Time for a post-catholic Ireland

[Eamonnca1]

I hardly need to point out that the worst genocides in recent History have been carried out in the name of atheism, often against those who practise religion

The old Stalin / Hitler / Pol Pot trope. Standard rebuttal: Stalin was a paranoid lunatic who thought everyone was out to get him and came to power in a communist state that rewarded despotism.

Hitler was raised a Catholic, taught to hate Jews, and dabbled in the occult. His atrocities had many motivations (chiefly making Germany great again), but disproving the existence of God was not one of them.

Pol Pot's communism was so extreme even the Soviets were aghast. His regime opposed the existence of religion, minority groups, western-educated intellectuals, educated people, or anyone that had been touched by foreign influence. To describe his actions as being "in the name of atheism" is a gross oversimplification at best.

[Eamonnca1]

You know someone is just going to present the opposite argument and they've plenty of ammo in the last century alone.

Perhaps. But I don't think anyone can honestly stand up and say they haven't been a force for good in the world. And I can't stand by and watch while one side presents all their hate fueled arguments.

Fair play to you Iceman for having the time and patience to challenge the onslaught against the RC Church in the wake of the referendum. Given the abominations that some of the clerical hierarchy were responsible for it can be difficult to stand up for this church but the critics should remember that laypersons comprise the vast majority of church membership – their criticisms can be deeply offensive to people who have lived their lives as upstanding members of the community.

Maybe the critics would clarify whether their criticisms are aimed at the RC Church in particular or at Christian Churches in general. It is difficult to engage in any debate where there is a scattergun approach by one side.

As a conscientious No voter I have found it deeply uncomfortable since the Referendum result last week. There's a certain element of open season on the RC Church in particular – this can be found online, in printed & social media and in general conversation.

Anyway Iceman, I would advise that you don't waste time engaging with certain posters such as Sid Waddell. There are certain fellas that are posting here morning, noon and night and will always have the last word. I could be wrong but I would guess that some of them spend a lot of their time pontificating on here whilst they are paid to be working.

[Gmac]

You know someone is just going to present the opposite argument and they've plenty of ammo in the last century alone.

Perhaps. But I don't think anyone can honestly stand up and say they haven't been a force for good in the world. And I can't stand by and watch while one side presents all their hate fueled arguments.

Fair play to you Iceman for having the time and patience to challenge the onslaught against the RC Church in the wake of the referendum. Given the abominations that some of the clerical hierarchy were responsible for it can be difficult to stand up for this church but the critics should remember that laypersons comprise the vast majority of church membership – their criticisms can be deeply offensive to people who have lived their lives as upstanding members of the community.

Maybe the critics would clarify whether their criticisms are aimed at the RC Church in particular or at Christian Churches in general. It is difficult to engage in any debate where there is a scattergun approach by one side.

As a conscientious No voter I have found it deeply uncomfortable since the Referendum result last week. There's a certain element of open season on the RC Church in particular – this can be found online, in printed & social media and in general conversation.

Anyway Iceman, I would advise that you don't waste time engaging with certain posters such as Sid Waddell. There are certain fellas that are posting here morning, noon and night and will always have the last word. I could be wrong but I would guess that some of them spend a lot of their time pontificating on here whilst they are paid to be working.

or living in their parents basement

[omaghjoe]

I hardly need to point out that the worst genocides in recent History have been carried out in the name of atheism, often against those who practise religion

The old Stalin / Hitler / Pol Pot trope. Standard rebuttal: Stalin was a paranoid lunatic who thought everyone was out to get him and came to power in a communist state that rewarded despotism.

Hitler was raised a Catholic, taught to hate Jews, and dabbled in the occult. His atrocities had many motivations (chiefly making Germany great again), but disproving the existence of God was not one of them.

Pol Pot's communism was so extreme even the Soviets were aghast. His regime opposed the existence of religion, minority groups, western-educated intellectuals, educated people, or anyone that had been touched by foreign influence. To describe his actions as being "in the name of atheism" is a gross oversimplification at best.

