# Church offerings



## horse (5 Nov 2004)

Folks,
        The "Autumn Offerings" envelopes for the priests of the parish came in the door - what is a standard contribution for this?


----------



## Henny Penny (5 Nov 2004)

*Not a regular church goer ...*

... I only just realised that the church offerings go to fund the schools in the parish too ... worth bearing in mind when deciding what to put in.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Not a regular church goer ...*

*what is a standard contribution for this?*

My standard is €0.


----------



## N0elC (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Not a regular church goer ...*

You can always ask the collector how much of the money donated will go to paying recompense to the victims of institutional abuse at the hands of the RC Church over the years, and make a payment in light of that.

I'd concur with the €0 donation.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Not a regular church goer ...*

for the Church, my standard offering would be €0
for the schools in the parish, well I pay taxes.


----------



## ajapale (5 Nov 2004)

*Dont Ask for Money*

Should this forum be renamed "*Dont Ask for Money*"


----------



## ClubMan (5 Nov 2004)

*Re: Dont Ask for Money*

*for the schools in the parish, well I pay taxes.*

Which mostly go to  institutions:



> Ownership of primary schools
> 
> The vast majority of primary schools in Ireland are privately owned and supported by the different churches. The state pays the bulk of the building and running costs and a local contribution is made towards the running costs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Leatherarse (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Dont Ask for Money*

I have never seen such a shower of miserable bast**ds, you have no problem going to the pub and paying exorbidant prices tax etc, paying car tax, paying bin charges, paying €50 or €60 into Croke Park or Landsdown Road so why do you shirk from giving money to the Church or School. Many of you have lost religion because you are too lazy or hungover to go to Mass on a Sunday, yet you use the fact that a vast minority of priests have been charged with sexual misdemeanours as a reason not to go to Mass. Cop on your children come first, look to the Church & school to educate your children and not rely on handouts from people to keep you in the lifestyle you are accustomed to.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Not a regular church goer ...*

*I have never seen such a shower of miserable bast**ds*
Miserable? - I'm happy
*you have no problem going to the pub and paying exorbidant prices tax etc, paying car tax, paying bin charges, paying €50 or €60 into Croke Park or Landsdown Road*
I do have a problem with most of the above. I don't go to the pub any more, I go to the dump instead bin charges. I'm forced to pay car tax and I have no interest in sport.
*so why do you shirk from giving money to the Church or School.*
The Church has enough money as it is. I disagree with many of their ideals. Why shouldn't there be women priests, what's wrong with gay people etc... etc... It wouldn't make sense for me to support something I feel strongly against.
*Many of you have lost religion because you are too lazy or hungover to go to Mass on a Sunday*
I regard going to Mass on a Sunday as a cop out. You toss a few coins onto the collection plate, and that's your 'duty' done? Most people seem to be half asleep at mass anyway. Why don't they go out and do something worthwhile instead? Indoctrination.
*yet you use the fact that a vast minority of priests have been charged with sexual misdemeanours as a reason not to go to Mass.*
No. See above reasons for why I don't go to Mass. I do aspire to be a Christian, but not necessarily through the apostolic, Catholic Church.
*Cop on your children come first, look to the Church & school to educate your children and not rely on handouts from people to keep you in the lifestyle you are accustomed to.*
I don't have any children. I do believe I'm paying enough towards the next generation through taxes.


----------



## rainyday (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Dont Ask for Money*



> look to the Church & school to educate your children


Why?


----------



## darag (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Dont Ask for Money*

will you go away out of that leatherarse?  surely, you're old enough now to put aside that jeezus mumbo jumbo.  it's ok to entertain small children with stories about god and santa and fairies and such but you're expected to grow out of it.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Nov 2004)

*Re: Dont Ask for Money*

I personally concur with everything that _XXXAnother PersonXXX_ says above as it happens. The only exception is that I myself certainly would not "aspire" to being a _Christian_ since I don't believe in the divinity of _This post will be deleted if not edited immediately_. I never "lost" religion because when it came down to it I never "had" it in the first place. Naturally I wouldn't expect others to necessarily agree with these views and would not force them on anybody else.


----------



## Marion (6 Nov 2004)

*and not rely on handouts from people to keep you in the lifestyle you are accustomed to*?

What handouts do you mean?

Marion :hat


----------



## Marie (6 Nov 2004)

To respond to horse's question of what is a suitable contribution to the support of whatever religious group one belongs to - traditionally this is "a tithe" (one-tenth of your income) since the beginning of the Judao-Christian religion.

A number of posters have made the point that the Catholic church is already wealthy beyond belief and don't need/deserve any more "tithes".  Whilst that may be true in Ireland and in other parts of Europe this does not hold for the rest of the world (and it is a global church).  In many parts of the world (e.g. Brazil and El Salvador, East Timor) Catholic religious are deeply involved in social and political change advantageous to the poor and disenfranchised of whom there are many millions outside of pampered, complaicent Europe.  

Priests in Ireland are paid a weekly salary (a very modestl one!) and their accommodation and domestic services are provided to them free of charge but remain the property of the Church.  Many priests who invest their lives working in inner-city parishs have very narrow means and few options when they retire.  Does anyone know if priests pay N.I.contributions towards pension?  I understand (but you should check this out with your local priest/parish priest) that all running-costs of the church itself - heat, light, cleaning, printing, maintenance - are covered by contributions by parishioners and this is what the "envelopes" are about.  Other specific expenses (e.g. training future priests, "the missions" etc.) are identified during Sunday worship and an "extra plate" goes round.  

From my observation on what is "on the plate" from collections in the Procathedral, from my "local" church in Dublin, and from the Catholic church here in Colchester it would not appear that the wealth of the Catholic Church is increasing exponentially! 

A rule of thumb might be to give in accordance with what you feel you receive from Church membership in terms of spiritual dimension to your life experience and comfort in bearing life's loses and hard knocks.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Nov 2004)

Can't argue with _Marie's_ balanced contribution.


----------



## Murt10 (7 Nov 2004)

Actually started attending again here.



Must admit it's more for the music than anything else.



M


----------



## Leatherarse (7 Nov 2004)

> " what handouts do you mean?"



Why should the ordinary Church goer with no children at school be asked to foot the bill for the education of other peoples children who for one reason or another dont attend church or school fund raising events, but still gain the benefits. This is a Dublin culture which I have noticed creeping into rural Ireland in recent years.

As a parent of five children I had no problem paying for their way through school and it has paid off tenfold.

Horse , pay what you feel comfortable with. These offerings go to covering a priests day to day expenses (food, utility bills etc.)


----------



## ClubMan (7 Nov 2004)

*Why should the ordinary Church goer with no children at school be asked to foot the bill for the education of other peoples children who for one reason or another dont attend church or school fund raising events, but still gain the benefits.*

You obviously missed this key point that I posted earlier (underlining is mine):



> The vast majority of primary schools in Ireland are privately owned and supported by the different churches. The state pays the bulk of the building and running costs and a local contribution is made towards the running costs.



Personally I would be in favour of secular schools owned, funded and run by the state owned open to all, with those who prefer to have their children taught under a particular religious ethos/regime opting out and sending them to private (fee paying if necessary) religious schools.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (7 Nov 2004)

*Horse , pay what you feel comfortable with. These offerings go to covering a priests day to day expenses (food, utility bills etc.)*

Leatherarse, please could you forward me a couple of hundred Euros to keep me going? This offering is to cover my food, utility bills etc. If you like, I can even send you a little envelope so you can post your contribution. Pay what you feel comfortable with.


----------



## rainyday (7 Nov 2004)

> Priests in Ireland are paid a weekly salary (a very modestl one!) and their accommodation and domestic services are provided to them free of charge but remain the property of the Church.


Do they get hit for BIK on their accomodation, domestic service and 'company car'?


> Why should the ordinary Church goer with no children at school be asked to foot the bill for the education of other peoples children who for one reason or another dont attend church or school fund raising events, but still gain the benefits.


Surely that's a question you should be directing to your Church?


----------



## Dan The Man (7 Nov 2004)

*my 2 cents*

The Catholic church is one of the most wealthiest organisations in the world.

Would you give Bill Gates a brown envelope?


----------



## ClubMan (7 Nov 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*

*Surely that's a question you should be directing to your Church?*

There's no point in _Leatherarse_ doing this seeing that it's a moot question as I have pointed out already.


----------



## Leatherarse (8 Nov 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*

Sorry lads I cant talk now I have to go to mass ....it's Sunday and I have to pay your dues!


----------



## MaxKolbe03 (8 Nov 2004)

I think ye should all (or most of ye anyway) grow up. This pathetic anti-Church, anti-priest thing got old in the late 90's. The original question was straightforward enough! The 'November Offering' is just a way for parishes to help balance the books and at the same time help anyone who wants to pray for their deceased (sp?) friends and family by providing a list so that those people can be remembered in the Masses during the month. I think the answer to the question would be whatever you can afford or feel like giving.

Grow up! The vast majority of religious in this country have given far more than we like to think. As for being rich beyond measure, land is their only real wealth. Some was given as part of the compensation for abuses comitted by members, other land was sold and money ploughed back into their other projects in less fortunate parts of the world and yet more was given away for free to community groups. I know of one in Kerry and one in Cork only recently where very valuable land was handed over for the good of future generations. Does anyone really think religious orders should start selling schools?

Again, you can believe or not believe, but this constant, adolescent bitterness directed at 'de Church' is just ridiculous.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (8 Nov 2004)

*This pathetic anti-Church, anti-priest thing got old in the late 90's. *

I'm not anti-Church, or anti-priest. I believe if people want to go to Church, and give priests money, then that's their business. 

I just don't like it when people assume that 'everyone should go to Church' - or that the the only reason people don't go to Church is because they're 'too hungover or lazy'.  Alas, It is part of the Catholic faith to be fishers of men.

*The vast majority of religious in this country have given far more than we like to think*

Is there a positive correlation between generosity and religion?


----------



## rainyday (8 Nov 2004)

> a way for parishes to help balance the books and at the same time help anyone who wants to pray for their deceased (sp?) friends and family by providing a list so that those people can be remembered in the Masses during the month.


Two noble causes indeed - but why the cash for the former is linked to the indulgences from the latter, I don't know.


