.
Good for you to shout out at this one.
Yes, you’re correct, let’s call time on the lads in black.
I despair though, at the apologists everywhere for priests.
And sorry already, but the gals are the worst.
On apologists, the statement by the Catholic League is worth reading. (If you can control your anger).
Snippet: Reuters is reporting that “Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,” yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim.
The Constitution needs to be secularized at the very least. It’s only words on paper after all and can be amended. All of the abusers need to be named and prosecuted along with those in government who colluded with the congregations to cover it up. All lands and property held by the guilty congregations confiscated and sold to foot the compensation bill with the worst offenders (religous orders)expelled from the country. To say that the majority of religous are good and decent people is like saying the majority of Nazi party members who were not concentration camps guards are splendid chaps.
The church’s grip on Ireland’s civic institutions needs to be broken utterly and absolute separation of state and church (any and all) enshrined as a founding principle of the Republic.
I recall joining the FCA about a hundred years ago and being asked my religion for the paperwork. My claim to be ‘Zen Buddhist’ was met with some real resistance and I was told to “Stop fucking around and put ‘R.C.’ down like everyone else”.
Army regs at the time allowed you to be marched to the door of the church but you were not required to enter. I ,along with a few Protestants,Communists,Atheists,Anarchists and general oddballs,( a surprising percentage) went to some trouble to exercise that right and be seen doing it. We got no end of shit for it.
A Second Republic is needed. Like yesterday.
Yes, we do need a new constitution. We have needed one for a long time now.
It always angers me that governments down the years pick and choose what referendums we have to suit their own agenda. We had one on Lisbon (and will have another) despite the fact all legal advice is that, as they are unnecessary. Yet we are told we cannot have one, as it would be too costly or impractical, to remove an archaic reference to blasphemy.
Here’s to a new constitution and a new republic.
@Primal Sneeze – I understand your anger. I share it. I don’t understand your insistence, in the teeth of evidence, that it is a problem with the Church as such. I don’t understand your rejection of the help of believers to reform the constitution. That rejection will cause you to fail.
And I see that according to Godwin’s Law, I have won this particular argument.
Enough said.
Apparently Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply here. It’s still going on below.
As an American, I feel out of place commenting on a topic that is so close to you, but I feel your outrage. I recall vividly stories my Dad told us about being raised in a Catholic orphanage in Illinois-the vicious cruelty of the nuns. Not all of them, mind you. He sang the praises of one in particular, but the majority.
One that sticks with me is when he told us that the nuns would wait until the kids were bathing, wet and naked, before beating them with a belt for some transgression.
If there were other unspeakable abuses, we were never told.
Another is when my own sister died a few days after her birth. My Mother was told by the nun at the hospital that since she wasn’t baptized before her death, she would forever reside in Hell.
Accurate? Maybe not, but years later my Mother still gets a fire in her eye when she recalls it.
I am not an atheist. But I’m sure as hell not catholic, either.
You have every right. What you have outlined of your family’s experience gives you that right.
You’re not an atheist, you’re an anti-theist.
I don’t believe in God……But I still want Good Friday off, for me……Don’t go being silly and losing that day for us, making only managers that hate having to gives employees any time off, happy.
I think to show less bias, you should include a few comments about other religions in the country, and not just catholic.
Church should deffo cough up more green when it comes to compensation, but I don’t for one second believe that there is nobody amongst those that are just in it for the money, and making up false accusations to get it. One of the problems with the redress is that anyone could make an accusation, and very little was done to determine if the accusations were true.
I think a great leap forward for the nation would be to get the catholic church to hand over all schools under their supervision to the state, and finally get them out of the education system, where they don’t belong.
As for ripping up the constitution…………ehhh, let’s not go throwing the baby out with the bath water…..There are very good qualities to our constitution….namely, the need to have referendums……which the politicans would love to get rid of.
I think people need to relax a little…..the sky is not falling down upon us.
An anti-theist? Why, yes I am – is that not clear from the 2nd sentence of this post?
Rewriting the Constitution doesn’t mean we have to trash the good as well as the bad.
As for having Good Fridays off, well such luxuries I never have. Being self employed and getting some new ventures off the ground mean I seldom get a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday off either.
We do need a new constitution like you and some others have said. Not just to remove references of God and the Church but also to recognise linguistic, sexual and gender freedoms.