Firstly I was replying to a point that said that the War in Iraq was instigated by religion which is clealry nonsennse so I was crudely trying to draw some parallels. But its a fair point Eammon I was probably overstating "in the name of atheism" for effect. Tho in the case of Pol Pot and in China it would not be unfair to say a large influence on the genocide was inspried by anti-theism, which also seems to be the basis for the recent surge of pop atheism.
Hilter too had similar personal influences.

The overriding cause for their actions tho I believe was an over-focus on their ideologies with no regard for anything else other than their end goal and no regard for how they got there, ends justify the means and all that. And that I believe was at least partly because once in power they had a complete disregard for their conscience, or a higher power, both of which their ideology reasoned away and demonised.

To put this in terms of today society I am concerned by Leaders who dont believe in something, they believe they are Emperor who answers to no one, they can easily invent their own standards for their own reasons

[omaghjoe]

Catholic doctrine has formed the basis of Western morality and ethitics. It permeates the very fabric of society like it or not: law, values, etc.
Sure wasnt the great derider of Christianity Niche frustrated at that very thing.

I would savely say that the majority of Irish and Western people still adhere to the vast majority of the doctrine in how they act out their life.
Same as there are a la carte Catholics (which all Catholics are to some degree or another) you also have a la Carte anti-Catholics who say they are opposed to church teachings but actually their personal values and especially in the action we take are actually probably broadly in line with it.

Joe, are you being disingenuous?

If an atheist treats others how he/she would like to be treated, this has nothing, necessarily, to do with teachings of Catholocism. The test of an "anti-Catholic" as you put it surely isn't to disagree with all catholic teachings for the sake of it.

No... are you Esm?

A great many reckon they are anti-Catholic/christian/theist even tho they will adhere to societal norms that were instilled in society from Catholic theology.
And most if not all of these norms were instilled in society from some sort of theism or spirituality

Are you suggesting that, was it not for Catholocism, that you and I would behave with little regard for others? An atheist mother rearing her child to treat others nicely is only doing so because her ancestors were brought up in a society influenced by Catholic theology?

No I wasn't suggesting that exactly, more that we would behave differently. But that is certainly a possibility since religion is most likely the largest influence on Western societal norms we do behave in that way

And yes that's exactly an example that I was suggesting with the atheist mother, cultural traditions are very strong and are maintained through generations.
Of course she could be convincing herself that she is doing it for some other reason, (Not sure how an atheist would reason what actions would be "nice to others" are or even choice is exactly without some sort of intuitive spiritual influence, but that's another story.) but more than likely it involves societal norms which have been shaped by Catholic theology.

Let's assume you're right for the minute and that "good behaviour" can be linked back to religious teachings. What relevance does that have to people's view on Catholocism as a whole in today's society. Surely one can reject something while accepting that it has its good points?

You could hardly be anti Catholic unless you reject everything that was introduced and espoused by Catholic teaching now could you?... It would make more of an a la carte anti Catholic wouldnt it?

I have to hand it to you Joe. You're a very skilled debater.

However, the thread, as I see it, is to do with catholocism's place in Irish society. I think it was you that used the term anti-catholic, however I'm not sure anyone else has used it or considers themself "anti-catholic".

There are those that believe in the god as taught by the catholic church. They consider themselves catholic. This god has a representative on earth and the teachings change with time. I don't think there's anything that says it's ok to not adhere to or not believe in the teachings as a whole. With that in mind, I find it strange that people consider themselves catholic when they knowingly don't practice as they've been taught to.

On the other hand, there are people that don't believe in this god. However, they happen to agree with some of the teachings. This may be down to education historically coming from the church but it's irrelevant as the whole concept of this god means nothing to them.

