Catholic Church and other religions!

Oh bugger. 🙂

Is that an ad hominem or not? 😕

I think CM has been dissecting, rather well, some rather extraordinary, and I imagine in his view ridiculous claims about how religion is forced down people’s throats, presumably based on his own experience. My own views would be based on my own experience would be similar.

Very few people whether JWs or others have come to my door in my life, maybe 5, and are certainly vastly outnumbered by people selling dusters.

The 3 mins a day of Thought for the Day is swamped in the mainstream media by the coverage of football, which has a commensurate number of weekly attendees, so I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect this amount of coverage, you can’t expect everything to be geared to your own tastes. In fact considering how many people of faith there are in this country, media coverage is pretty low and tends to be focussed on discussions about sex. This probably says more about the media than the religious.

I have rarely seen people shouting their religious views in shopping areas, but to be fair I don’t really go shopping.

EL’s posts have, as often, been rather good at exposing humbug.

you can’t expect everything to be geared to your own tastes

It’s a bugger that, isn’t it.

mefty +1

I thought he was doing a pretty good job of being ernie, during ernie’s recent absence.

Not sure whether to be flattered or insulted so I applaud the post 😀

I think CM has been dissecting, rather well, some rather extraordinary, and I imagine in his view ridiculous claims

I think he likes to ask questions I am less ure of what he actually thinks on any issue as his modus is to ask not answer generally – often helpful for debate to be fair.

The 3 mins a day of Thought for the Day is swamped in the mainstream media by the coverage of football,

I dont think the BBC is required by charter to cover football like it has with thought for the day and the daily act of worship. It certainly has no duty to do 3 minutes of aetheism on a daily basis with a 15 minute service at 9:45 and however long on Sunday.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect this amount of coverage, you can’t expect everything to be geared to your own tastes

Indeed I cannot but i can reasobnably expect it to not be broadcast on the BBC prime time morning news show where someoen religious gets to preach to me about their morals and beliefs. Do we get do an aethist broadcast in the middle of the daily worship? So it is not equal and more special

My main issue with thought for the day is that it is dull but it lets me know it is time to get up.
FWIW the presenters can make no comment on the content they can only introduce it so again it is special unlike any other person who appears on the NEWS show who can be challenged.

I do not have a problem with the BBC having religious segments to cater for all listeners it is where they oput it in this case that I would object to – its a little like the daily act of worship in schools – yes you can avoid it but they still have the right to do it so still pervassive

Football coverage is required on terrestrial telly as there are a number of listed events. Thought for the Day isn’t specifically protected and the Charter only requires the following

(1) In developing (and reviewing) the purpose remit for representing the UK, its nations,
regions and communities, the [BBC] Trust must, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the
BBC—
(a) reflects and strengthens cultural identities through original content at local, regional
and national level, on occasion bringing audiences together for shared experiences;
and
(b) promotes awareness of different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content
that reflects the lives of different people and different communities within the UK.
(2) In doing so, the Trust must have regard amongst other things to—
(a) the importance of reflecting different religious and other beliefs; and
(b) the importance of appropriate provision in minority languages.

So religion gets the same protection as the Welsh language, seems reasonable to me.

EDIT: PS …And if you are so keen on Today whose presenters’ job is to dissect people’s views without exposing theirs, why the problem with CM doing the same. Is it perhaps because it is your views being dissected?

So all in all, great eh? Totally, except it’s not true, the whole thing is essentially based on a big lie. Realising this in my early teens made me a bit cross really and I have been angry at religion ever since. Finding out the beliefs you have been taught by everyone you’ve trusted are a crock of shite is a bad experience.

ditto, and precisely my point, but put better than I havebeen able to.

Regarding Mungus’s OCRQ (obsesive compulsive repetitive questioning). there is little point in responding Charlie. The question has been answered, its not particularly relevant, and whatever answer anyone gives is immediately denegrated. I suspect you may have learnt this technique at Church, as its pretty much what they do too.

