[Closed] Catholic Church and other religions!

I never said it was a Catholic Church.

But actually, if you chose to go to a place where folks hold these views, tehndon't be surprised if they are repeated to you. Not really shoving it down your throat though is it. You could walk out.

Well at the time I wouldn't have walked out because I suppose I (sort of) believed. But yes it was shoved down my throat. I could have made a fuss and refused to attend any religious services or assemblies where hymns and prayers were used I suppose but that's quite a bold step for a child (who's been indoctrinated).

When it comes down to it, whenever I meet a monotheistic religious type (eg a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door)....I just deep down automatically think "ARGGGGGGGGGGGH A FRACKING TOASTER". BSG nailed them.

*shudders*

I never said it was a Catholic Church

Oh do stop all the mystery, just tell us what kind of church it was,instead of having this silly,piecemeal argument which relies on me have to ask you exactly the right question..

Well at the time I wouldn't have walked out because I suppose I (sort of) believed. But yes it was shoved down my throat. I could have made a fuss and refused to attend any religious services or assemblies where hymns and prayers were used I suppose but that's quite a bold step for a child (who's been indoctrinated).

So you chose to go,then now complain about what they told you?

Isn't that a bit like the folks who say "these religion threads are so tedious" don't like it? Don't consume it.

I'm not sure what you consider to be meaningful 'choice' for a child, but a combination of brainwashing and considerable social pressure isn't what I consider it to be.

If the religious waited until people were adults and could make up their own mind that would be different.

And later on when I realised I didn't believe (which was pretty traumatic at the time) I did decline to attend church services, but still had to attend assemblies where we sung hymns and said prayers IIRC.

If the religious waited until people were adults and could make up their own mind that would be different.

They wouldn't do that though because religion would cease to exist.

I'm not sure what you consider to be 'choice' for a child, but a combination of brainwashing and considerable social pressure isn't what I think of.

Then it's probably your parent you need to balme for shoving the stuff down your throat, even though you believed it. They were consenting to it on your behalf, cos you were too little to know any better. They made the choice for you.

The point was regarding being insulted. Personally I find being told that I am condemned to hell because I'm not in their club and don't follow their rules is extremely insulting, mainly to my intelligence, but insulting non the less.

If the religious waited until people were adults and could make up their own mind that would be different.
They wouldn't do that though because religion would cease to exist.

Actually, most of the aspects of religion which people find distateful and most of the ideas that Dawkins argues against are those of evangelical and ' born again' type churches, so yeah, they would exist but just the most wat out ones.

grum - Member

I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell.

grum - Member

I'm not sure what you consider to be 'choice' for a child, but a combination of brainwashing and considerable social pressure isn't what I think of as 'choice'.

When you were a child you were told that you were "a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell" ?

Here in the UK ?

I don't believe you.

Have you got any other better arguments to back up your ranting militant atheism ?

Well at the time I wouldn't have walked out because I suppose I (sort of) believed. But yes it was shoved down my throat. I could have made a fuss and refused to attend any religious services or assemblies where hymns and prayers were used I suppose but that's quite a bold step for a child (who's been indoctrinated).

I opted out of all Religious aspects of my Catholic Grammar School (and I was taught by Nuns for the most part as it was, and still is, a Convent)

It wasn't difficult, and was accepted without any issues at all. I had previously been to a Catholic Primary and parents are Irish Catholics. So I suppose you could say I had been "indoctrinated"

I don't see it that way at all though, I just think I had an upbringing that taught how to treat other people and how to know right from wrong.

I can't really believe (actually yes I can, this is STW) that people are arguing that religion doesn't claim to have a moral high ground, and that sinners will burn in hell, despite direct quotes from religious texts/leaders etc saying exactly that.

Some people would really try and make out black is white. 😕

Saying I have 'raging militant atheism' is pretty pathetic, given that if you read a few pages back I was talking about some of the positive aspects of religion.

When you were a child you were told that you were "a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell" ?

You'll have to point out where I actually said that? You've taken two different posts and stuck them together, and made a big fat straw man out of them.

