Just wondering...

[Don Corleone]

Okay, I get that Protestant Christians, at least those from the British Isles, don't consider Roman Catholics to be Christian, or even human for that matter. Your virulent animosity has been clear for centuries. I don't understand it, I don't like it, but you've made your points loud and clear.

But why do you keep going on with taunts and nationalistic chants, in an era where we're all supposed to be moving past all of that?

Or is this the Orange anti-version of Tiocfaidh ár lá? May the day Catholics are treated like normal people never come?

Just wondering...

[johnhughthom]

Okay, I get that Protestant Christians, at least those from the British Isles, don't consider Roman Catholics to be Christian, or even human for that matter. Your virulent animosity has been clear for centuries. I don't understand it, I don't like it, but you've made your points loud and clear.

But why do you keep going on with taunts and nationalistic chants, in an era where we're all supposed to be moving past all of that?

Or is this the Orange anti-version of Tiocfaidh ár lá? May the day Catholics are treated like normal people never come?

Just wondering...

Yeah, whatever.

[gaelic cowboy]

As regards my own part of the world.

Most of it is due to the more fundamentalist approach to religion in the North and Scotland, In England proper I doubt most english people give much thought to it.

I would say most ordinary English people don't even understand what the Orange order is or what a Taig is supposed to be.

Now in the US the situation is at once both more and less tolerant at the same time, you can have those loons from the Westboro Church preach pure hate but others are I would hope far less intolerant.

I would say there is loons on both sides though and I seriously doubt anyone who thinks Catholics are not normal is really the sole voice of the otherside.

[Greyblades]

Huh, I'm catholic and I haven't noticed anything like that in England.

[Beskar]

Okay, I get that Protestant Christians, at least those from the British Isles, don't consider Roman Catholics to be Christian, or even human for that matter.

The British Isles is far larger than "North Ireland", where Catholics and Protestants dislike each other equally and it is tied in with Catholics being pro-Irish and Protestant being pro-British, but i don't know of any other "dislike" of Catholics especially in any pronounced tone anywhere else.

I am scratching my head wondering what you on referring to. Do you know the Pope visited here earlier, and he was greeted by crowds of people, and the Pope had compliments to say about Britain (though a lot of negative comments before he visited, as we are seen as the beacon of Secularism due to famous Secularists like Richard Dawkins, etc)

If anything, Catholics hold themselves as superior, and look down upon Protestants... There was a really great school called "Christ the King (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-12193393)" but it ended up considering closing down because the catholic parents decided they rather send their child miles away to a pure catholic school, as their kids were too good to be around Anglicans.

(Oh, I went to a Catholic school as well.)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Don, most Protestants in Britain are Church of England, and they have always really wanted to be Roman Catholic.

Of course there are some small groups who still think the Pope is the anti-Christ. The last census showed that they are significantly outnumbered by the Jedi. There are also hard-line sects within the Catholic Church who store the matches for the return fixture of Mary v Elizabeth.

Mosts tensions you read about are actually economic or political with religion as a convenient badge with which to label one's opponents. My family has been Catholic longer than the Popes, and the only times we have lost our heads have been due to little local misunderstandings or the excitable French. :beam:

[rory_20_uk]

Those who give any thought whatsoever to Ireland never quite give up hope that it might sink beneath the seas and take all its problems to the ocean floor.

~:smoking:

[Beirut]

Bloods and Crips. One is blue and the other is red and that's reason enough to kill.

I think the "us and them" aspect causes as many, or more, religious problems between groups as anything else. It's a gang mentality for many. No reasoning involved other than "you're not one of us and that is reason enough to hate you".

[Sigurd]

During the time I spent in Scotland, I got to meet a few people.
I got interested in the Celtic vs. Rangers problem and with a few friends we started to talk to everyday Glaswegians.

Typical conversation with a guy wearing a Rangers shawl.

Q1: Are you interested in religion at all?
A1: I am protestant.

Q2: Right, so you attend the Church of Scotland?
A2: No, I am protestant.

Q3: Ok... so you attend some other non-catholic church?
A3: No, I told you.. I AM A Protestant.

Q4: Yes, I understand. Which church do you belong to?
A4: No, I don't believe in all that?

Q5: ???, what do you mean?
A5: I don't believe in religion.

Q6: But you said you were a protestant.
A6: Yes... I protest against the Catholics and Jesus and stuff. I just don't believe in any of that.

...

Typical conversation with a guy wearing a Celtic shawl

Q1: Are you interested in religion at all?
A1: Yes I'm RC.

Q2: So you attend mass?
Q3: Yes, down town [St. Andrews].

[Slyspy]

I'm not sure where the original post is coming from or going to.

[gaelic cowboy]

Those who give any thought whatsoever to Ireland never quite give up hope that it might sink beneath the seas and take all its problems to the ocean floor.

~:smoking:

Thanks for that insight on relations between Ireland and the UK truly devastating intellect there.

[rory_20_uk]

You want it sugar coated, or think that Ireland should be massively important to the UK? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

You want it sugar coated, or think that Ireland should be massively important to the UK? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

No do you think I get up every morning mad about the Brits.