Its also interesting that folk want to argue, that the state, education, family, and pretty much every other aspect of life in this country being pervaded by religion has no influence on them. As before if that is true, why the high chair about it? In fact why bother? Obviously because those who are engaged in it feel there is no relevance or influence I guess.

Its also interesting the words being bandied about by the religionists such as Aethist and so on. Fundamentally flawed thinking IMHO, you have no idea what I or others who similarly choose not to bandy it about believe. Strangely, and for the benefit of clarity I do consider myself to be morally Christian in my views. Unfortunately, that does immediately put me at odds with the religious orthodoxy in this country, and thats the point.

C’mon guys even the outgoing Pope admitted that he thought God had buggered off, i.e. the church is doing a wrongun. How hard is it to actually fess up? You can’t actually move forward until you do.

Football coverage is required on terrestrial telly

So we agree it is not required on the BBC and we agree religion is required on the BBC

why the problem with CM doing the same. Is it perhaps because it is your views being dissected?

Not sure I have said anything that says i have a massive problem with CM doing this and I am not sure he has actually targetted me that much or unfairly. I just find it stramge [ and very easy] to pick holes in other arguments when saying nothing yourself – used to do it in debates at uni but we all know there are more questions than answers. I find it better [ and harder ] in a debate to state your own view rather than just question others-if you only ask questions then the other person needs to defend then you ask another question etc] Sometimes I think the journalists are just as intent on doing this and it is not helpful to debate or understanding and sometimes it is – it depends on what you do.

I do agree that probing questions are often useful but in a debating forum , as opposed to an interview, it seems odd to JUST do this.

If you are going to win the war, I think you might need to attack on a slightly broader front.

I went to Christchurch and had what can be described as a pretty religious upbringing

Whose fault is that? The church, or your parents. At whom should you be angry therefore?

As for religion in schools – when I was in school this was indeed taught in a social and historical context, rather than religious lessons. It was simply learning about the world.

It was compulsory as was the rest of school, but I don’t hear anyone complaining about Maths, Geography or Romeo and Juliet being forced down my throat.

Thanks to Charlie for having the willpower to expose the ‘forced down our throat’ line as rubbish.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/11/government-confirms-collective-worship-guidance-can-be-ignored

Thanks to Charlie for having the willpower to expose the ‘forced down our throat’ line as rubbish.

Interesting point of view when right next to a link demonstrating that every man, woman and child in the country above a certain age has indeed had it shoved down their throats……or was that intended to be ironic?

It was compulsory as was the rest of school, but I don’t hear anyone complaining about Maths, Geography or Romeo and Juliet being forced down my throat.

What school forces facts on you – I think we all aware that the compulsory eduication system compulsory educates you
What you seem to be arguing is that the fact they do it with religion doe snot mean they are pervassive which i just doint get
I agree maths education is pervassibve in schools as is reading , writing as it is compuslory schools deliver this.
I dont understand why anyone would think this is not pervassive when itis mandatory to deliver this to pupils even in non rleigious schools

It is obvious that you cannot be educated without exposure to religion hence it is pervassive.
I sont really see how you can argue this is not all pervassive tbh.

Now if dawkins was to get the law changed to do this with aethism or humanist classes instead of religion would you consider that to be non pervassive?

The law in England and Wales provides that children at all maintained schools “shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship”. In community schools, the worship must be wholly or mainly of a Christian character.

The scholl then has to offer RE edcuation to all

Your right why would anyone think that this is pervassive 🙄

As for religion in schools – when I was in school this was indeed taught in a social and historical context, rather than religious lessons. It was simply learning about the world.

It was compulsory as was the rest of school, but I don’t hear anyone complaining about Maths, Geography or Romeo and Juliet being forced down my throat.

Thanks to Charlie for having the willpower to expose the ‘forced down our throat’ line as rubbish.

It’s not rubbish. It happened to me on an almost daily basis up until the age of 16.
There was no ‘context’.
Catholicism was right, all the other religions were wrong and their believers would be denied a place in heaven.

You’re now doing what you accuse others of doing.
Please stop it – it’s not worthy of you.