----------



## ClubMan (8 Nov 2004)

*Grow up!*

I like to think that one characteristic of grown up behaviour is the ability to discuss matters in a reasonable, fact based and calm manner without resorting to rudeness.

*I think ye should all (or most of ye anyway) grow up. This pathetic anti-Church, anti-priest thing got old in the late 90's.

...

Again, you can believe or not believe, but this constant, adolescent bitterness directed at 'de Church' is just ridiculous.*

Perhaps you could point out precisely in this topic where anybody expressed anti-church/priest sentiments or bitterness towards those individuals or institutions? 

*The original question was straightforward enough!  ... I think the answer to the question would be whatever you can afford or feel like giving.*

I agree. But note that, as with many discussions here or in the real world they have a habit of broadening out or taking unexpected turns. 

*Does anyone really think religious orders should start selling schools?*

Did anybody suggest that here?

I would agree with Rainyday that the "list of the dead" does carry with it at least a hint of simony. Be that as it may, in the same vein as _XXXAnother PersonXXX's_ comments, it's not really any concern of mine as a non-believer/participant but more of an issue for those who _do_ believe/participate/practice.

Coincidentally, while not a _Christian_ myself, I did happen to attend an ecumenical memorial service today in the _Church of Ireland_ church in whose cemetery my father is buried and made a contribution to the collection which happened to be for the establishment of a hospice in the local area.


----------



## legend99 (8 Nov 2004)

*..*

Aren't the churches obliged to pay towards the local schools??

In that case, isn;t if the government you should be giving out to???


----------



## casiopea (9 Nov 2004)

*giving the church money*

Interesting discussion.

When I moved away from Ireland and registered in my local town (as is legally required of me) I was all of a sudden presented with a "catholic tax".  (For the record I could have lied and said Im agnostic and gotten out of it).  While Im relatively peeved  that I now have to pay my catholic tax it did make me appreciate living in ireland where I didnt have to pay any religious tax.  When I looked into it I found out that ireland is the only catholic country in europe that is totally dependent on these contributions and doesnt get this substantial government support we all think it does.  

Please feel free to dispute!


----------



## N0elC (9 Nov 2004)

*Re: giving the church money*



> While Im relatively peeved that I now have to pay my catholic tax it did make me appreciate living in ireland where I didnt have to pay any religious tax. When I looked into it I found out that ireland is the only catholic country in europe that is totally dependent on these contributions and doesnt get this substantial government support we all think it does.



Other than the monies paid to the RC church for the schools and hospitals that it runs as an agent to spread its narrow philosophy.

And also other than the State underwriting the church against the claims by victims of sexual abuse, and those poor girls in the Industrial schools. The Roman Catholic church was well aware of these abuses for generations, but in its wisdom decided to sweep it all under the carpet. Now that this horrid corruption has been exposed, and the innocent victims are looking for compensation for their shattered lives, the Irish State (ie the Irish taxpayer) comes forward to pick up a good slice of the tab. Even in a "God fearing" country like America, the Catholic church has been told to pay for its sins, and would be left to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out by the taxpayers.

The difference between Ireland and Germany, is that in Germany, taxpayers have the option to pay Church tax, while in Ireland taxpayers of all religions and none still subvent the RC church.


----------



## Dan The Man (9 Nov 2004)

*Re: giving the church money*

I also think that the church is very important to a lot of people, and good for them.

Personally, after hearing a Kerry priest delcare on national radio this year that non-regular mass goers should not offer their children for baptism in catholic churches (or get married), that was the last straw.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Nov 2004)

*Re: giving the church money*

*Please feel free to dispute!*

Yes - I have to dispute your assertion that



> ireland is the only catholic country in europe that is totally dependent on these contributions and doesnt get this substantial government support we all think it does.



I have already posted twice in this topic how the majority of primary schools are owned by the _Catholic_ church (as well as other churches) but the bulk of the running costs are provided by Government. If this is not a contribution then I don't know what is. Obviously the state is largely dependent on the church(es) for the provision of education. My opinion is that it should move away from this situation by establishing a secular state run system of schools open to all citizens. Parents who want religious education for their children could then opt out and place them in religious run schools or else have religious education carried out out of normal school hours (e.g. "Sunday school" etc.). Not that I realistically expect this to happen any time soon though.

In relation to opt-in "religious taxes" my opinion would be why should the state expend resources collecting funds for religious institutions? If people want to contribute towards their chosen institution then surely they can do it just as well directly?


----------



## ClubMan (9 Nov 2004)

*Re: giving the church money*

*Personally, after hearing a Kerry priest delcare on national radio this year that non-regular mass goers should not offer their children for baptism in catholic churches (or get married), that was the last straw.*

Ah - I remember *that* like it was yesterday!


----------



## casiopea (9 Nov 2004)

*autumn offerings*

Hi Clubman!

   Quote:Yes - I have to dispute your assertion that

actually, I didnt assert this, if you reread my post I said when I looked into this at home this was what I found out.   I wasnt asserting it to be fact however, hence the "please feel free to dispute" statement.

    Quote: the majority of primary schools are owned by the Catholic church (as well as other churches) but the bulk of the running costs are provided by Government

I dont disagree with your opinion re schools, and I too think the separation would not be a bad thing.  I dont see though how the Government contributing to the running costs of church-owned schools is an issue here as should this separation (of church and school) take place this money would still be going from the government to running cost of the now non-denominational school.


  Quote: In relation to opt-in "religious taxes" my opinion would be why should the state expend resources collecting funds for religious institutions? 

For the record, I wasnt advocating religious taxes.

  Quote: If people want to contribute towards their chosen institution then surely they can do it just as well directly?

Which they do in Ireland, (see the original posters question about the november offering), this was the point of my original post. I was just highlighting that I see these voluntary contributions in Ireland as a good thing.  

Co-incidently coming into work on the train this morning I read that here, in Switzerland (not Germany), they want to introduce a religious tax for all, regardless of denomination.  Currently you only pay tax if your catholic or protestant, now they want to introduce a religious tax for all regardless of religious belief...should promote some interesting debate on swiss askaboutmoney.  

Cas.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Nov 2004)

*Re: autumn offerings*

*I dont see though how the Government contributing to the running costs of church-owned schools is an issue here as should this separation (of church and school) take place this money would still be going from the government to running cost of the now non-denominational school.*

You said that your research showed that in Ireland religious institutions did not receive funding. My argument is that state funding of church owned schools _does_ represent such funding. It is on this basis that I disputed your assertion.

*For the record, I wasnt advocating religious taxes.*

Fair enough. I never said that you were and was merely giving my opinion on the matter.

*Which they do in Ireland, (see the original posters question about the november offering), this was the point of my original post. I was just highlighting that I see these voluntary contributions in Ireland as a good thing.*

Yes - I was simply saying that the status quo in this respect is fine and that I don't see any justification for the state to expend resources collecting contributions to religious institutions.

*should promote some interesting debate on swiss askaboutmoney.*

Yes - I wonder how they plan to decide what institutions will qualify for payments from the religious tax funds?


----------



## casiopea (9 Nov 2004)

*church vs. school*

Hi Clubman.

Quote: My argument is that state funding of church owned schools does represent such funding. It is on this basis that I disputed your assertion.

But do you not agree that this monies is going to a school, yes a church-owned school, but the school nonetheless. If church and school were to separate I would still want to see that money going to that primary school. On that basis I wouldnt include it as "church funding"....its "school funding".


----------



## ClubMan (9 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

It's _church owned_ school funding but I guess we're splitting hairs at this stage...


----------



## Leatherarse (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

Lets face facts lads education has to be paid for ,which or whether either it comes from parents pockets & government on the other hand it can all come from government which is much the same thing we will all have to pay extra tax to cover this,
which would probably be better as all you tight fisted atheists would have to pay your fair share anyway

Horse throw in €20 if you can afford it. The priests will probably need it going by all the non-contributors posting here.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

*Lets face facts lads education has to be paid for ,which or whether either it comes from parents pockets & government on the other hand it can all come from government which is much the same thing we will all have to pay extra tax to cover this,*

We are already paying tax to cover this - I have posted this information at least three times already to this topic.

*which would probably be better as all you tight fisted atheists would have to pay your fair share anyway*

We are paying our fair share but no matter how often I make this point you don't seem to understand it. My problem is that I don't like religious institutions being the conduit for most of it. This is simply my personal opinion. 

By the way, less of the insults and a bit more _Christian_ tolerance might reflect better on you... :\   



> I have never seen such a shower of miserable bast**ds ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## MOB (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

"My problem is that I don't like religious institutions being the conduit for most of it"

Hi Clubman,

In fairness, if the Church were a mere conduit, it is hard to see what objection there could be.  Surely it is the influence which the church is perceived to wield (as a result of receiving this funding) which really bothers you.

I very much suspect that use of religious institutions has allowed the state to get education provided more cheaply than if it was all administered by public servants.  I know that this is not justification of itself, but for many decades resources were very scarce and by using the church and religious orders, resources were made to go further.   Not a bad thing in my view.

With the decline of the religious orders and many schools now in the effective control of boards of management, I think we are moving gradually toward a situation where schools are only nominally under the control of the parish (or religious order as the case may be).   In effect, the Church and religious orders now have much less of a managerial role, and are more like mere trustees.  We have already seen this happen in the hospital sector, where most religious-run hospitals have been handed over to the state (I think only the Bons Secours are left - maybe a few others?).  So it seems to me that the education sector is already moving inexorably in the direction that you want to see it go.  It will be interesting to see in ten or twenty years time whether this proves to have been a good thing.  

rgds.


----------



## Leatherarse (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

They are not insults , I am just stating facts, you are the one who asked for Christian tolerence, where's yours. 

As regards religious institutes being a "conduit for the money . where would we be without them? They were the instigators and backbone of education here over the years and let us not forget that.


----------



## rainyday (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*



> think we are moving gradually toward a situation where schools are only nominally under the control of the parish


Hi MOB - Try getting your unbaptised child into a church-controlled/managed school in Dublin and you will see how 'nominal' the control is.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*



> They are not insults , I am just stating facts,



They are not facts. I concur that they are insults. I find many of your comments both insulting and intolerant.

I'm neither miserable or a bastard. I don't go to Mass because of my beliefs and I pay my fair share of taxes.