People should be allowed marry regardless of their sex or gender. A family unit is not just a father and a mother.
A woman’s place is not in the home. Just because she carries the baby for biological reasons doesn’t reduce the man’s responsibility in raising that child once it is born.
Gender expression and sexual diversity (above man-woman distinction) should recognised and transgendered and intersexed people should be allowed to alter their birth-certs. If, as the judges say, a birth-cert is a historical document then why is the birth-cert still important decades down the line? Why should the decision of a doctor affect the categorisation of an individual their whole life? If it is important then people should be allowed to have it changed. The judical system can’t have the best of both worlds. To be honest, why is it important for the state to know what is (or isn’t) in your pants? It would also get rid of legal problem over intersexed people.
Finally, take the example of language. Is or is not Irish the first language of the state? It says so on paper but that seems to be ignored in the real life. Why can’t both English and Irish be on equal legal footing as in Canada? Why is English, and Saxon English at that, just ‘another official language’, like a filler incase another one comes along? Why isn’t Irish English a joint official language? Why is the Irish version of the consitution superior to the English version but in practise it’s ignored?
Nothing seems to make sense. It’s old and out-dated and in need of a re-write. But I don’t trust this shabby government to be trusted with such an important task.
Agreed. It is high time we sit down and draft a new constitution that is relevant to the noughties. Though I cannot envisage that happening – it is proving too useful a screen for government to hide behind in its current form.
I think that blokes who dress themselves in black frocks, who like to be called ‘Father’ even though they are not a relation and who have an imaginary friend that mustn’t be blasphemed, should be told to ‘put away their childish things’ and certainly should play no role whatsoever in the education of minors, in the moral guidance of society (or have any input the reframing of the Constitution, in the same way that people sectioned under the Mental Health Act are unable to vote).
In terms of addressing people with different faith backgrounds, all should be told that their religions should have equal footing in the Constitution (i.e. not a single mention) unless someone can put forward a single piece of evidence which can demonstrate any of the claims made in the various holy books. I think that would rule out any further mention.
BTW I have nothing against blokes dressing themselves however they wish, just that they don’t do the other two things as well!
So basically Susie, You feel the catholic church shouldn’t have any input, and should view all practicing catholics as mentally unwell….But you think all other religions should be recognised as reasonable faiths by the consitiution?…………I’m a strong believer in “NO GOD”, but I would want to be accociated with your intolerant anti-catholic biogtry. People have a right to believe Susie. The Catholic clergy are still members of our society, let us not forget that.
Sorry, my last post should have read “but I wouldn’t want to be accociated with”
Hi Vedder
I think that neither the Catholic church, nor any other church should have any input whatsoever into the education of minors. However, if churches are able to attract adults ‘into their fold’ and wish to ‘teach’ them about imiginary friends they should be free to do so. I think there should be absolutely no restriction on teaching religion to adults. All free societies should allow free speech, as long as there is no incitement to violence or harm to anyone.
I don’t think Catholics are mentally unwell, by virtue of their beliefs. I think it is quite natural to wish to have a comforting all-seeing god who will make things nice and cosy if anything goes wrong. I wouldn’t want to be associated with bigotry against the Catholic Church either.
Perhaps I should have said that “I think that blokes (or women) who dress themselves in black frocks, who like to be called ‘Father/ Brother/ Reverend/ the Very Reverend, the Right Revenend/ Dean/ Deacon/ Bishop/ Archbishop/ Holy Father/ Mother Superior/ Sister/ Imam/ Rabbi/ Guru/ Shri/ Dalai Lama’ even though they are not related to me, who have an imaginary friend that mustn’t be blasphemed, should play no role whatsoever in the education of minors”, but I think maybe the sentence would have appeared less punchy!
Catholic clergy are indeed still members of our society, still entitled to their beliefs and views along with everyone else, including believers in Islam, Buddhism, Baha’i, other Christian faiths, Hinduism, Janism, Judaism and Rastafari, and of course with Atheists and Pagans. All should be entitled to express their beliefs too. But school teachers ought to be able to put all of this religion into context for children, to be able to say that “there are many contradictory belief systems out there. Here is some information on each of them. You choose if you wish to believe in any of them.” And, as for the Church and the constitution; no mention of a church should appear.