This was in the 70’s and early 80’s, at mainstream Catholic schools in North Manchester.
Which is a predominantly Catholic area.

Funnily enough, the Catholic Sixth Form College I attended, Loreto in Manchester was run by nuns yet was a far more liberal place when it came to religion.

I have some very good experiences of the Church and Catholicism – great support network when my parents died etc.
But that’s a different story.

It’s not forced down your throat it’s gently drip fed over many years.

That’s how religion works, it’s insidious. Worse for catholics, I have a mate who really, genuinely thought masturbation was a sin that lad was wound up tight.

It’s interesting to see the response to mine and many other people’s opinion that we have had religion ‘forced down our throats’ – repeated hectoring, blatant provocation, insults and being told we are talking rubbish/nonsense etc, despite providing numerous specific examples of our experience.

Pretty sure being respectful and tolerant of other people’s views is one of the things that you were supposed to be arguing for. Hmmm…..

I have a mate who really, genuinely thought masturbation was a sin

Which brings us neatly back to child genital mutilation, that was originally the reason for it.

It’s not rubbish. It happened to me on an almost daily basis up until the age of 16.
There was no ‘context’.
Catholicism was right, all the other religions were wrong and their believers would be denied a place in heaven.

Funny that that should have happened in the 70s and 80s, because it is completely at odds with the official teaching of the Church in Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium.

[Both of these documents are available in English translation on the Vatican website. Or in the original Latin for those who wish.]

wel wiki gives me this quote from the later document

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved

Not gettiung your point surely everyone accpets that the church believes its message and wants to get, keep and maintain its flock and thinks their version is the true oine –iirc there is a few commandment on this

Funny that that should have happened in the 70s and 80s, because it is completely at odds with the official teaching of the Church in Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium.

[Both of these documents are available in English translation on the Vatican website. Or in the original Latin for those who wish.]

I know.

It happened.

It’s still happening as well:

I listened to a sermon by a parish priest in Middleton in North Manchester just last year repeat exactly the same thing at the christening of a friend’s child, in no uncertain terms.

The church is called St Peter’s on Taylor Street in Middleton and the priest is Father Kieran Mullarky.
I’m sure he’d be happy to have a chat.

Vatican II didn’t really take in certain places – people do like to hold on to their predjudices.

Junky, Grum: What they are missing is that the repeated intransigence, and denials in the face of overwhelming evidence is simply proving the point they are arguing against.

@Junkyard (3 entries above)

Pivotal to that sentence you cite is the word ‘knowing’.

For example, if I ‘know’ that all goodness flows from Christ through the Church, but turn my back on it, then I would be condemning myself. Like a man who goes to the beach for the day, ‘knowing’ that the sun produces heat and light. If he were to then fall asleep on his towel while reading a book (or STW), well, he would get burnt by his own actions. Because in spite of ‘knowing’ the sun’s effects, he ‘turned his back’ on it.

In this analogy, the sun is morally neutral. It just does what it does, and its effects are felt in a negative way by the man in question. According to the Church, not ‘knowing’ does NOT result in condemnation. Only knowing and choosing otherwise.

Someone who did not believe, or who fell away from belief, would not be considered someone who ‘knew’.

It’s not rubbish. It happened to me on an almost daily basis up until the age of 16.
There was no ‘context’.
Catholicism was right, all the other religions were wrong and their believers would be denied a place in heaven.

You were in a Catholic School though ?

That’s hardly the same as claiming that “religion is forced down our throats in this country” is it ?

I wouldn’t complain if I went to the football on a Saturday afternoon that “it was all a bit Footballey”
Because I went there by choice, and it was obvious what was going to happen when I got there.

Your Parents made that choice for you. Nothing to do with any Church or Government Policy.

you intolerant LIAR RUSTY [ said with tolerance and love obvioulsy] 😉

The scholl then has to offer RE edcuation to all
Your right why would anyone think that this is pervassive

You must be able to see the difference between religious education and doctrine?

Our RE lessons were ‘people believe this’. It’s not the same as being told to believe something, is it? Surely not? We were taught about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and so on along side Christianity, as a cultural phenomenon. I can’t see a problem with that. No-one was trying to convert us.