----------



## Henny Penny (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

I'm sorry I even mentioned about schools to begin with. I just thought that people should be aware of where their church contributions go ... or are supposed to go. 

IMHO the church still has a hold on us whether we like to believe it or not ... I am not a regular Mass goer, but I still believe in God and most of the teachings of the RC church. 

Should I bring my children up as RC ... at the moment I'm not doing a very good job of teaching them religion ... but they do learn a lot of it at school ... whether they believe or not. The school my children attend is the local NS and as such is a RC school, there are children with other beliefs attending but they are not excused from the catecism classes.

Would I deny my child a first holy communion because I don't go to Mass regularly? I'm not sure ... is it hypocritical to find religion in time for your childs' 8th birthday?


----------



## rainyday (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*



> Would I deny my child a first holy communion because I don't go to Mass regularly?


Interesting that you should think that first communion is a 'given', unless you have a reason to deny it. I'd be looking for good reasons to proceed with it, rather than looking for reasons to deny it.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

I suppose if your eight year old fully understands Transubstantiation and all its implications, and also believes in it, that would be reason enough.


----------



## casiopea (10 Nov 2004)

*1st holy communion*



> Would I deny my child a first holy communion because I don't go to Mass regularly? I'm not sure ... is it hypocritical to find religion in time for your childs' 8th birthday?



I think in this scenario hennypenny you just have to trust your instincts.  If you decide to go ahead with first holy communion I dont think you are being hypocritical.  

Your child can still choose when he/she is older to believe or not to believe.

Good luck,
Cas.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

Hi _MOB_

*In fairness, if the Church were a mere conduit, it is hard to see what objection there could be. Surely it is the influence which the church is perceived to wield (as a result of receiving this funding) which really bothers you.*

Yes - perhaps I could have phrased that better.

*I very much suspect that use of religious institutions has allowed the state to get education provided more cheaply than if it was all administered by public servants. I know that this is not justification of itself, but for many decades resources were very scarce and by using the church and religious orders, resources were made to go further. Not a bad thing in my view.*

Fair point.

*With the decline of the religious orders and many schools now in the effective control of boards of management, I think we are moving gradually toward a situation where schools are only nominally under the control of the parish (or religious order as the case may be). In effect, the Church and religious orders now have much less of a managerial role, and are more like mere trustees. We have already seen this happen in the hospital sector, where most religious-run hospitals have been handed over to the state (I think only the Bons Secours are left - maybe a few others?). So it seems to me that the education sector is already moving inexorably in the direction that you want to see it go.*

The problem here is what is "nominal". With the schools and other institutions such as some hospitals for example supposedly "nominal" control is still wielded with strong effect from time to time (e.g. the Bishops objecting to the standardised term arrangements and, specifically, teacher training on November 1st because it was a holy day of obligation).


----------



## ClubMan (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

_Leatherarse_,

*They are not insults , I am just stating facts* 

Well,  look like insults to me but if you can provider proof of them being facts I'd be interested to hear from you.

_Update:_ I see that _XXXAnother PersonXXX_ has already dealt with this one and I totally agree with him again (this will have to stop!    ). To address your specific insults (a) I don't consider myself to be miserable, tight-fisted or a bastard (b) I never avoided mass due to laziness or hangovers but rather because I did not believe in it or the charade that it represented for many people and (c) I am an atheist so at least you did hit on one factual piece of information in amongst your insults.

*you are the one who asked for Christian tolerence, where's yours.*

Please point out where in this topic I have expressed any intolerance?


----------



## rainyday (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*



> Your child can still choose when he/she is older to believe or not to believe.


Once again, why would you put them though communion on this basis. Why not wait until they can make their own decision?


----------



## ClubMan (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church vs. school*

*The school my children attend is the local NS and as such is a RC school, there are children with other beliefs attending but they are not excused from the catecism classes.*

Does anybody know if this is a general policy or if it depends on the individual school?


----------



## casiopea (10 Nov 2004)

*holy communion*



> Once again, why would you put them though communion on this basis. Why not wait until they can make their own decision?



Like I said, Hennypenny should trust his/her instincts on this as a parent.  It could be that he/she does exactly as you say rainyday.  Either way it doesnt make him/her a hypocrite.


----------



## casiopea (10 Nov 2004)

*excused*



> Does anybody know if this is a general policy or if it depends on the individual school?



Hi Clubman,

I _think_ its down to the individual school and even possibley the individual teacher.  I know in my niece's class non-catholics are excused from all religion classes. She, amusingly, announced one day that she wanted to be muslim so that she can play with her barbie at the back of the class instead of religion. 

cas.


----------



## rainyday (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: excused*

I wonder which is least damaging to a child - Catholicism, Islam, or the Disney religion personified by the Barbie icons.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: excused*

*or the Disney religion personified by the Barbie icons.*

Don't you mean Mattelism?  

By the way - thanks for the feedback _casiopea_.


----------



## aldaco (10 Nov 2004)

*church*

HennyPenny,

my son will be making his first communion this year.  

There are many many things about the catholic church that I dislike and disagree with.  And I do not live my life strictly (maybe not even loosely) to the rules of the RC church.  I know for this reason many would say (including a number of priests) that my son should not be making his communion.  But looking back on all I learnt and all the good that I got out of being brought up as a catholic christian and taught religion and other subjects in RC schools I've decided it is the right thing to do.  There were a lot of good points to it too and people should try to remember those things as well.

A lot of the general teachings/messages are very good and worthwhile and I think you can get a lot from those even though you might not agree with all the others.

aldaco.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: church*

Not disputing your prerogative to lead your life and bring up your children whatever way you choose but I strongly believe that it's better to adhere to a system in which you believe and not one chosen by default in which you don't. The latter is a cop out and may be a recipe for a life (or lives) lived on a basis of hypocricy in my personal opinion.


----------



## PMU (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

Well, it’s easy to see why most Irish people were Kerry, rather than faith-based Bush, supporters when you see the anti-RC bile posted on this topic. The original poster ‘horse’ simply asked how much others contribute in ‘Autumn Offerings’ – I’ve no idea what these are by the way – and rather than provide factual responses, this gave rise to a series of anti-RC Church diatribes. If you live in Germany, for example, you would be expected to register your religion and have a portion of your income tax diverted to the church.  Of course you could refuse, but then try to get your kids into an RC school (generally the best) and you’ll find it’s impossible as you are not registered as an RC for tax purposes. They get preference. Now personally I’ve no axe to grind in this as I believe that most RC priests in Ireland are agents of communism (just look at the Marxist nonsense from CORI for example) so you won’t catch me darkening their doorways  unless I have to, but if you are a member of a club you should contribute. I’d say 100 euro would be the minimum.  You could contribute up to 200 euro, i.e. less than the price of a pint per week, which is a cheapo price to pay for salvation. Even if you are not a true believer at least you will get the moral satisfaction that you have contributed more than the other worshipers, or should I say begrudgers.  Whenever I have to attend an RC church ceremony I always throw at least a 10 if not 20 euro note on the plate.  I don’t know if it means much to This post will be deleted if not edited immediately but it sure embarrasses the hell out of the others chucking their 50 cent coins in.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

* Well, it’s easy to see why most Irish people were Kerry, rather than faith-based Bush, supporters*

Did somebody do survey on Irish support for the two presidential campaigners or something?

*the anti-RC bile posted on this topic ... a series of anti-RC Church diatribes.*

Any chance that you could point out precisely where these occur in this topic? As far as I can see, with the exception of some rude contributions by _Leatherarse_ and _MaxKolbe03_ this discussion has been quite reasoned and balanced.

*and rather than provide factual responses*

Actually there were some answers to the original question but, as is often the case, the discussion broadened out into more general matters related to the original question.

*Whenever I have to attend an RC church ceremony I always throw at least a 10 if not 20 euro note on the plate. I don’t know if it means much to This post will be deleted if not edited immediately but it sure embarrasses the hell out of the others chucking their 50 cent coins in.*

From what I know of _This post will be deleted if not edited immediately's_ teachings he would take a pretty dim view of such hubris.


----------



## MOB (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

"Hi MOB - Try getting your unbaptised child into a church-controlled/managed school in Dublin and you will see how 'nominal' the control is. "

Hi Rainyday,

In fairness, I did say that the move is a gradual one.  I like gradual moves;  but I am surprised to hear that an unbaptised child would have been refused entry to a Dublin school.  I would have thought it unusual in this day and age.  I have nothing against religious schools mind you - I just didn't think that there were too many left that still operate to cater strictly and only for children of any one  particular religion .

Presumably the school admits no non-christians - or would it operate a different standard if Muslim parents sought to enrol their child?   I would be very interested to hear if your experience is a common one.  Anybody else out there?


----------



## Dan The Man (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

I really hope that this is not the case, that potentially a child could be refused entry to a school on religous grounds!

This would send the "I'm fed up with Ireland" forums wide open!

Can it be contested legally?

The schools would defend themselves by saying that the "applicant didn't fit the standard criteria!, Blaa blaa blaa"


----------



## rainyday (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

The rights of the school to discriminate on religious grounds is enshrined in the most recent (late 90's?) education act.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

I see that neither _Leatherarse_ nor _PMU_ responded to my challenge to point out a any intolerant or anti-RC comments in this topic so I can only assume that their silence on this matter indicates that they accept that they were wrong. Glad that matter's been put to bed so.


----------



## Dan The Man (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

Great stuff!

When can we start the "Is there really a God" thread?


----------



## tedd (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

I think it's a good idea for children to be raised in some faith or religious community. It gives them a value system that they learn/experience in a world outside of their home. (and ideally inside it too!) Then they have the choice, when they are older, whether they want it to be part of their life or not. They will understand what it is they are saying yes or no to. 

My parents are pretty religious people, not holy roller types but just good people who have genuine beliefs. I met a lot of similar people over the years through them, some of them priests. I get mad as hell with the institutional Church and am furious about some of the things that happened in the Church's name. But I have huge resepect for many of the people I met through my family, and their devotion and application of their beliefs in their day to day very ordinary lives is inspiring.