I'd just like religion to be subject to the same rules everyone else is bound by, that's my main problem with it.

When you were a child you were told that you were "a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell"

I actually was by one of my teachers and a mate of mine was called a heathen by the head teacher when he did under-16 work experience as a classroom assistant in a Catholic school.

I actually was by one of my teachers and a mate of my was called a heathen by the head teacher when he did under-16 work experience as a classroom assistant in a Catholic school.

By one of your teachers ? The suggestion here was that it was part of an indoctrination process, not the work of an individual.

.

Saying I have 'raging militant atheism' is pretty pathetic

The term used was actually [i]ranting[/i] militant atheism. So anyway, have you got any other better arguments to back up your ranting militant atheism ? I'm guessing no ?

I can't really believe (actually yes I can, this is STW) that people are arguing that religion doesn't claim to have a moral high ground (and that sinners will burn in hell) despite direct quotes from religious texts/leaders etc saying exactly that.

I'm not claiming that religion doesn't imbue some people with moral superiority. I just can't believe that someone would get so upset by the perceived moral authority of someone with a belief system which he has clearly rejected.

As for the amount of times a teacher said to me something along the lines of "Darcy, you little shit, you're going to rot in hell!"...well, I've lost count.

This deserves an answer: Pretty straightforward. Neither you nor I believe you are a ****, however I suspect both of us would feel pretty insulted if someone walked up to you and called you that. Same principle really.

That's not really the same.

It's [b]possible[/b] that I could be a ****. Although I don't think I am.

A situation exists where it could be true, and I am aware of that.

But Hell doesn't exist, so I can't be offended or upset that someone tells me I could end up there.
No more than I would be upset by being told I am going to Narnia if I don't do the washing up.

The term used was actually ranting militant atheism. So anyway, have you got any other better arguments to back up your ranting militant atheism ? I'm guessing no ?

Have you got any better ones than inventing things I didn't say and then calling me a liar for saying them? 🙂

I'm betting no.

I'm not claiming that religion doesn't imbue some people with moral superiority. I just can't believe that someone would get so upset by the perceived moral authority of someone with a belief system which he has clearly rejected.

Really not that upset about it at all. But it would bother me a lot less if religion didn't still enjoy special privileges in our society.

But Hell doesn't exist, so I can't be offended or upset that someone tells me I could end up there.
No more than I would be upset by being told I am going to Narnia if I don't do the washing up.

As I already said, bit different when millions of people believe it, and some of them hold positions of power and influence, and they are teaching it to children.

You had teachers calling you a "little shit" DD ? What country was that - the UK or Ireland ?

For the record, every school I went to, infant, primary, and secondary, was catholic, quite devout catholic at that. Not once do I ever recall being told that I was "a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell". All the more surprising when you consider the fact that I was often in considerable trouble at school.

Just for clarity..

Whilst I in no way think this is going to happen essentially they are saying to me that the way I live my life is so morally wrong that I will be punished for it when I die and in a quite unpleasant way.
...
So, has anyone actually said this to you

So, has anyone actually said this to you?

Yes, I've heard it in several sermons during my religious indoctrination as a child, and it's very prevalent in religious literature (some of which gets shoved through my door or handed to me by visiting Jehovah's Witnesses), as well as the shouty men with signs in the street in my local town centre.

That's nice ernie. No-one else has said that happened to them as a child either, but do carry on.

Wallace (page 3), thank you so much for the excellent advice. I am so glad I followed it. Thanks also to Cougar, an "enlightening" explanation of moderation.

grum - Member

Have you got any better ones than inventing things I didn't say

I simply copied and pasted what you wrote. There was no "inventing".

Grum said

I find it kind of insulting that 'some' religious people think the very fact that they have religion and I don't makes them morally superior/better people, and that I am a wicked unrepentant sinner bound for hell. I don't see the relevance of whether I believe in hell or not.

What we need to know is who thought this and how you knew

Ah the point JY. Yes, I often miss the point. The point behind this little beauty is a complete mystery to me

"Can't opt out of having to wear a motorcycle helmet even though someone else gets away with a turban can you? (well, you can, but you may be imprisoned)"

I don't believe you.