So I would say that if you consider yourself a catholic then the onus is on you to follow the rules in full, so to speak. Non-subscribers, I suppose, will act without this burden as they don't believe in it. They're not anti-anything, they're just not catholic.

Esm
The OP was about a post Catholic Ireland and there were numerous comments predicting and celebrating the demise of the Catholic church and its teachings I added my 2ps worth by basically saying that it would be pretty hard to do that since a great many society norms and standards are basically Catholic norms.

If its post catholic, anti catholic whatever its all the same, as its using the Catholic church/theology/doctrines as a reference point. So yes you are right the onus is on Catholics to adhere to Catholic standards, which I fail frequently with and am uncomfortable with some of it so its probably not unfair to say that i am a bit of an a la Carte Catholic if you want (incidentally I dont really as I believe the church is the congregation which has many individual opinions). But using the same logic at its also true to say if you are post-Catholic or opposed to Catholic teachings then you need to oppose the lot otherwise your also an a la carte anti-catholic

If you want to talk about a post Catholic society you need to tear down all standards and morality that exist, decide on a basis and then built it up from there otherwise its really only an an al carte Catholic society or a la carte anti-Catholic society.

[gallsman]

If you want to talk about a post Catholic society you need to tear down all standards and morality that exist, decide on a basis and then built it up from there otherwise its really only an an al carte Catholic society or a la carte anti-Catholic society.

Absolute rubbish.

"Don't kill people" has nothing to do with being Catholic or not. There's no need to "tear it down and rebuild"

Your logic is deeply flawed.

[omaghjoe]

If you want to talk about a post Catholic society you need to tear down all standards and morality that exist, decide on a basis and then built it up from there otherwise its really only an an al carte Catholic society or a la carte anti-Catholic society.

Absolute rubbish.

"Don't kill people" has nothing to do with being Catholic or not. There's no need to "tear it down and rebuild"

Your logic is deeply flawed.

Huh? I didnt say it did, but many societal standards are.

Tho thinking about it.... Catholicism has a clear reasoning for why you should not kill,.... so why should you not kill?

[gallsman]

Yes, you did. You said you would need to tear down ALL standards and morality.

As for why not killing people is wrong? Human morality and nature. Murder was taboo and punished long before the Catholic church came around.

[Itchy]

I think of my best mates there are about 5 of them that Catholic light - they will go to mass the odd time, marry in church etc. It's almost cultural not religious. Another 4 have zero truck with the church. 1 is religious.

Of the 10, only 1 would agree to keep the church within the schools the way it is today.

[Esmarelda]

Joe, Ireland can move on without the church at the centre of its society without anybody being anti-catholic. People can carry on in the knowledge of the church's history and its previous role in the country while accepting that it still exists in a much smaller capacity. There's no test required of how post or  anti church anyone is. The children of non-believers can hardly be considered post or anti church if they've not been brought up under its influence in the first place.

And after me complimenting your debating skills 

[sid waddell]

You know someone is just going to present the opposite argument and they've plenty of ammo in the last century alone.

Perhaps. But I don't think anyone can honestly stand up and say they haven't been a force for good in the world. And I can't stand by and watch while one side presents all their hate fueled arguments.

Yeah, like religion doesn't fuel hatred.

Have a look at your own postings and what you've said about "sodomy".

I gather you live in the US.

Religion is a root cause of pretty much every negative ideology in the US.

Racism - check.
Prejudice against immigrants - check.
Climate change denial - check.
Poor education - check.
Opposition to abortion - check.
Opposition to transgender rights - check.
Opposition to universal healthcare - check.
Opposition to proper social security - check.
Support for tax cuts for the rich - check.
The gun lobby - check.
Neo-conservatism - check.
The pro-Israel lobby - check.

Slavery was justified by "Christian" ideology.

Religion is undeniably an overwhelmingly negative force in the US, just as it is in Ireland.