I think that's a gift worth giving your kids.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: Church contributions*

*I think it's a good idea for children to be raised in some faith or religious community. It gives them a value system that they learn/experience in a world outside of their home. (and ideally inside it too!) Then they have the choice, when they are older, whether they want it to be part of their life or not. They will understand what it is they are saying yes or no to.*

I respect your opinion but I believe that, unless the parents themselves believe in the system/ethos being taught, and take an active role in the child's development in this context then the whole thing is a charade. Unfortunately such charades are very common in my experience as evidenced by many people doing the whole baptism, communion, confirmation, church wedding, church funeral, confession, mass etc. palaver because it's the done thing and not because of any fundamental belief in the actual ceremonies/services/sacraments. I certainly don't believe that _some_ religious/faith based education is implicitly better than none. People can learn lots about the history and fundamental tenets of all sorts of beliefs without being brought up as "members by default". I know lots of atheists who know more about the _Bible_ and _Catholic_ theology than many self proclaimed believers.

*When can we start the "Is there really a God" thread?*

 came close!


----------



## casiopea (11 Nov 2004)

*charades*

Tedd,
Great post. 

Clubman.


> unless the parents themselves believe in the system/ethos being taught, and take an active role in the child's development in this context then the whole thing is a charade.



I dont think this is altogether fair.  Ironically I find it a bit righteous! The fact is some people have firm beliefs (there is a God/there definitely is not a God) but some people are quite simply uncertain. They mightnt like the RC church and mightnt agree with some of its teachings but might feel that there is a God or something there.  I think for that group it is especially hard to decide whether or not to bring up their children in or out of church.  I dont think its as black or white as you make it out to be....I dont think its a charade. Yes, its not ideal, but its not a charade.




> I know lots of atheists who know more about the Bible and Catholic theology than many self proclaimed believers.



So do I, just because someone is an atheist or agnostic does not imply they know nothing about God or religion  and just because someone is a practicing Catholic or believer does not mean that they think they know everything about God/religion.  Saying you believe in God is not proclaiming to know everything about God/catholism. Im not sure what point you are trying to make here.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: charades*

*I dont think this is altogether fair. Ironically I find it a bit righteous!*

Why is it ironic that I might be righteous about this? Morals are not the sole preserve of those who have or claim to have religious beliefs.  

*The fact is some people have firm beliefs (there is a God/there definitely is not a God) but some people are quite simply uncertain. They mightnt like the RC church and mightnt agree with some of its teachings but might feel that there is a God or something there. I think for that group it is especially hard to decide whether or not to bring up their children in or out of church. I dont think its as black or white as you make it out to be....I dont think its a charade. Yes, its not ideal, but its not a charade.*

What people do is their own affair. I'm just stating my own personal objection to the many people who, for one reason of another, do such things by rote with little or no introspection or understanding and, in many cases, often act contrary to the beliefs that are supposed to inform their lives.

*Im not sure what point you are trying to make here.*

My point was that it's not necessary to be involved in any particular religion to have some insight into how it operates as may have been suggested by _tedd's_ post.


----------



## casiopea (11 Nov 2004)

*all good threads come to an end.*



> My point was that it's not necessary to be involved in any particular religion to have some insight into how it operates as may have been suggested by tedd's post.


 
I dont think that was what he meant, but its up to Tedd to confirm that.

I was reading your link clubman to the other topic on "is there a God" and Ive actually realized Im inadvertantly breaking some AAM rules as brendan closed the thread saying:



> If anyone wants to discuss religious topics, please find another site. All future religious topics will be deleted immediately.



Based on this Im bowing out (of the thread not religion    )
but its been very enjoyable.  Have a great day.

Cas.


----------



## nogser (11 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> just because someone is an atheist or agnostic does not imply they know nothing about God or religion



I think you will find that an atheist does know nothing about God as they believe that there is no God/s.  I tend to agree with ClubMan.  Inconsistency between actions and words are easily detected by children.  The best thing is to act and speak consistent with your beliefs.  If you have doubts about the church but are a mass gower than expalin this to your children otherwise they suss you sooner than you thing.  

Nogser


----------



## darag (12 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> I think you will find that an atheist does know nothing about God as they believe that there is no God/s.



eh?  you don't have to believe that captain kirk is a real person to know a lot about star trek.


----------



## rainyday (12 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Looks like the RC church are trying really, really hard to cut down the numbers of people who will participate in church ceremonies.


----------



## ClubMan (12 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Well, at least they're encouraging them to do something more useful instead! :lol


----------



## MOB (13 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Hi Rainyday,

I really cannot see anything to criticise in the new guidelines, nor do I think it is fair to characterise it as "trying hard to cut down the number of participants in church ceremonies".   The number of participants in church ceremonies has been going down for years now;  is the answer to try to "jazz up" the churchand somehow broaden its appeal?  or is it to try to re-focus on core values?  The bishops clearly believe it is the latter.  This is a legitimate approach in business; why not in religion too?


Incidentally, for catholics, this is by no means a new issue.   To catholics (indeed to christians generally), one of the first important and decisive actions taken by This post will be deleted if not edited immediately as an adult on earth was to drive the traders and moneylenders from His Father's house.

The bishops are reminding practising catholics of this and in doing so they are (in my opinion) absolutely true to the teaching of the bible.  That is what the bishops are there for - to remind catholics of what it is to be a catholic and to do their best to give appropriate guidance - even if catholics don't always agree with it and even if the bishops don't always get it right.

The church is not some sort of alternate bingo hall available for whatever social occasion people have in mind.  

An uncle of mine died a couple of years ago.  He was a bachelor and worked as a plasterer all his life.  They placed his tools in the coffin, which was entirely appropriate and in keeping with a catholic burial.  He was fond of his pint, but it would in my view have been out of keeping with a catholic ceremony to commemorate this - I have often been told by  priests that working can be a form of prayer, but I have  never yet heard a priest preaching that going to the pub can be a form of prayer.  Except, of course, my brother doesn't drink at all and I am sure that there have been many nights when he drove myself and friends home when he might jutifiably have offered it up as a penance, but that's a separate issue.


So well done to the bishops for standing up and reminding people.

regards;


----------



## rainyday (13 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Hi MOB - Perhaps my tongue was somewhat in my cheek with my last post. Of course, I respect the right of the church to set out the ground rules for what happens on their turf.  I just fail to understand how giving a eulogy at the graveside, or before/after the Mass should be in some way preferable to a eulogy during the Mass. Or why personal mementos could be placed 'near the coffin' but not on the coffin. Personally, I'd have thought that the Church has far bigger issues to worry about than the placing of mementoes during funerals.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

*They placed his tools in the coffin, which was entirely appropriate and in keeping with a catholic burial.*

Actually (and not being flippant) it probably has more in common with pagan and other pre-Christian rituals, particularly given the Christian teaching of not being able to take worldly goods with you after death. It's interesting from an anthropological point of view to see how religions often adapt to and integrate the pre-existing social and religious conventions of different regions.

Apart from that, as an outsider, and as I mentioned in the , I certainly wouldn't dispute the clergy's right to show leadership on such issues towards their followers. Maybe I can be sanguine because they don't have any relevance to me - apart from where church and state commingle as in the example of the schools/hospitals etc. mentioned earlier.


----------



## zag (14 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

rainyday - a funeral mass has a specific form and the bishops are simply reminding people of this.

To put it in a business context - a board meeting has a specific form.  The people attending may well be great singers and are no doubt welcome to do a karaoke before or after the meeting, but while it is convened it would not be appropriate.

To bring it back to the religious context - holding a wake and having a few drinks and a meal in the deceaseds memory are part of the funeral process, but they are not appropriate as part of the funeral mass.

z


----------



## rainyday (14 Nov 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> I think it's a good idea for children to be raised in some faith or religious community. It gives them a value system that they learn/experience in a world outside of their home. (and ideally inside it too!)



Hi Tedd - I don't see the necessity for a faith/religious community to create a value system. IMHO, it somewhat weakens a value system, by creating a dependence on an outside being (i.e. it is wrong because He says it is wrong, rather than it is inherently wrong because of the impact of the action).

Hi Zag - I guess the Bish touched a nerve because he feels that several of the actions taken by me & my siblings at my mothers funeral (approx. 10 years ago) would be seen as inappropriate. No - we didn't have Karaoke in the church   We had one of my mother's paintings and a wicker basket which she had been fond of as part of the offetary procession and placed on her coffin. Several of my siblings spoke towards the end of the mass, which I believe was particularly important as many of the attendees would have been friends of me & my siblings, and would only have had a passing aquaintance with our mother. 

We did nothing inappropriate, but it seems slightly ludicrous that we would now have to get the eulogy 'vetted' by the priest beforehand.


----------



## Leatherarse (8 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Rainyday, I just copped this post, why should each and everyone dictate to the Church what is right and what is wrong about Church ceremonies . The Church make their rules and if you dont like them then "tough This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language". You as a parent (I surmise ) have rules in your own house and you expect these to be adhered to ... The same exists in all Religions, clubs , etc. So forget the petty bickering and move your life on. 

Ps. I buried my mother a few months back so I am speaking from experience. We had the most beautiful ceremony imaginable and all within the guidelines of the Church.


----------



## rainyday (8 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Hi LA - See my comments earlier in the thread;



> Of course, I respect the right of the church to set out the ground rules for what happens on their turf. I just fail to understand how giving a eulogy at the graveside, or before/after the Mass should be in some way preferable to a eulogy during the Mass. Or why personal mementos could be placed 'near the coffin' but not on the coffin. Personally, I'd have thought that the Church has far bigger issues to worry about than the placing of mementoes


----------



## Tharggy (8 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> Personally, I'd have thought that the Church has far bigger issues to worry about than the placing of mementoes



Why?
Islam requires its followers to be meticulous about everything from how they wash or cook right through to how they are to be buried. So why not the Catholic Church too? In fact, compared to Islam the Catholic version of Christianity is a doddle to follow. Consider yourself lucky!

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
If you don't like the RC church then BIN the letter requesting a donation.
I assume you also stay away from church - as going would be hypocritical. So the issue of church collections is of no consequence to you either since you won't be there.
If you are as fastidious as you claim about your dislike of the church...then don't get married there and don't ask to be buried by them either. That would be hypocritical too.
If you have kids then certainly they are entitled to an education...but why should it be catholic? Find somewhere else.
If your kid wasn't baptised then he/she cannot receive holy communion, so don't send them to 1st holy communion ceremonies.

I'm not the greatest Catholic in Ireland, but I can see the value in religion...ANY religion. Without it society soon boils down to a free-for-all of greed and consumerism...just look at what Christmas has become!