[Don Corleone]

This isn't an English/Irish phenomenon, though I'm sure there's an aspect of that there.

Quite frankly, it's not really about England itself very much at all anymore. By all appearances, the English people themselves have 'moved on', and are quite open and tolerant of differing viewpoints. Nobody called for Tony's head on the Tower gate when he converted after leaving office.

What I find interesting however is that everywhere the English went and instilled a sense of "us-versus-them" antithesim (is that a word), it's more or less alive and well. Nowhere is that more true than in the good ole US of A, with our friends down at Bob Jones University.

But you see it in Ulster, in Scotland, in Canada and in Australia too. It's my belief that the original hatred dates back to ole Henry VIII, who understanding what shaky ground he was on by breaking from the bishopric of Peter, had to demonize those he left, without really ever 'leaving'. Let's face it, theologically and dogmatically, the Church of England has a lot more in common with the Church of Rome than it does with say the Lutherans or the Presbytarians. Somewhere down the road, this propaganda against the Roman church got infused into the National character. I'm sure Guy Fawkes and the wars with France, a predominately Catholic nation (at least at the time) helped.

Now in the 20th century, as religion stopped playing such a critical role in England's national sense of self, the need to scorn Catholicism and Catholics subsided. But in the places the English exported their loathing, namely the former/current Commonwealth countries, the message never got out. I suspect this had to do with the fact that the spirit of animosity wasn't a symptom there, it was brought as an end in of itself.

So you wind up with Americans (who fought two wars with the mother country to prove they were no longer English, mind you), hating and despising Catholics... and one of the principal complaints lodged is "they're dislolyal, because they listen to the pope". Nobody seems to have a problem with Anglicans in the US listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury, however.

Every now and then, when I'm not paying attention, something jerks me to my senses... like finding one of the girl's half-filled sippy cups with 3 day old milk under a car seat. You see something, hear something... and it just stuns you... intelligent, caring good people still choose to hang onto these old rants and screeds. Why? What possible purpose does it serve in today's society? Why is Jack Chick not put into the same list as Fred Phelps?

[Skullheadhq]

Implying catholicism is even christian and not just a papish fake-religion.

[Don Corleone]

Implying catholicism is even christian and not just a papish fake-religion.

https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3224/trollo.jpg (https://img34.imageshack.us/i/trollo.jpg/)

[Pannonian]

This isn't an English/Irish phenomenon, though I'm sure there's an aspect of that there.

Quite frankly, it's not really about England itself very much at all anymore. By all appearances, the English people themselves have 'moved on', and are quite open and tolerant of differing viewpoints. Nobody called for Tony's head on the Tower gate when he converted after leaving office.

What I find interesting however is that everywhere the English went and instilled a sense of "us-versus-them" antithesim (is that a word), it's more or less alive and well. Nowhere is that more true than in the good ole US of A, with our friends down at Bob Jones University.

But you see it in Ulster, in Scotland, in Canada and in Australia too. It's my belief that the original hatred dates back to ole Henry VIII, who understanding what shaky ground he was on by breaking from the bishopric of Peter, had to demonize those he left, without really ever 'leaving'. Let's face it, theologically and dogmatically, the Church of England has a lot more in common with the Church of Rome than it does with say the Lutherans or the Presbytarians. Somewhere down the road, this propaganda against the Roman church got infused into the National character. I'm sure Guy Fawkes and the wars with France, a predominately Catholic nation (at least at the time) helped.


Wasn't it the Scots who were particularly evangelical and fundamentalist about their beliefs? Philippvs might know more about the details of the history of Christianity in Britain, but that's the impression I got.

[Shibumi]

Religion.

Some point their bum up and headbang the floor, some put on funny hats.

Some do not care about it.

To answer the OP - why brits/people in general ridicule catholicism? I would guess it is because they find the faith absolutely ridiculous.

[gaelic cowboy]

Wasn't it the Scots who were particularly evangelical and fundamentalist about their beliefs? Philippvs might know more about the details of the history of Christianity in Britain, but that's the impression I got.

Well there is a feeling of the frontiersman about much of the early unionist/protestant rhetoric from the North makes a lot of sense that it would feed into there religion and politics.

[Andres]

Religion.

Some point their bum up and headbang the floor, some put on funny hats.

Some do not care about it.

And then you have those who pretend they don't care, yet feel the need to ridicule the religious people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Okay, I get that Protestant Christians, at least those from the British Isles, don't consider Roman Catholics to be Christian, or even human for that matter. Your virulent animosity has been clear for centuries. I don't understand it, I don't like it, but you've made your points loud and clear.

But why do you keep going on with taunts and nationalistic chants, in an era where we're all supposed to be moving past all of that?

Or is this the Orange anti-version of Tiocfaidh ár lá? May the day Catholics are treated like normal people never come?

Just wondering...

Agree with you 100% brother BRITS OUT! FTQ 1916 King Billy was a homosexual etc...

OK I will make a serious reply...