Have you got any other better arguments to back up your ranting militant atheism ?

I just can't believe that someone would get so upset by the perceived moral authority of someone with a belief system which he has clearly rejected.

if we could just get molly and sfb to do the questions now/join in it would be awesome

night and god bless

Just for the record, I was told, on an almost daily basis in school, that unless I followed the laws of 'my' religion and the word of God I would go to Hell.

This concept was introduced at a very young age and constantly reinforced on a regular basis.

My religious education was, by any definition of the word, indoctrination.

no idea who said this but it was not me so no idea why you asked me.

I didn't ask you. Hence the lack of a question mark 💡

This was the original thing to which I was responding.

Whilst I in no way think this is going to happen essentially they are saying to me that the way I live my life is so morally wrong that I will be punished for it when I die and in a quite unpleasant way.

So, has anyone actually said this to you?

Pretty sure I heard almost exactly that in church on more than one occasion, yes.

I simply copied and pasted what you wrote. There was no "inventing".

I never said I was called an unrepentant sinner as a child, which is what you claimed and called me a liar for saying. 🙄

i reject white supremacists but find them offensive etc

You really need to stop going to those meetings.

I never said I was called an unrepentant sinner as a child

Don't be coy, when did it happen?

Just for the record, I was told, on an almost daily basis in school, that unless I followed the laws of 'my' religion and the word of God I would go to Hell.
This concept was introduced at a very young age and constantly reinforced on a regular basis.
It was, by any definition of the word,

So ernie, going to call him a liar too or just invent some spurious pedantic argument as to why you're still right?

Why are you posting under two logins btw?

C'mon grum, when did it appen?

So ernie, going to call him a liar too

I decide what I choose to believe or not believe. Isn't that what this thread is about ?

BTW I haven't called anyone a liar. You must be mistaken. Or lying.

I could have made a fuss and refused to attend any religious services or assemblies where hymns and prayers were used I suppose but that's quite a bold step for a child (who's been indoctrinated).

That's exactly the way I handled it. Must've been a bold child, eh.

What stopped you from taking similar steps, Grum...? Genuinely intrigued.

What stopped you from taking similar steps, Grum...? Genuinely intrigued.

He actually believed it.

Well, yes, that's what I was thinking, though I'd rather he wrote that with his own fingers...

Count Zero

I'm drinking a nice Islay, so I might be getting slightly befuddled.

[img] [/img]

And may your God go with you...... 🙂

BTW I haven't called anyone a liar. You must be mistaken. Or lying.

it guff like this that, i assume, has lead to you being warned.

you are contributing little here [shame as you can be insightful if you choose to be] and just trying to get a rise from folk then have a bs semantic pin dance with them.
perhaps you and cm could just e-mail each other and save us from this as you both seem to enjoy doing this?
i prefer folk saying what they mean rather than being mean with what they say

you are contributing little here

Well I could never compete with you JY. Your ability to dissect every minute detail of someone's post and provide a meticulous critique of each sentence they have posted, is truly remarkable.

For your information I didn't set out make a significant contribution to this thread, I never do on religious threads. And it would have been even smaller if you had ignored me 💡

I went to Christchurch and had what can be described as a pretty religious upbringing, I was a Chorister and later a Thurifer and know my way around the bible pretty well. I'm confirmed and can take the sacrament. I met lovely people through the church, my vicar was a great guy and I benefited from his advocacy in getting a scholarship, my mother was Orthodox Greek and took the whole god thing pretty seriously.

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.

Prety sure that refuted my point ernie what with an ad hominem and and yet another attempt to get a rise.
Like i said you can be insightful or you can do this.

ernie_lynch - Member

you are contributing little here

Well I could never compete with you JY. Your ability to dissect every minute detail of someone's post and provide a meticulous critique of each sentence they have posted, is truly remarkable.

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

🙂

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes ]Gaudium et Spes[/url] and [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_Gentium ]Lumen Gentium[/url].

[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

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 [b]Catholic School[/b] 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.

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

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?

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

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.