It’s not rubbish. It happened to me on an almost daily basis up until the age of 16.

Ok so you went to a Catholic school, yes? Presumably your parents sent you there? So your issue is with them, not society. Secular schools are available, in the UK at least.

I don’t think anyone’s forced to go to religious schools are they?

Well, RS, I can only reiterate that such teaching is simply wrong and quite out of tune with what the Church clearly and publically has taught in the two authoritative documents I have mentioned.

If people think I’m lying I’d rather they actually just said so.
I’d at least have a modicum of respect for them that way. 😀

Your Parents made that choice for you. Nothing to do with any Church or Government Policy.

I’m fully aware of that.

SaxonRider – Member

Well, RS, I can only reiterate that such teaching is simply wrong and quite out of tune with what the Church clearly and publically has taught in the two authoritative documents I have mentioned.
Well that’s alright then, isn’t it?

I don’t think anyone’s forced to go to religious schools are they?

Yes they are.
The pupils.

You were in a Catholic School though ?

That’s hardly the same as claiming that “religion is forced down our throats in this country” is it ?

I wouldn’t complain if I went to the football on a Saturday afternoon that “it was all a bit Footballey”
Because I went there by choice, and it was obvious what was going to happen when I got there.

Your Parents made that choice for you. Nothing to do with any Church or Government Policy.

If people want to have a special Catholic indoctrination facility I suppose they can, but it shouldn’t be funded by the state.

And molgrips, how about answering the point about rubbishing/insulting other people’s opinions being exactly what you were arguing against?

repeated hectoring, blatant provocation, insults and being told we are talking rubbish/nonsense etc,

I’d say this was an over-reaction on the par of being insulted when told you might be going somewhere in which you don’t believe after you’ve died.

I don’t think anyone’s forced to go to religious schools are they?

Oh so you wern’t being ironic then……..

Berm Bandit – Member

Thanks to Charlie for having the willpower to expose the ‘forced down our throat’ line as rubbish.

Interesting point of view when right next to a link demonstrating that every man, woman and child in the country above a certain age has indeed had it shoved down their throats……or was that intended to be ironic?

I’d say this was an over-reaction on the par of being insulted when told you might be going somewhere in which you don’t believe after you’ve died.

darcy do you ever post anything on this forum any more that isn’t just criticising what someone else has said (while saying nothing constructive yourself)? Seems to be your main topic of conversation these days.

I think being accused of ‘ranting militant atheism’, being misquoted then told I’m lying, being told that my opinion is ‘rubbish’, being repeatedly asked the same question over and over again when I’ve already answered it, would qualify pretty well for the above.

It’s not that I’m particularly upset about it, but the blatant hypocrisy is rather telling.

I’m going to go for it grum….. I’m going to call him an ignorant **** (which he obviously isn’t of course), and lets see if hes offended or if the mods jump in.

I don’t think anyone’s forced to go to religious schools are they?

Yes they are.
The pupils.

Is there no secular alternative? Could you not have been placed in a different school?

Interesting point of view when right next to a link demonstrating that every man, woman and child in the country above a certain age has indeed had it shoved down their throats..

Over a certain age, yes. Things have progressed since then I think. I don’t want to debate what used to happen quarter of a century ago, I think that’s futile. The point is that in 2013 it is not forced down our throats.

And molgrips, how about answering the point about rubbishing/insulting other people’s opinions being exactly what you were arguing against?

Hang on – was I rude somewhere? Did I call people ignorant or stupid anywhere? Did I deride and berate someone over a series of posts? If so I apologise unreservedly.

being told that my opinion is ‘rubbish’

Giving an opinion on someone’s given opinion? How dare he? 🙂

Ah well, another interesting thread on religion derailed by intolerance on both sides.

I was enjoying that.

Well done.

Is there no secular alternative? Could you not have been placed in a different school?