Hi Susie,
Firstly, thanks for your response to my post.
After reading your response I can’t help but feel that you are trying to look in both directions at once on many of the points you made. For example, you state that the RCC shouldn’t have any input when it comes to the education on minors, but then you go and state the importance of tolerance and freedoms. I assume therefore that you would be tolerant towards a parent that decided that they wanted their child/ren educated in church schools…..Or do you think that they shouldn’t have that right. I think it’s a bit rich for you to lecture about all free societies only to say that no church should be allowed into the education system educating children. Religion is one of those aspects of life that is so important to so many people that you can’t just decide to dismiss or it for so many and expect them to be comfortable with it, even if you are only trying to dismiss it for their children in school. Although, as I stated at the start of this paragraph, you seem to be looking in both directions on the subject, as in the last paragraph in your last response, you seem to imply that teachers should be able to teach religion in schools, in contrast to what you stated at first, and in previous posts.
May I ask, should parents be allowed educate their children about religion….Or is it just certain people that you are intolerant in allowing to teach it i.e. those that are the clergy?
Finally, in response to the comments in the second paragraph…..well, what can I say….I just wanted to you elaborate, no one was asking you to go OTT….that was purely your own choice. I must say however, that there have been a lot of people with the titles that you listed that have been very good people, simply because they held such a title does not make them bad, or bad for kids.
Okay, let’s be honest…….I believe in no God, simply out experience and what seems commonsense to me, not to all, but just to me. I often ask people how many Gods they believe in, and most say one, I ask, why not two, and when they say there is no reason to believe in two, I respond……”That is the reason I don’t believe in one”. I agree with you on the point that people want to believe in a God, just to comfort themselves……..As the idea of a divine being going about the universe, handing out justice and doing good is what they want to believe. Even reasonable questions like, where is God, what is god made from, why won’t god appear are enough to discredit religions in my own opinion.
But, let there be no doubt, there are many good people in the world, that a deeply devoted to their religions, and indeed do great good. And it would appear that it’s their beliefs that motivate them…Let them teach….I think intolerance against religion is becoming more dangerous than religion itself.
Many people that claim atheism claim to be so for no other reason than a modern day fashion, and the hope that they may be seen as an intellect if they are seen to be wearing this fashionable intangible jewel . Many are against religion and like to ridicule those that may align themselves with a faith. NOT GOOD. There is a difference between those that attack religion / beliefs, and those of us that simply do not believe, but don’t want to use it as an excuse to undermine others right to decide, or to make decisions for their children.
Reasonable debate will win the day, but over time………Not some odd logical that we should on the warpath suppressing belief, albeit through peoples children.
I like to look in lots of directions at the same time. My suggestion that no church sould be involved in the education of minors would mean that there would be no church schools in which people could separately educate their children. Parents would not find the need to shield their children from the ‘evils of a different religion’, if schools schools were not faith-based schools. The schools could simple describe what religeous faith is, what religions there are, and put them in the context of sun-worshipping, belief in the earth being flat, and belief that the universe revolves around the earth. And, instead of have religeous education, it could be replaced by teaching in ethics and morality. It is a necessary part of (blind) faith believing to think that if what you believe is true, then anything else which is in contradiction with that belief, must by definition be wrong/ false. That is, if there is no proof or evidence for any of the belief, simply blind faith, it is difficult to persuade anyone that their belief is wrong. (And, usually it is not worth the effort).
“The Vatican, and its vast network of dioceses, has in the past decade alone been forced to admit complicity in a huge racket of child rape and child torture, mainly but by no means exclusively homosexual, in which known pederasts and sadists were shielded from the law and parishes where the pickings of the innocent and defenseless were often richer. In Ireland, it is now estimated that the unmolested children of religious schools were very probably the minority. Religion professes a special role in the protection and instruction of children. But both in theory and practice, religion uses the innocent and the defenseless for the purposes of experiment. By all means let an observant Jewish adult male have his raw-cut penis placed in the mouth of a rabbi (to have the foreskin sucked off). By all means let grown women who distrust their cliteris or their labia have them sawn away by some other other wretched adult female. By all means let Abraham offer to commit filicide to prove his devotion to the Lord or his belief in the voices that he was hearing in his head. By all means let devout parents deny themselves the seccor of medicine when in acute pain and distress. By all means let a priest sworn to celibacy be a promiscuous homosexual. By all means let a congregation that believes in whipping out the devil choose a new grown-up sinner each week and lash him until he or she bleeds. By all means let anyone who believes in creationism instruct his fellows during lunch breaks. But the conscription of the unprotected child for these purposes is something that even the most dedicated secularist can safely describe as a sin.”