The Catholic church opposed racism, the global diversity of the church should be an example of this

Immigration is complicated but in the USA the Catholic church supported Obamas immigration reform

The Pope keeps harping on that we aren't doing enough about climate change.

Catholic church is broadly associated with excellence in education.

Opposed to the taking of life for convenience sake obliviously

Not sure that the Catholic church has a defined position on transgenderism perhaps you know the position?

Going by the amount of hospitals ran by Catholic orders

The rest of these I find hilarious:

Catholic church supports the Gun lobby, Neo conservatism, Pro-Isreal EH?

I'm pretty sure the Catholic church was one of the earliest opponents of slavery and is probably the biggest driver in removing its acceptance both in the West and in regions were it became the dominant religion.

I didn't specify the Roman Catholic Church. I specified "religion".

US politics is divided along cultural lines. People who self-identify as "Christians" overwhelmingly vote Republican.

"Christian politics" encompasses all the issues I mention.

White evangelicals are a massive driver of racism in the US. That ties into their opposition to immigration and support for plainly abhorrent Republican positions in general. Conservative Roman Catholics in the US tend to be pretty similar in their outlook to evangelicals, as Iceman has proved.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/30/17301282/race-evangelicals-trump-support-gerson-atlantic-sexism-segregation-south

The Iraq War, the starting point of the utter chaos that has engulfed the Middle East since 2003, was "a mission from God", according to the man who decided to start it.

Those who supported slavery invoked their "God-given" rights.

The creation of Israel as a country, and support for it elsewhere, particularly when it comes to murder and grave human rights abuses, is driven by religious fantaticism, both among Jews and Christians who are obsessed with a 2,000 year old fantasy.

You can justify anything with religion, really, which just goes to demonstrate that it should have no place whatsoever in public life.

The thread is about Catholic church, not religion in general but tear away with your straw man

I hardly need to point out that the worst genocides in recent History have been carried out in the name of atheism, often against those who practise religion

So is the Republican party the root of all evil for you? I used to think that too but then I actually considered some of the vast points position that align with that party and discovered that the facts are way more complicated than that. Id safely say most Catholics are evenly split between the two parties in America if you want to start Rep Bad Dem good either or fallacy nonsense nonsense. Youve got another nice logical fallacy going there too that all Catholics are the same as evangelical protestants and therefore vote Republican its called the association fallacy  in case your interested

There are plenty of Jews who oppose Zionism, you do get that is Nationalism and not religion that is causing the problem in the Middle East. All of those different ethnicity lived in relative harmony for centuries under the Ottoman Empire

You can justify anything without religion also. The Catholic church along with most of the main religions of the world draw a line in the sand with morality which allows society to move forward in the understanding that most of us will stay behind that line in the sand.

You don't get to choose what's discussed and what isn't mate.

Try not to use the term "logical fallacy" - it just makes you look foolish. It's the go to term for an internet blowhard woth nothing to say.

I get what's happening in both the US and the Middle East just fine, thanks.

Religion is a cancer in the US - for decades "christians" have been indoctrinating children with nonsense in an effort to produce the next generation of Republican voters.

As for your assertion that religion has nothing to do with what's happening in the Middle East - lol. Religion has everything to do with what Israel has done and the support it receives in the US. Religion drives nationaliism, which in another cancer on humnaity.

You continue to whitewash the Roman Catholic Church. That's what a fantasist does.

[sid waddell]

I hardly need to point out that the worst genocides in recent History have been carried out in the name of atheism, often against those who practise religion

The old Stalin / Hitler / Pol Pot trope. Standard rebuttal: Stalin was a paranoid lunatic who thought everyone was out to get him and came to power in a communist state that rewarded despotism.

Hitler was raised a Catholic, taught to hate Jews, and dabbled in the occult. His atrocities had many motivations (chiefly making Germany great again), but disproving the existence of God was not one of them.