You’re realy missing the point here.
I had no choice.
I was a child at the time. 🙂

My father was an aethiest, my mother a devout Catholic.
I abandoned any pretence of faith at about 11 years old, which led to a huge series of family rows and difficulties.
We eventually reached a compromise, where I would leave the house for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning and go for a walk or bike ride.
My mother wouldn’t ask if I’d been to church & I’d not tell her where I’d actually been.

Hang on – was I rude somewhere? Did I call people ignorant or stupid anywhere? Did I deride and berate someone over a series of posts? If so I apologise unreservedly.

People offer their opinion, based on their experience, and because you disagree, it’s ‘rubbish’. Hardly very respectful is it?

Thanks to Charlie for having the willpower to expose the ‘forced down our throat’ line as rubbish.

Again, it’s not a massive deal, but you’re the one that’s been loudly and repeatedly calling for politeness.

So, on the one hand you’ve got the likes of Woppit really laying into people without any provocation, going on and on about how feelbleminded people are whom he doens’t know; and on the other I’ve said someone’s argument is rubbish during a relatively heated debate.

I really don’t think those two things are comparable at all.

You’re realy missing the point here.
I had no choice.
I was a child at the time

Ok but the question here is ‘is religion forced down our throats by society in general?’

You had religion forced down your throats by your mother (or by proxy), as I imagine many children are in religious families. I don’t think that’s the same thing. I’m obviously not arguing that parents don’t indoctrinate their kids – they obviously do, but that’s not being debated here. At least, not by me.

So, on the one hand you’ve got the likes of Woppit really laying into people without any provocation, going on and on about how feelbleminded people are whom he doens’t know; and on the other I’ve said someone’s argument is rubbish during a relatively heated debate.

I really don’t think those two things are comparable at all.

So it’s ok for you to call my opinion rubbish, but it wouldn’t be ok for me to call christianity rubbish (which I haven’t done BTW) would it? There’s that double-standard again.

I’m no fan of Woppit’s anti-religious fundamentalism either BTW, and I’ve called him out on it before.

So, on the one hand you’ve got the likes of Woppit really laying into people without any provocation, going on and on about how feelbleminded people are whom he doens’t know; and on the other I’ve said someone’s argument is rubbish during a relatively heated debate.

I really don’t think those two things are comparable at all.

No you were much more polite. 🙂

Only about half a dozen or so posters have tried to make the debate ‘heated’.
You know what Woppitt’s going to say, why rise to it?
Two wrongs and all that……….

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but I’m trying to counter a wrong with a right.

So it’s ok for you to call my opinion rubbish, but it wouldn’t be ok for me to call christianity rubbish

No, you CAN call Christianity rubbish. However you’re not allowed to be nasty or prejudiced to those who choose to follow it. You may not assume people are stupid without having listened to their reasons first.

According to my moral code of practice at least 🙂

No you were much more polite

It’s all I’m asking for. Be nice, that’s all. It’s also worth noting that calling someone’s religion rubbish might upset them. Upsetting people comes under ‘not being nice’.

No, you CAN call Christianity rubbish.

Seems pretty impolite to me.

However you’re not allowed to be nasty or prejudiced to those who choose to follow it. You may not assume people are stupid without having listened to their reasons first.

Remind me who appointed you to the role of religious debate policeman? 🙂

According to my moral code of practice at least

Which is fine.
But you have to understand that other people don’t agree with you, or it’ll be tears before bedtime again.

How about we get back to the debate?

It would appear that we are now agreed that religion IS ‘forced down the throats’ of some children, in faith schools at least.

Are we all agreed that this is wrong?

Would any of the people of faith care to debate this?
Do you believe that religious indoctrination is in fact necessary to save the souls of our children?

The point is that in 2013 it is not forced down our throats.

Did you actually read the link you put up? Its dated November 2012. Admittedly not 2013, but come on, is 2 months out of 2000 years really a big deal. Its certainly not 25 years ago, as you claim. I think you may well be misinterpreting the introduction of the guidance in 1994, with the revoking of that guidance in 2012.

Regarding being nice, personally couldn’t care less, wouldn’t mind rational as a criteria though.