There may well be people who feel motivated to do good (as a result of their belief in their God). But there are many others who motived by their belief in their God end up doing serious damage to the people in the world. Take the Pope John-Paul II for instance. His attitude to contraception was ludicrous. The outcome has been continued overpoputation of the world and the spread of Aids.
Ethics and morality are quite independent of faith and cannot be derived from it. When I choose to have children, I would hope to provide them with a framework of ethics and morals with which they can make their own choices. If they chose to believe in a religion (or several conflicting religions over the course of their lifetime) that will be for them to decide.
Hi Susie,
Hope you’re well.
The point I was making in relation to looking in both directions at once was one where I was trying point out that there seems to be quite a few contradictions in your arguments. Also, I’m not sure that I can take your comments on tolerance or freedoms seriously taking account of the fact that you seem, according to your last post, rather agressive and angry against religions. Indeed history is littered with examples of people that have suffered because of their beliefs at the hands of those that weren’t very tolerant to belief, and vice versa, but intolerance has been the common factor. Like I stated in my last post, Intolerance of religion appears to be increasingly more dangerous then religious beliefs themselves.
I think we need to be reasonable about this. Parents don’t send their kids to church schools to shield them from different religions. It’s fair to say that most Mothers/ Fathers aren’t thinking about all other religions when deciding where to send their children to be eduated. They are looking for the best schools within a reasonable distance. In relation to allowing teachers to mention religions, but not to teach them. Well, that’s not really a good education is it. I mean.. Should teachers teach the name of the poem, but not the lines. Or just show children a map of the world, but not go more indepth into the geography. Personally, I think a good grounded understanding of religion should be given…Not because I believe, but because religion is an elephant in the room, if you know what I mean. But they should also be taught about the downsides of religion/s…It’s shouldn’t be just the “It’s all Good” style teaching.
I agree with you that there are aspects to religion that are terrible, and in some cases barbaric. I see many aspects of life, even outside of religion as awful, but i wouldn’t want to find all society guilty. Nor will I pretend that there are no aspects to religions that are good. In fact, I think increasingly that many within religion are questioning many aspects of their religions..Personally I see this as a step in the eventual evaporation of religion…Just as I believe that it’s perfectly reasonable for parents to have the right for their children to be educated in religious schools, where, by the way, they learn more than just religion all day, I also think that children being thought other aspects of religion that most people would agree are good, is perfectly fine… But if you’re going to drop the axe on everything in life that you can find wrong with, then you will eventually find yourself standing in the ruins of everything.
There are good people and bad people in the world…..Okay, that was established long ago. But the point is that you seem full of hatrid towards religion, it almost seems like an obsession. As if your lack of belief depends on belief. Or perhaps, you’re less an atheist, and more an anti-theist, and need religion to justify your position.
I agree that ethics and morality do not equal faith, again that was established long ago. Some may see your idea of ethics and morality as your own faith, assuming of course that you have faith in them. And going by the way you talk about a framework, it sounds like you see them as organised, and if your children or friends follow them as you do i’m sure….then perhaps you have the green shots of a religion.
Finally….the pope isn’t responsible for AIDS or the spread of AIDS. I mean, most of the world doesn’t pay any attention to the pope, and in countries where AIDS is on the rise, they have no access to contraception, even if they wanted it……….STD’s are on the rise all over Ireland amongst the young…..Do you think that’s because they’re all listening to the popes teachings on the use of condoms? Now come on, get real.
Give me an example, Vedder, of your statement – “Intolerance of religion appears to be increasingly more dangerous than [the] religious beliefs themselves.” Whenever I make any points against religion, which I believe I am perfectly entitled to do, you say that I’m rather angry or agressive, or that I’m full of hatred towards religion. If I make an observation that the Pope’s (and the whole body of the church that he administers, from Cardinals down to priests) attitude to contraception is ludicrous, and suggest that that attitude is causing harm in the world, you claim that I’m anti Catholic, and need to get real. Here’s a news clipping from last March – “The Pope has reaffirmed the Vatican’s ban on the use of contraception in the fight against Aids. Pope Benedict XVI was speaking ahead of his visit to Africa, the continent most blighted by Aids.