Pol Pot's communism was so extreme even the Soviets were aghast. His regime opposed the existence of religion, minority groups, western-educated intellectuals, educated people, or anyone that had been touched by foreign influence. To describe his actions as being "in the name of atheism" is a gross oversimplification at best.

Firstly I was replying to a point that said that the War in Iraq was instigated by religion which is clealry nonsennse so I was crudely trying to draw some parallels. But its a fair point Eammon I was probably overstating "in the name of atheism" for effect. Tho in the case of Pol Pot and in China it would not be unfair to say a large influence on the genocide was inspried by anti-theism, which also seems to be the basis for the recent surge of pop atheism.
Hilter too had similar personal influences.

The overriding cause for their actions tho I believe was an over-focus on their ideologies with no regard for anything else other than their end goal and no regard for how they got there, ends justify the means and all that. And that I believe was at least partly because once in power they had a complete disregard for their conscience, or a higher power, both of which their ideology reasoned away and demonised.

To put this in terms of today society I am concerned by Leaders who dont believe in something, they believe they are Emperor who answers to no one, they can easily invent their own standards for their own reasons

Those who decided to wage war in Iraq believed they were on a mission from God.

Even a cursory look at the language they used to justify it will tell you that.

To deny the role of religion in the US's decision to go to war in Iraq is to deny reality.

[BennyCake]

I hardly need to point out that the worst genocides in recent History have been carried out in the name of atheism, often against those who practise religion

The old Stalin / Hitler / Pol Pot trope. Standard rebuttal: Stalin was a paranoid lunatic who thought everyone was out to get him and came to power in a communist state that rewarded despotism.

Hitler was raised a Catholic, taught to hate Jews, and dabbled in the occult. His atrocities had many motivations (chiefly making Germany great again), but disproving the existence of God was not one of them.

Pol Pot's communism was so extreme even the Soviets were aghast. His regime opposed the existence of religion, minority groups, western-educated intellectuals, educated people, or anyone that had been touched by foreign influence. To describe his actions as being "in the name of atheism" is a gross oversimplification at best.

Firstly I was replying to a point that said that the War in Iraq was instigated by religion which is clealry nonsennse so I was crudely trying to draw some parallels. But its a fair point Eammon I was probably overstating "in the name of atheism" for effect. Tho in the case of Pol Pot and in China it would not be unfair to say a large influence on the genocide was inspried by anti-theism, which also seems to be the basis for the recent surge of pop atheism.
Hilter too had similar personal influences.

The overriding cause for their actions tho I believe was an over-focus on their ideologies with no regard for anything else other than their end goal and no regard for how they got there, ends justify the means and all that. And that I believe was at least partly because once in power they had a complete disregard for their conscience, or a higher power, both of which their ideology reasoned away and demonised.

To put this in terms of today society I am concerned by Leaders who dont believe in something, they believe they are Emperor who answers to no one, they can easily invent their own standards for their own reasons

Those who decided to wage war in Iraq believed they were on a mission from God.

Even a cursory look at the language they used to justify it will tell you that.

To deny the role of religion in the US's decision to go to war in Iraq is to deny reality.

I'm confused. Are you saying it was the Blues Brothers who invaded Iraq?

[Rudi]

I know exactly one person my age that are religious. The show is over I'm afraid.

That could be a reflection of your circle of friends moreso Syf? I have a group of about 10 close friends, 7 never miss Mass, 2 are 50/50 and 1 never darkens the doors. So in my opinion the show ain't over.

Plus it's not as if you'd be an exemplar representative of today's society.

It's very much a reflection of society in this case. A very pointless and adversarial post from you. I usually don't take the bait but this one was just daft.

And you're more representative than therealdonald why and/or how?

In the land of Sufferus he is the Alpha, Omega, King, Queen even God. Their is no one like him not even Sid. He is the highest power.

[Rossfan]

Syf thinks he knows everything about everything.
He is the Supreme Eejit.
One or 2 more not too far behind but they are still only apprentices compared to the Supreme one.