By the way...do you 'celebrate' the consumerist festival of christmas? Does it have any meaning beyond getting pissed, stuffing your face, and an orgy of spending? Is it a valid and worthwhile experience for you and your child when you diligently expunge all religious significance from it?

There's a lot of hypocrisy evident at this time of year...dontcha think?


----------



## ClubMan (8 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

*I'm not the greatest Catholic in Ireland, but I can see the value in religion...ANY religion. Without it society soon boils down to a free-for-all of greed and consumerism...just look at what Christmas has become!*

Not necessarily. Religion is not a prerequisite for having a value system, moral framework or even a sense of spirituality (for those who are into that sort of thing) which informs one's life, actions/behaviour, attitude towards and treatment of others etc. In some cases casual adherence, not based on any real/strong underlying faith or belief, to any particular religious system can insulate people from actively engaging with such issues. Some might also argue that certain religious practices and beliefs abrogates some people of personal responsibility for their beliefs, actions etc. which isn't necessarily a good thing...


----------



## daltonr (8 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> I'm not the greatest Catholic in Ireland, but I can see the value in religion...ANY religion. Without it society soon boils down to a free-for-all of greed and consumerism...just look at what Christmas has become!



The implication is that it is religion that gives a person their moral backbone, and without religion we are all tissues on the breeze.  Living for the moment, selfish, lacking direction, lacking compasion, in short lacking basic christian values.

That's quite offensive to those of us who would consider ourselves to be good people, without any belief in a particular religion.  Those of us who know that so called Christian Values go back much further than Christianity and are actually quite basic rules on how humans should behave humanely towards each other.

I can honestly say that the most "christian" people I've known have been those who have no belief in religion.   

Furthermore, of those who consider themselves Catholic, they often have to disregard Catholic pronouncements in order to square their Catholicism with their Christianity.

"Yeah, I'm a catholic, but I don't believe in the Churches attitude towards, Gays."

At the end of the day there are good people, bad people, and in between people, and religion has damn all to do with what you'll end up as.

-Rd


----------



## rainyday (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Hi Tharggy - Can I suggest you ring around 5 local national schools and check out their admissions policy (and the specifically the impact of not being baptised on the chances of admission for your child) before you repost.


----------



## Tharggy (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Rainyday, why would you want to send your child to a Catholic school if not baptised as Catholic?

As to the other comments...its all very well for intelligent, well educated (in catholic schools?), middle class, middle aged, generally decent, law abiding -internet debating - liberal thinkers to declare 'I'm a good person and I don't need religion'. 
You are in the minority in most societies.

The people who would best profit from a stiff dose of religion are often NONE of the above.


----------



## rainyday (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

You are missing my point. The vast majority of schools are Catholic schools, like it or not. If I want to send my child to a non-Catholic school today, I can;

- Choose the CofI school down the road (which has a superb reputation btw) where those of no religion and Catholics come at the bottom of their priority list when selecting new pupils. Priorities are given to teachers families, siblings of existing pupils and CofI families
- Choose the nearest Educate Together school which is much further away than the local schools and add another car into the rush hour traffic. The ET school is about 3 miles away, or 40-60 minutes in rush hour traffic.

Like it or not, the Churches have the education system sewn up.


----------



## purple (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

Rainyday, the Churches have the education system sewn up because they built, and for a good while financed, a good many of the schools.
I take your point that there is little alternative for a lot of people and for primary school children during communion and confirmation years a good chunk of their time will be spent on their own if they are not RC.
The debate about the influence of Christianity on our moral value system is a much bigger debate and all I would like to add is that it could be argued that we are a liberal secular society because the Catholic Church was so repressive it forced a reformation and subsequent age of enlightenment.
In other words we are where we are due to a rejection of religion, not because of it's teachings. Personally I think it's a very complicated and involved issue and stances in black and white on either side of the argument ignore this.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> Can I suggest you ring around 5 local national schools and check out their admissions policy (and the specifically the impact of not being baptised on the chances of admission for your child) before you repost.



"Catholic" primary schools have no legal basis for refusing admission on the basis of religion. There are plenty of non-catholic and for that matter, non-Caucasian, non-European, children attending "Catholic" primary schools.

Most of the staff are lay staff at these schools nowadays, and the parents have more say than they used to.

I personally would not baptise a child, I would let him/her decide on his/her faith when at an age to appreciate it.

I think that it is better to show a good example, be a good Christian (as the posters say, pun intended) rather than a good Catholic. It is all to easy to pay lip-service to Christianity by showing up for mass once a week, not believe in many of the outdated views and doctrines of Vatican II and the current Pope, and generally doing nothing else in your life to "treat others as you would have them treat you".

I also don't pay parish dues. I figure I pay enough in taxes already - just look at the disgraceful deal the govt made on the cost of the child abuse scandals - Irish institutions pay 128M, the taxpayers, the rest, with no upper limit!


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Dec 2004)

Final thought on the original topic - you can have my local church, I don't need it.


----------



## daltonr (9 Dec 2004)

To answer the very original question.

Next time your at Mass, ask the person next to you.
If you don't go to mass, then don't worry about it.

-Rd


----------



## Blue Blaa (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*

Those people who don't contribute to the Church are the first to use the Church for their weddings, baptisms, communions, confirmations and funerals. Hypocrites.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*



> Those people who don't contribute to the Church are the first to use the Church for their weddings, baptisms, communions, confirmations and funerals. Hypocrites.



If you don't baptise your child, that gets you out of the baptism, communion and confirmation.

Priests get paid for weddings.

Which leaves funerals. You can invoice me.


----------



## purple (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*



> Priests get paid for weddings.


 How much would you have to pay a solicitor or doctor for a day of their time on site (even with dinner thrown in)?
I would guess it would be more than the €150 or so that a priest is paid. I tend to agree with BlueBlaa on this and I think that's a first!


----------



## Tharggy (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*

As a matter of interest Mr.Bond, at what age do you think your child is equipped to make the decision about religion?

If his/her 8 year old classmates are all excited about their upcoming 1st Holy Communion don't you think your child might start feeling left out? That he/she is missing something?

Certainly peer pressure is no good reason for a child to suddenly decide to 'become a Catholic', but don't you think thats exactly what a young child is likely to want to do in these circumstances?
Is that what you call an educated decision?

I don't have small kids. Maybe I'm out of touch with what happens nowadays. Do some people actually tell the school that their child is not to be given RE or allowed to take part in other social events which centre on a church service? Christmas Carols banned? Taking part in Nativity play banned?

I think its fairly 'high and mighty' of any parent to foist this kind of puritanism on their child. I actually don't believe it happens - because it is patently gross. Please tell me you have no young children Mr.Bond. I pity them.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*

* As a matter of interest Mr.Bond, at what age do you think your child is equipped to make the decision about religion?*

Children can learn about religion in general in school, as part of general social studies, ethics etc. I meant the choice of a particular religion to ascribe to is not appropriate for a young child, IMHO.

*If his/her 8 year old classmates are all excited about their upcoming 1st Holy Communion don't you think your child might start feeling left out? That he/she is missing something?
*
Depends. Not if the child is in a non-denominational school. And even if they are, as I said above, not everyone on this rock is actually Catholic.

*Certainly peer pressure is no good reason for a child to suddenly decide to 'become a Catholic', but don't you think thats exactly what a young child is likely to want to do in these circumstances?
Is that what you call an educated decision?
*
1st Holy Communion is about the parents in Ireland as far as I can see, and about developing consumerism in kids - anyone who doesn't get over a grand is second rate. I don't subscribe to or wish to perpetuate this practice.

*I don't have small kids. Maybe I'm out of touch with what happens nowadays. Do some people actually tell the school that their child is not to be given RE or allowed to take part in other social events which centre on a church service? Christmas Carols banned? Taking part in Nativity play banned?
*
As I say, not everyone in Ireland is Catholic, or even Christian.
Children can learn about religion and Ethics, and can certainly take part in plays etc, Christmas carols, etc. etc.
It is just the sacraments that I would object to, or rather would object to the school ramming its selectively-chosen ethos down the throat of my children.

*I think its fairly 'high and mighty' of any parent to foist this kind of puritanism on their child. I actually don't believe it happens - because it is patently gross. *
Attitudes towards religion, race, society etc. are all implicitly passed onto children, and it is the actual working day-to-day living attitudes that matter, not the view you like to think you subscribe to. Kids can see through that.

All very well pretending to be good Christians when we promote racism etc. to the next generation by our behaviour.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*

*Priests get paid for weddings.*



> Purple>
> How much would you have to pay a solicitor or doctor for a day of their time on site (even with dinner thrown in)?
> I would guess it would be more than the €150 or so that a priest is paid. I tend to agree with BlueBlaa on this and I think that's a first!



Was being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, to be honest.

If I go to church for an occasion, I contribute to the collections that are passed around.

I give to charity.

I pay my taxes to the govt and they choose to pass on a rather generous subsidy to the Church for their past discretions.

I just don't see the need to pay Easter or Xmas dues.


----------



## Tharggy (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*

Mr.Bond, my comments were obviously in reference solely to Catholics - because they form the largest part of the community. 

Of course there are other religious/non religious groups on this rock...but I can't see how this thread applies to them. 
Why would a protestant parent, with a child in a non-denominational or protestant school be asked to contribute to a catholic school collection? 
Its just not an issue.

Lets stick with the matter as it affects catholics...or lapsed ones

Now, would you like to address my comments again within those parameters?





> As a matter of interest Mr.Bond, at what age do you think your child is equipped to make the decision about religion?
> 
> If his/her 8 year old classmates are all excited about their upcoming 1st Holy Communion don't you think your child might start feeling left out? That he/she is missing something?
> 
> ...


----------



## ClubMan (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

*As to the other comments...its all very well for intelligent, well educated (in catholic schools?), middle class, middle aged, generally decent, law abiding -internet debating - liberal thinkers to declare 'I'm a good person and I don't need religion'.*

Why is this "all very well"?

*The people who would best profit from a stiff dose of religion are often NONE of the above.*

It seems to betray a strange, although hardly original, mindset and attitude to religion to use the metaphor of medicine (or is it disease?). In any case one could also easily adopt the equally facile argument that the combination of characteristics antithetical to the ones above and religion isn't necessarily a recipe for positive results. Specific examples are easy to find in the world in which we live...