He described Aids as “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.
Instead, the Pope said the disease could be defeated by keeping to the teachings of the Church on marriage and faithfulness. In the past, the Catholic Church has said that HIV and Aids can pass through condoms.
This week, Pope Benedict is visiting Cameroon and Angola on his first trip to Africa as Pope. There are around 33 million people across the world suffering from Aids, of these 27 million live in Africa. Since the 1980s around 25 million Africans have died from the disease.” So, tell the people that condoms don’t prevent the spread of Aids, and bingo, there is a nice rumour that is difficult to unravel, ‘cos it came from the church. But of course the Pope isn’t alone. Take George Bush, and his administration, which we all know had a huge amount of influence from the ‘pro-life’ and generally right-wing churches in America which helped to get him elected and re-elected. In 2001 Bush banned funding to groups that promoted abortion services overseas. That policy affected two of the largest distributors of birth control in Kenya (which didn’t provide abortions, but which were affiliated with London-based organisations whose members helped provide them in other countries). The two groups were forced to close 5 family planning clinics after losing the US funding. In 2003, Bush set up the President’s Emergency Plan For Aids Relief (PEPFAR), which would not allow funding to be used to buy birth control. Why? I would say, it is because of the influence of the religion.
But, to return to the Pope’s influence. There are 1.1bn baptized Catholics worldwide, 300m of which live in the US, and 143m of which live in Africa. Are you really claiming that none of these people pay any attention to what the Pope says about the use of contraceptives? That Catholic people, the world over, are prepared to play ‘Pick ‘n’ Mix’ with their Church’s teachings, ignoring what St. Peter’s representative on earth tells them about contraception?
So, Vedder, I think you should refer to Mr Primal Sneezer in his original blog if you believe that people shouldn’t be anti-religion. By the sounds of it, he was forced to undergo Catholic indoctrination in his childhood as there was no alternative. What I have suggested is that the alternative could be no indoctrination of children, and especially not at school; let them choose religion if they want to when they have become adults. If parents want to teach the good ethics they they believe have somehow come out of religion let them teach those ethics to their children. Brilliant. The world hopefully will be a better place for it. But keep religion out of it. If people wish to read about how ‘evolution is only a theory’, that God created the world in the last 6000 years and that everyone is decended from Adam and Eve, that’s fine with me. But it shouldn’t be taught to kids as though it has equal status with Darwin’s ‘evolution by natural selection’ explanation of the world. There should be nothing institutionalised about religion. It should be completely separated from the organs of the state. And, where people expect to be allowed to stop working 5 times a day, in order to pray in an easterly direction, they should be told to do so on their own time, on not on company time.
Hi Susie,
One example where religious intolerance is on the march is at cabinet level in the British government, where several top members, one of which being the Deputy Prime Minister is known to want anyone with religious convictions to play no part in government. Another example of religious intolerance is within the republic of France. In France, over the past number of years, the government seems to be on the attack against all faiths, and that had lended its hand towards a well known rise in Anti-Semitism in the country. In the EU itself, it seems to ignore the fact that millions of people across the EU have differing religious beliefs. It’s as if the EU sees the people as something the politicians must annoyingly refer to now and again. I don’t like the idea of the machine of states becoming so intolerant against any groups, religious or not. We all know from reading our history the pain that is caused when the machine of state adopts as official policies, ideas that religions or people of a certain religion should be destroyed.
I’ll be the first to put my hand up and say that many have killed in the name of religion, but at present I think the greater danger, in our neck of the woods, is coming from the intolerance of beliefs…….I also think it will get much worse, unfortunately.
Susie, I’m in no way trying to stop you from voicing your opinion of religion, but the terminology that you use and the associations that you seem to want to make with people who are religious reflects your, perhaps obsession with hating religion. In your case, you seem to have a particular hatred of Catholics, or at least the catholic faith. I think such anger, if allowed into positions of influence could cause very very severe damage, perhaps even persecution…………May only to be compared to the persecution of those within formally run Catholic run institutions.