* Rainyday, why would you want to send your child to a Catholic school if not baptised as Catholic?*

Obviously _Rainyday_ can answer for himself but part of the problem, at least as I see it and as outlined much earlier in this discussion, is that there is often no alternative (to sending one's children to the local, often Catholic, school) given that there is no comprehensive state run school system (ideally secular in my view even if I may be in a minority) because the state largely relies on privately (Church) owned but public funded schools to provide an education to its citizens.


----------



## daltonr (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: my 2 cents*



> Why would a protestant parent, with a child in a non-denominational or protestant school be asked to contribute to a catholic school collection?  Its just not an issue.



Actually the thread isn't about school collections, it's about the Church Envelope collection.  It was suggested that some of this money might make it to funding the school.   I don't actually think this is true, the schools are paid for out of Taxes, as Clubman has pointed out.

To deal with your earlier question about Kids being left out when all their friends are getting ready for communion.  It's easy for non-catholics to emulate the part of communion that the kids look forward to.  Buy them some nice clothes and give them a bundle of unmarked non-sequential bills.

-Rd


----------



## purple (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> As to the other comments...its all very well for (1)intelligent, (2) well educated (in catholic schools?), (3)middle class, (4)middle aged, (5)generally decent, (6)law abiding - (7)internet debating - (8 liberal thinkers to declare 'I'm a good person and I don't need religion'.


I'm a bit worried about that comment as well Tharg since I don't fall into catagories 1,2,4  or 8 and 5,6, & 7 are open to debate...


----------



## daltonr (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> How much would you have to pay a solicitor or doctor for a day of their time on site (even with dinner thrown in)?
> I would guess it would be more than the €150 or so that a priest is paid. I tend to agree with BlueBlaa on this and I think that's a first!



Have you considered that the difference in price has something to do with demand?   Perhaps €150 is as much as you can squeeze out of designer Catholics before they start shopping around.

It is an interesting question with people willing to pay the spiralling cost of Hotels, Cakes, Dresses, Food, Photographers etc.  Just how much would a non church going couple be willing to pay for the use of the church?

If I were the church I'd allow regular church goers to hold their ceremony free of charge, and the rest I'd charge €3000.

If you don't care about the religion, but would like to use it to keep your parents happy, and have a pretty backdrop for your photo's, then fine, but pay for that privilage.

Let's see how many designer catholics there are then?

-Rd


----------



## Blue Blaa (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

‘Final thought on the original topic - you can have my local church, I don't need it.’ 

Is that true Mr.Bond . Are you willing just to disregard the Church… just like that? The Catholic church has being sick for a very long time and it’s up to us, its’ members to rectify it.  And understand where it went wrong.
One of the central themes of any religion is to stick by your Church in times of crisis and not jump ship at the first sign of trouble…. That is the moral cowards way out


----------



## ClubMan (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

*If I were the church I'd allow regular church goers to hold their ceremony free of charge, and the rest I'd charge €3000.*

I never really understood how charging for the "use of the Church", including the relevant sacrament (e.g. of marriage in this case) isn't considered simony. Any _Canon Law_ experts out there who can explain?


----------



## ClubMan (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

*One of the central themes of any religion is to stick by your Church in times of crisis and not jump ship at the first sign of trouble….*

Aren't you mixing up the spiritual tenets of the underlying faith (e.g. in _God_, the _Trinity_ etc.) with adherence/loyalty to the hierarchical institutional church which is, after all, a man-made creation?


----------



## Monsieur Bond (10 Dec 2004)

*Church for sale*

All reasonable offers considered.


----------



## daltonr (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Church for sale*



> Are you willing just to disregard the Church… just like that? The Catholic church has being sick for a very long time and it’s up to us, its’ members to rectify it. And understand where it went wrong.



Whenever someone says that they have no interest in the Catholic Church, they are met with a response like this.  As if we are abandoning something in it's time of need.   It suggests we don't have the sticking power of the good Catholics who stay involved.

The truth is I've turned my back on Catholicism for three reasons

1. I simply don't believe in it.  I don't believe in any god, much less the one promoted by Catholicism, so it would be a sham for me to keep going to church bowing and begging forgiveness from something I don't believe exists.  I have better things to do.

2. I don't believe in (for want of a better word) the policies.  I don't believe in it's attitudes towards, Gays, women, contraception, and a host of other issues.   And I won't allow myself to be considered a member of such a club since that membership would imply that I agree with those views, and live by that moral code.

3. I was fortunately brought up to question things rather than accept them blindly.  I was able to recognise that being born catholic was an accident and all other religions and those with none were as likely to be right.

The scandals etc. Are not the reason I turned my back on the church.  If I devoutly believed in the Church then I'd believe in it's ability to be redeemed.

If Catholics would stop looking down there noses at non-Catholics with a mix of pity and scorn I might have more time for them.   Y'all ain't got so much to be proud of, and a bit of humility wouldn't go astray.

-Rd


----------



## purple (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Church for sale*

Ditto for me on why I don't believe DR but I still admire a lot of those involved and think that the central tenets of the RC church are a good moral code to live by, "Do onto others as you would wish to be done onto you." and "Love your neighbour as yourself".


----------



## Blue Blaa (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Church for sale*

I have never ever came across a Catholic who would look down their noses at non-catholics… quite the opposite in fact, in that I have being meet with scorn, ridicule and sheer mockery by claiming  that I was Catholic (albeit a very lukewarm sort of one!).


----------



## ClubMan (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Church for sale*

*Ditto for me on why I don't believe DR but I still admire a lot of those involved and think that the central tenets of the RC church are a good moral code to live by, "Do onto others as you would wish to be done onto you." and "Love your neighbour as yourself".*

You're right - there's lots of  there all right. However, what about all the other stuff like "an eye for an eye", hell/purgatory/limbo and so on?


----------



## ClubMan (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: Church for sale*

* I have never ever came across a Catholic who would look down their noses at non-catholics…*

Does "looking down" include patronising because, if so, I have regularly come across that. Try reading _Breda O'Brien_ in the _Irish Times_ on a Saturday? She often makes a good stab at it.


----------



## rainyday (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*



> "Catholic" primary schools have no legal basis for refusing admission on the basis of religion.


They don't refuse admission on the basis of religion - they prioritise admissions on the basis of religion (which means that those at the wrong end of the stick get refused in the end). It is all enshrined in the 1998 Education Act.


----------



## Tharggy (10 Dec 2004)

*Re: all good threads come to an end.*

*ClubMan: Why is this "all very well"?*
Its just a turn of phrase. Don't read too much into it. :lol     

*Daltonr: Actually the thread isn't about school collections, it's about the Church Envelope collection.* 
Oh?...then I refer you back to my first point...if you are offended by the RC church you are unlikely to be subjected to a church collection, are you?

*Buy them some nice clothes and give them a bundle of unmarked non-sequential bills.*
I presume you are joking. Who would subject their child to such a charade?

*Purple:I don't fall into catagories 1,2,4 or 8 and 5,6, & 7 are open to debate.*
G'wan...you're just being modest.

*Clubman: I never really understood how charging for the "use of the Church", including the relevant sacrament (e.g. of marriage in this case) isn't considered simony.* 
Good point! I suppose if there was a 'price list' that would be blatant Simony (imho) - perhaps the request for a 'voluntary donation' is how thats got around!

*However, what about all the other stuff like "an eye for an eye", hell/purgatory/limbo and so on?*
The 'eye for an eye' mentality was finished by the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ. He contradicted many such precepts of the Old Testament, which was why the Pharisees hated Him so much and plotted his crucifixion. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately said "Love thine enemy...Turn the other cheek", not an eye for an eye. 
I believe the concepts of Limbo and Purgatory were 'phased out' around the Second Vatican Council in the mid sixties. Everyone got out on good behaviour.  
As to Hell and Heaven...just about every religion has some concept of these. The old ideas of a 'lake of fire' are less dogmatic nowadays.
Now that I've cleared that up for you, would you like to learn more about Christianity before you write it off through ignorance or prejudice? 

*Does "looking down" include patronising because, if so, I have regularly come across that. Try reading Breda O'Brien in the Irish Times on a Saturday? She often makes a good stab at it.* 
There is much ignorance in the followers of the RC religion in this country, BUT they are being unchristian in that kind of behaviour.

*Rainyday:They don't refuse admission on the basis of religion - they prioritise admissions on the basis of religion (which means that those at the wrong end of the stick get refused in the end). It is all enshrined in the 1998 Education Act.* 
I'm all for the setting up of more non-denominational schools.
The collections will be a fair bit bigger and more frequent though I 'spose.


----------



## Marion (10 Dec 2004)

Do people have a preference for "non-denominational" schools as opposed to "multi-denominational" schools? 

Marion :hat


----------



## daltonr (10 Dec 2004)

> but I still admire a lot of those involved and think that the central tenets of the RC church are a good moral code to live by, "Do onto others as you would wish to be done onto you." and "Love your neighbour as yourself".



Actually both of those go back far beyond Catholicism and even beyond Christianity.   

When you strip out the ancient golden rules that are common to virtually every religion on earth, you are left with the bits that most decent catholics don't like.  I.e. Attitudes towards women, contraceptives, gays, divorce separation etc.

I'm not saying the church is wrong to hold these views.  It's entitled to any views it wants.  I'm just saying that most Catholics I meet tend not to believe in the very things that makes Catholicism different from other religions.



> Do people have a preference for "non-denominational" schools as opposed to "multi-denominational" schools?



Not really, if multi denominational means that all of the kids get to learn about all of the religions then that's fine.   If they segregate the kids and only teach them their own religion then I'd have a problem.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (10 Dec 2004)

*The 'eye for an eye' mentality was finished by the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ.*

Not quite true. _This post will be deleted if not edited immediately_ was a _Jew_ and his teachings represent a contiuous line from _Judaic_ teaching as set out in the _Old Testament_ and the _Talmud_. _This post will be deleted if not edited immediately_ went out of his way to integrate the traditional _Judaic_ teachings (e.g. 12 apostles - even though there were actually an unknown number - being symbolic of the 12 tribes of _Israel_, his 40 days and nights fasting in the desert being symbolic of the 40 years wandering of the _Jews_ after the _Exodus_ etc.) with his own in an attempt to bring _Judaism_ around to his way of thinking. The _Bible_, being the main theological book of _Christianity_, contains both the _Old_ and _New Testaments_ so you can't really pick and choose the stuff that you like and disregard the rest.

*He contradicted many such precepts of the Old Testament, which was why the Pharisees hated Him so much and plotted his crucifixion.*

Actually it was arguably the _Sanhedrin_ which comprised more than just _Pharisees_.

*This post will be deleted if not edited immediately said "Love thine enemy...Turn the other cheek", not an eye for an eye.*

He also said lots of other stuff some of which was mutually contradictory.

*I believe the concepts of Limbo and Purgatory were 'phased out' around the Second Vatican Council in the mid sixties. Everyone got out on good behaviour.  *

So much for constancy of belief so.

*Now that I've cleared that up for you, would you like to learn more about Christianity before you write it off through ignorance or prejudice?*

Actually that's precisely the sort of patronising attitude to which I referred earlier. As it happens I know quite a bit more about _This post will be deleted if not edited immediately_ and the _Bible_ than many practising _Christians_ that I know, although that wouldn't be hard. I never "wrote off" _Christianity_ just because I don't believe in it myself. On a personal level I certainly reject the divinity of _This post will be deleted if not edited immediately_ (or anybody else) even if I am very interested in him from a historical point of view.


----------



## Tharggy (10 Dec 2004)

> Actually it was arguably the Sanhedrin which comprised more than just Pharisees.


The Sanhedrin consited of Pharisees *and* Saducees. So what? Do people reading this discussion need, or want, a practical lesson on Judaic history? Are you boasting, or trolling? Whats your point?
Its this kind of pettiness that ruins discussions and this one is now entering very dangerous ground.



> The Bible, being the main theological book of Christianity, contains both the Old and New Testaments so you can't really pick and choose the stuff that you like and disregard the rest.


As I see it, the Old Testament is part of a direct line in an evolving religion. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately often made reference to Old Testament passages, sometimes to reinforce it, sometimes to criticise it. There is good and bad in it. It is part of the history of the religion and forms its foundation. 
The New Testament is built on the Old, but it is the New Testament which is pre-eminent.

You say I cannot pick and choose...but I do, I do! I favour the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. I have yet to meet a christian who personally cuts the throat of a live sheep to thank God for a pay rise. 
Are you arguing they should because Moses did so? 

Your disparaging comment about 'constancy of belief' being absent because the church dropped concepts such as Purgatory from the dogma...you see it as 'inconstant'.
I see it as willingness to change and evolve. Christianity is not, never has been - and never will be - a monolithic ideology locked in the 1st century middle east. 

Christians have a free will and a free conscience. And unlike certain other religions...where I might have my head chopped off for disagreeing on certain minor details...I am free to use my conscience in my religion. 
So are you. 
In certain other faiths your apostasy and rebukes would be punishable by death!



> He also said lots of other stuff some of which was mutually contradictory.


Evidence please.


----------



## daltonr (11 Dec 2004)

> In certain other faiths your apostasy and rebukes would be punishable by death!



Actually it's not the fact that he's rebuking Christian's that allows him to keep his head.  Clubman lives in Ireland and as such he's free to criticise, rebuke, praise and discuss any religion he likes.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (11 Dec 2004)

*The Sanhedrin consited of Pharisees and Saducees. So what? Do people reading this discussion need, or want, a practical lesson on Judaic history? Are you boasting, or trolling? Whats your point?*

Er, I was responding to your lecturing of me above on issues of Christian teaching... :rolleyes 

*Its this kind of pettiness that ruins discussions and this one is now entering very dangerous ground.*

My comments were not off topic.

*Are you arguing they should because Moses did so? *

Of course not - I'm just pointing out that the _Bible_ and _Christian_ teaching involves much that is mutually incompatible and contradictory.

*Your disparaging comment about 'constancy of belief' ...*

A disparaging comment based on fact.

*Christians have a free will and a free conscience. And unlike certain other religions...where I might have my head chopped off for disagreeing on certain minor details...*

Well, at least not these days anyway.

*In certain other faiths your apostasy and rebukes would be punishable by death!*

And this non sequitur is supposed to prove what exactly?

*Evidence please.*

 Check out a comparison of the historical timelines and event sequences in the synoptic Gospels for other good examples.


----------



## Tharggy (13 Dec 2004)

> Clubman lives in Ireland and as such he's free to criticise, rebuke, praise and discuss any religion he likes.


Daltonr...Salman Rushdie lived (lives?) in the UK. A western democracy with fre speech, just like Ireland.
That didn't stop the Ayatollah from putting a Fatwa on his head for 'criticising' Islam. He had to go into hiding to avoid assasination.
Likewise Theo Van Gogh...lived in what is arguably one of the most free thinking countries in europe - The Netherlands. He was stabbed to death last month on an Amsterdam street, in broad daylight, for 'insulting' Islam.

Living in a country with free speech has absolutely no bearing on how much free speech you are allowed under certain religions. 

Christianity is a far more tolerant religion than many paint it.
The Spanish Inquistion is not relevant to todays modern church, it was a product of its time - over 600 years ago.

Clubman:

You commented that This post will be deleted if not edited immediately contradicted himself. Your *exact* words were: 
"*HE* also said lots of other stuff some of which was mutually contradictory."

Not a single one of your Google links points to a specific statement by This post will be deleted if not edited immediately that was contradictory.
Are you trying to mislead?

Incidentally, I note that the majority of your links (look at the first 3 alone) refer to Islamic websites full of anti Christian propaganda. 

There's a whole industry of this stuff on the web. 
Numerous websites have been set up in response to discredit the Korans validity by pointing out its contradictions. Try This Link. Its all tit-for-tat silliness.

Stick to your comments about Christs own words, and If you could find a source that was a little less biased...then you'd be more credible.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Dec 2004)

*Incidentally, I note that the majority of your links (look at the first 3 alone) refer to Islamic websites full of anti Christian propaganda*

They're not my links - they are ones that _Google_ threw up.

*Stick to your comments about Christs own words*



> John 5:31 - "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
> 
> John 8:14 - "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true"



By the way - nobody can know _This post will be deleted if not edited immediately'_ actual words for sure since the _Gospels_ were all written (or actually collated from individual tracts into various proto _Gospels_ only four of which were eventually selected as being "true") long after he was gone and no (historically) reliable written record of his teachings exists.


----------



## daltonr (13 Dec 2004)

> He had to go into hiding to avoid assasination.



He appeared on stage with U2.  Not exactly Osama Bin Ladin style hiding is it?



> Likewise Theo Van Gogh...lived in what is arguably one of the most free thinking countries in europe - The Netherlands.



Are you suggesting that no Christians ever misinterpret the teachings of their religion and kill someone?  There are quite a few abortion clinic staff who'd disagree for a start.



> Living in a country with free speech has absolutely no bearing on how much free speech you are allowed under certain religions.



That's self evidently ridiculous. 

-Rd


----------



## Tharggy (13 Dec 2004)

> They're not my links


You presented them...ergo they are your links.


> John 5:31 - "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
> 
> John 8:14 - "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true"


And the answer: 





> In John 5:31, the context is This post will be deleted if not edited immediately speaking about how He depends upon the Father and how He is seeking the will of the Father.  John 5:30-32 says, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true."  The word "alone" is not in the Greek but is included in the NASB translation, though not the NIV, the KJV.  Contextually, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately is not speaking as one alone, but as one dependent on the Father and that His judgments are true because He does the will of the Father.  This post will be deleted if not edited immediately is reflecting on the Old Testament law that didn't allow the testimony of one person to condemn another to death.  Two witnesses were needed to establish the fact:
> 
> "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established," (Deut. 19:15).   and Matthew 8:16 says, ". . . in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."  See also 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28.
> 
> In John 8:14, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately says, "IF" (kan, in the Greek) I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true.  But He was speaking of being the light of the word, v. 12, and the Pharisees accused Him of bearing witness of Himself.  This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was simply telling the truth that if He did, it would be true.


We can do this all day.



> By the way - nobody can know This post will be deleted if not edited immediately' actual words for sure since the Gospels were all written (or actually collated from individual tracts into various proto Gospels only four of which were eventually selected as being "true&quot       long after he was gone and no (historically) reliable written record of his teachings exists.


Then we can put your 'contradictions' down to simple misquotation also.



> He appeared on stage with U2. Not exactly Osama Bin Ladin style hiding is it?


Its an interesting story and a real lesson about religious freedom. After Khomeini died the new Iranian regime sought to re-open diplomatic channels with the west. They began toning down a lot of Khomeinis extremism. They were asked to lift the Fatwa off Rushdie. They pointed out that in Islam a Fatwa technically ends with the death of the originator (Khomeini died in 1989). However, extremist muslims continue to declare it valid. 

Rushdie has decided to walk around openly, after nine years in hiding, but he does so with a police escort. I think he's a brave man and a beacon for free speech. I think your joky dismissal of his plight is really sick.



> Are you suggesting that no Christians ever misinterpret the teachings of their religion and kill someone? There are quite a few abortion clinic staff who'd disagree for a start.


 Are *you* suggesting that Van Goghs murder was simply a *'misinterpretation'*? A kind of 'unfortunate accident'? Ooops...stabbed you twenty times by mistake Theo.

Incidentally, no abortionist carries out their actions *in the name of any religion!*



> That's self evidently ridiculous.


Yes, a lot of your statements seem to be self evidently ridiculous, just like that one.

What I'd like to understand is how you two get so exercised if anyone points out the failings of any religion but christianity? You seem to get so *enraged* by a comment which shows Islam in a negative light, yet you feel free to drag christians down into the dirt in public. Are you more against christianity than Islam for some particular reason? What makes you think that its OK for a muslim to take offense at hateful comments, but *not OK* for a christian to feel offended by yours? Would you like to see a Fatwa on my head...and chop it off yourselves?

The funny thing is that there are now moves afoot to put an end to all this debate because muslims will not tolerate criticism of their religion. The laws now being drafted in the UK to stifle criticism of Islam will - ironically - probably benefit christians most because (unlike muslims) christians do not resort to physical violence or threats when their faith is publicly ridiculed or 'insulted'.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Dec 2004)

*You presented them...ergo they are your links.*

Actually I presented a link to _Google_.