As I said in a previous post, I can’t really take you seriously when you talk about freedoms and tolerance. Freedom and Tolerance loving you are not…..
Look, the Pope is not responsible for the spread of Aids/HIV in the world. When you start blaming him on things like that then you just showing yourself up as being willing to accuse religion, or in this case the Catholic Church, of anything, once it feeds your obsessive hatred, and you make it more difficult for those of us that want to argue reasonable against religion. I’ve explained in my last post why it’s ridiculous to blame the pope for the spread of AIDS/ HIV in Africa, just as it’s mad to assume that he’s to blame for the spread of Aids in Ireland. I mean the Idea that it’s being spread by a rumour from the church is brinking on the insane…….Hey, why not go over to Africa and spread a rumour that wearing condoms is a good thing, and why not spread a rumours that fighting and civil wars are wrong……..By your logic, we can use the power of rumours over the entire continent to solve its problems.
Just to make you aware, there are not 300m Catholics living in the USA. But do any of them listen to the pope…. sure ……but I’m sure more of them listen to their Doctors, and don’t live by the rules of the church. So yes, I am saying most Catholics do play pick and mix with their beliefs, and don’t spend the day thinking about what the church wants them to do or wants them to think. In Ireland, most people are considered to be Catholic, not practicing, just one of those tags that gets stuck in life……..Now, been born and reared on the Island of Ireland, and I can tell you now, that my take on society is that the people Pick’n’mix their beliefs.
Whether churches run schools or not, children will still be indoctrinated in school. Perhaps not indoctrinated by religion, perhaps by left/ right wing politics…who knows….but there will always be some influence. To be quite honest, you are living in your own fairy tale land, just as much as those with religious beliefs, especially if you think that Ireland is turning out children from catholic schools that are indoctrinated robots…….Kids don’t sit in school and learn about religion all day Susie….the country has moved on past that. There’s not a hope that young men and women are leaving school believing that Adam and Eve are their long lost ancestors……..If you think they do believe that Susie, then you credit the young people of Ireland with too little sense. It’s good to think though, that our schools can teach and prepare on subjects that are important in the world, perhaps by learning about them, they can prove/ disprove them…Subject such as Maths, Physics, Economics and even religion. By learning about something, you can often unmask its flaws. By not learning about something that is clearly substantial, well that’s just ignorance.
There are better ways to show the flaws in religious beliefs, but I won’t be signing up to your method of don’t teach/ don’t tolerate type approach.
It’s not the 1950’s anymore Susie.
@Susie -
Hello Primal, the others and Susie and Vedder in particular. I am what some of my blog readers call a wise old owl from India. I am an Advaitist. For a brief introduction to what that is, please visit http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/philo/advaitavedanta.asp .
The direction that this post has taken is rather like what happens when two or more argumentative Indians meet and talk about the same topic. To start with Secularism. India has a constitution drawn up by Indians which called the nation secular. This has been interpreted by all our politicians for sixty two years to mean, do everything to hurt the majority Hindus and pamper the minorities, particularly the Muslims and now the proselytizing evangelists. I flatter myself that I am secular but this non sense is galling to me as much as the secularism that galls Primal and Susie. Many of us too want to amend our constitution to clarify what secularism should mean! In our opinion, that should be, that the State has no business in the religious lives of its people and will not interfere. It would also mean that one law for all. Muslims cannot choose selectively what is good in Sharia like four marriages, and opt for jail terms instead of their arms being cut off!
The second issue has not really become an issue here in educational institutions except in the Madrassas. I believe that if Darwinism and Natural Selection cannot be taught by any educational institution, that institution should not be funded by tax payers money. The vast majority of Indians, deeply religious Hindus, have no problem with Darwinism and Natural Selection and quite why anyone should be funded with their tax money to be taught something totally different is illogical. Being a democracy however, and in a spirit of living and letting live, which Indians have shown since the advent on St. Thomas on Indian shores, they are willing to let the minority institutions teach what they want but with the proviso that when it comes to higher education and employment, the graduates of those streams of education should compete with the others on equal footing and should not be mollycoddled with affirmative action quotas. Such an approach to education should be a win win situation to all concerned.
Nice to be here and shoot the breeze as it were. Very stimulating interactions here.