*Then we can put your 'contradictions' down to simple misquotation also.*

I'm just quoting the _Bible_ and a derivative modern _English_ translation of the original _Aramaic_ and ancient _Greek_ texts at that so I certainly wouldn't bank on it being correct, no.


----------



## daltonr (13 Dec 2004)

> Are you suggesting that Van Goghs murder was simply a 'misinterpretation'? A kind of 'unfortunate accident'? Ooops...stabbed you twenty times by mistake Theo.



If someone interpreted Islam as telling them to do this then it was a misinterpretation (probably deliberate).  The act of Killing wasn't an accident, but that doesn't mean the reason for it was valid.  I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you.



> Incidentally, no abortionist carries out their actions in the name of any religion!



You know the motive in every single case?
Fair play to you.



> What I'd like to understand is how you two get so exercised if anyone points out the failings of any religion but christianity?



Right now, I'm getting exercised about your misrepresentation of Christianity as some how better than any other religion.  If a Muslim comes on and starts making similar claims about his/her religion they'll get the same response.  



> Are you more against christianity than Islam for some particular reason?



I'm not against one more than the other at all.  I'm equally skeptical of both.



> What makes you think that its OK for a muslim to take offense at hateful comments but not OK for a christian to feel offended by yours?



I don't understand your question.  Not one of my comments has been hateful.  I have nothing against peoples right to worship.  I do have a problem with people who make false claims, or who claim that one religion is inherently more right than another.   

I presume you fail to see the irony of asking that question while repeatedly making anti-islamic comments yourself, on this and other threads. 

This thread has now reached the usual place where all religion threads reach.  Perhaps closing it might be an idea.  Any objections????

-Rd


----------



## Tharggy (14 Dec 2004)

> If someone interpreted Islam as telling them to do this then it was a misinterpretation (probably deliberate). The act of Killing wasn't an accident, but that doesn't mean the reason for it was valid. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you.


When your religious leaders tell you its OK - nay, MANDATORY - to kill someone who offends your religion, that is no minor personal misinterpretation. It is a religious instruction from the leadership to all the faithful under well worn and recognised precepts of Islamic Jihad. There is no mistake...it is policy.


> You know the motive in every single case?
> Fair play to you.


I think your suggestion that an abortionist just might be acting in the name of any religion is bizarre in the extreme. Perhaps you consider Satanism a valid religion? 



> Right now, I'm getting exercised about your misrepresentation of Christianity as some how better than any other religion. If a Muslim comes on and starts making similar claims about his/her religion they'll get the same response.


 Better than? That's your word. You've tied yourself so much in knots you've forgotten what we were discussing.
Christianity is a religion which allows - indeed requires debate, and accepts freedom of conscience within its boundaries. You wish to paint it as medieval and backward...which it certainly is NOT, and I used the comparison with Islam for the purpose of relativity.
And I seriously doubt you'd be harsh on a muslim who came on here, even if they told you that you are an infidel and a crusader, which you are in the eyes of Islam.


> I do have a problem with people who make false claims, or who claim that one religion is inherently more right than another.


This discussion started with a comment about church collections. It was turned into a diatribe against Catholicism and Christianity. I have the right to defend my faith. All religions think themselves 'inherently more right' than all others, but some have rather less tolerance than others to criticism. You are free to criticise christianity or the catholic church - I won't threaten your life in response, but keep it honest and fair please. 
If you don't like christians or catholics you are free to ignore them, but don't tell us how to live or what to believe.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2004)

*It was turned into a diatribe against Catholicism and Christianity.*

Precisely where and by whom?


----------



## piggy (14 Dec 2004)

*And I seriously doubt you'd be harsh on a muslim who came on here, even if they told you that you are an infidel and a crusader, which you are in the eyes of Islam.*

Sounds like more  to me. A lot like the diatribes I've read here over the past year or so.

That brush that you're painting with Tharggy is far too big.


----------



## Tharggy (14 Dec 2004)

> If *Catholics* would stop looking down there noses at non-Catholics with a mix of pity and scorn I might have more time for them. Y'all ain't got so much to be proud of...





> what about all the other stuff like "an eye for an eye", hell/purgatory/limbo and so on?





> He [This post will be deleted if not edited immediately]also said lots of other stuff some of which was mutually contradictory.





> So much for constancy of belief so.



Is 'Christianophobia' a word? 
Should be.


----------



## piggy (14 Dec 2004)

I think it's fairly easy to differentiate between believing that all Muslims want to kill you etc or feel justified in doing so and the general debate going on in relation to certain facets of Christianity.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2004)

Whatever about the first comment above, if you think that the three that follow (from me as it happens) constitute a "diatribe" then you must have a pretty low tolerance to the normal cut and thrust of discussion/debate.

*If you don't like christians or catholics you are free to ignore them, but don't tell us how to live or what to believe.*

Who expressed a dislike for _Christians_ or _Catholics_ or any urge to tell them how to live their lives? Just as the _Catholic Church_ (in the form of _Father Kevin Doran_ writing in _Alive_ at the weekend) is welcome to use free speech to claim that they don't recognise the state institution of marriage as executed during registry office marriages (such as my own) and considers such unions "invalid", I certainly feel free to express my opinion and criticism of them and their beliefs where I consider it justified.


----------



## daltonr (14 Dec 2004)

> And I seriously doubt you'd be harsh on a muslim who came on here, even if they told you that you are an infidel and a crusader, which you are in the eyes of Islam.



You have no idea how I'd respond to such a Post and I'll thank you not to presume you do.

It should take all of 10 seconds in Google to find any number of supposed Christians spouting hatred about any number of groups, from Gays, to Abortion Clinic Staff, to Jews, even other Christians.
I don't believe any of these people are true Christians, and I certainly don't believe it would be fair to judge all Christians by these remarks.

You should have the decency to accept that those Muslim Leaders who promote acts of violence and hatred are also not indicative of the entiry religion.   To attempt to extrapolate from the fanatics to the entire population is the worst kind of prejudice and scare mongering.

-Rd


----------



## Tharggy (14 Dec 2004)

> Whatever about the first comment above, if you think that the three that follow (from me as it happens) constitute a "diatribe" then you must have a pretty low tolerance to the normal cut and thrust of discussion/debate.


Actually yes, I do have a low tolerance to your comments. I developed it after realising that other religions accept NO debate or discussion on their precepts. They won't tolerate it...why should I?

The 'christians' you refer to are what I would call unreconstructed fundamentalist puritan-protestant fanatics, and they are mostly American too...although we do have our own homegrown variety in the likes of Ian Paisley.

Have you read the [broken link removed] which draw a direct lineage from the Paisley-like Scotts Irish Protestants who settled in the American midwest to the Bible thumping fundamentalists of the region today...the heartland of George Bushs support?

I disown them entirely. Their kind persecuted Catholics in this country for centuries.

PS that link requires registration so I'll reproduce the essay...sorry but you must read it.



> America's New Model Army
> Anatol Lieven
> 
> Fundamentalist Christians are the backbone of the Bush administration. An analyst probes their origins and assesses their influence, which has been boosted by the ‘war on terror’
> ...


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2004)

*Actually yes, I do have a low tolerance to your comments. I developed it after realising that other religions accept NO debate or discussion on their precepts. They won't tolerate it...why should I?*

Why should the attitudes of those of other persuasions influence your views and actions? Seems odd to ape the alleged intolerance that you perceive in others. I don't consider my comments to be that contentious but surely any committed _Christian_ that considers them to be might be inclined to "turn the other cheek" or engage in reasoned debate/discussion?

*The 'christians' you refer to are what I would call unreconstructed fundamentalist puritan-protestant fanatics, and they are mostly American too...although we do have our own homegrown variety in the likes of Ian Paisley.*

The _Christians_ that I refer to where exactly?

*Have you read the recent essays which draw a direct lineage from the Paisley-like Scotts Irish Protestants who settled in the American midwest to the Bible thumping fundamentalists of the region today...the heartland of George Bushs support?*

I heard of the essays all right but I am not so interested in the subject that I would seek them out.

*PS that link requires registration so I'll reproduce the essay...sorry but you must read it.*

Must I? I think not.


----------



## Tharggy (14 Dec 2004)

> Seems odd to ape the *alleged* intolerance that you *perceive* in others.


I don't think Theo Van Gogh simply *'perceived'* the *'alleged'* knife that murdered him. 
What weasel words you use!


> I don't consider my comments to be that contentious but surely any committed Christian that considers them to be might be inclined to "turn the other cheek"


No, as far as I'm concerned, turning the other cheek means not striking back physically, but I reserve the right to defend my faith verbally. Even This post will be deleted if not edited immediately did as much. You won't walk over us that easily. 

On the other hand, I won't track you down and stab you to death for your jibes and insults. 

By the way, I already said, I don't consider myself a 'committed christian'. I am simply someone from a catholic upbringing who is sick of this one sided and twisted attack on the decent folk I know who are exemplary followers of Christs teachings. They may be few and far between in this wonderful capitalist paradise we've created, but they are the salt of the earth.


> The Christians that I refer to where exactly?


Right HERE...


> Christians spouting hatred about any number of groups, from Gays, to Abortion Clinic Staff, to Jews, even other Christians


QED


> I heard of the essays all right but I am not so interested in the subject that I would seek them out.


I provided the details to save you the trouble.


> Must I? I think not.


Abide in ignorance then, if you will.


----------



## daltonr (14 Dec 2004)

Tharg,

When clubman asked



> The Christians that I refer to where exactly?



You should have at least had the decency to respond with a Quote from CLubman.

And if you are going to quote me, you should have at least had the decency to include the full quote. 

*supposed* Christians spouting hatred about any number of groups, from Gays, to Abortion Clinic Staff, to Jews, even other Christians.
*I don't believe any of these people are true Christians, and I certainly don't believe it would be fair to judge all Christians by these remarks.*


I'm locking this thread.  You can't go around making wild claims about other religions based on the actions of the fanatics, while at the same time drawing a line between christian fanatics and the rest of the christians.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (14 Dec 2004)

> Right HERE...
> 
> Quote:Christians spouting hatred about any number of groups, from Gays, to Abortion Clinic Staff, to Jews, even other Christians



If you recheck your sources you will find that  was not me. :\


----------