First off you can't talk about about the British Isles as if it was religiously homogenous. In England (so about 85% of the British population), the CofE sees itself more as a via media between Protestantism/Catholicism. There is not really any animosity against Catholics, when there is it is usually because the CofE is more liberal on issues like women priests etc, so it is the opposite scenario from crazy Proddy fundies being crazy. In terms of doctrine and worship the CofE is very close to Rome, and they tend to see Catholics as brothers in the faith. They have always prided themselves on being a broad church after all, I have no idea why you think they are intolerant.

As for Ulster/Scotland, well thats a whole different matter. Obviously a much stricter form of Protestantism has prevailed in these places historically, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think that's where the modern anti-Catholicism comes from. The Church of Scotland is in fact very tolerant, the Moderator of the General Assembly was happy to meet with the Pope, and they do a lot of ecumenical work. The Wee Frees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_(post_1900)#Church_music)on the other hand are a bit more strict and evangelical, but they are still far from anti-Catholic. The only native based root of anti-Catholicism in Scotland is the Wee Wee Frees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Scotland), which tend to be strongest up in the more remote isles. They are the only 'old school' hardline style Presbyterians.

Obviously though they are not the only anti-Catholic religious influence in Scotland, and that's why I said "native based" in the above paragraph. Because the reality in sectarianism in Scotland was almost entirel exported from Northern Ireland with immigration. There was usually about 1 Proddy immigrant for every 3 Catholic immigrants. And these people tended to settle in the newly developing industrial towns on the west coast, including obviously Glasgow itself. What most foreign folk don't realise is that sectarianism is really a west coast/central belt issue in Scotland, it doesn't exist anywhere else in the country.

My little hometown is a classic example. It's been in the news for having some of the worst violence at Orange and Republican marches. One side of my own family are Northern Irish Protestants. I practically grew up living with my Gran, and nearly everyone in her street is Northern Irish to some degree, a good number are recent arrivals and so Ulster accents are very common (especially at church, interestingly). Wherever you go you will see 'UVF' or 'RIRA' scrawled everywhere. You won't see any graffiti celebrating the union of 1707, but you will for 1801. You won't see graffiti for say 1314 (Battle of Bannockburn), but you will see 1690 (you should all know what that is!). When you approach the high street from the main road, the first buildings you pass are an Orange Hall and a Protestant Church. If you go through the high street, there are about 5 Irish clubs lining the way, followed by a Catholic church on the way out.

So to sum up, secatarianism as it exists in Scotland today is really something that was exported from Northern Ireland. The really funny thing is if you look at views from the late 19th century where the CofS was still relatively hardline, they actually hated the Orange Order because of its connections with the Church of Ireland (due to its Episcopalian nature). Of course, most Orangemen nowadays are hardline Proddies/fundies.

And since Rangers have been mentioned, I'll go into a bit of detail about that. I read a book a while back where the author made some very insightful observations. First of all, he pointed out that Rangers used to represent the Protestant establishment. Their support was very heavily tied to the Church of Scotland, and for them that represented mainstream, middle-class, Scottish civic society. I have to say Don, people are still viewing them in this manner in this thread.

But as the author pointed out, this has changed dramatically. What is considered polite, mainstream Scottish society has changed dramatically. For a start, anti-Catholicism has no place in it. Catholics are now very well integrated into the whole political process. For me, the epitome of this is the civic nationalism of the SNP. They represent a new, liberal, progressive, multicultural Scotland. The Church of Scotland is in reality now longer anti-Catholic, but is in fact part of this new, liberal civic society.

So to bring it back to Rangers, as the author says, they have come to represent the anti-establishment, while Celtic have done the reverse and become more 'establishment'. This is due in a large part to the fact that Rangers main support base is in fact from the working-class communities descended from Ulster Protestant immigrants (so people like me I guess), as opposed to the 'native' Proddies, which are more middle-class and have adapted into the new establishment and are all tolerant etc.

The more religious elements of the Rangers fans are no longer associated with the CofS, but in fact go to either smaller hardline Presbyterian churches, or more commonly evangelical churches. Since becoming more anti-establishment, Rangers fans also have changed their political outlook. Many are neo-Nazi's, support the BNP, and are involved with the whole Ulster loyalism scene and the associated paramilitary groups. In fact, Neil Lennon might be being forced to retire as Celtic manager for safety reasons because of the extent of the death threats he has been getting after getting into a bust up with a Rangers fan at Ibrox, who just happened to be a member of the Ulster Defence Association (again, the Norn Iron link). These far-right links also explain the religious movements Rangers fans identify with (again, not mainstream Protestantism, but fringe racist views like 'British Israelism'. A core belief of which is the idea that the Pope is indeed the Antichrist. This leads to strange pics like the one below where Rangers fans do Nazi salutes while flying the star of David:

https://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5619/rangersnazis.jpg (https://img10.imageshack.us/i/rangersnazis.jpg/)

As a result of this, Huns like myself are pretty much despised by mainstream Scottish society. We are regularly told be Scottish nationalists to "go home" (usually by this they mean Ulster or England, since we see ourselves as British). For some reason it is OK for them to say this, but I was to them to all get on a bus to Stranrear and take the next ferry, that would not be OK. But such is life, can't tell you how much I hate those people.

If you are wondering about the roots of my 'anti-Catholicism', well when I was born again I read the classical Proddy stuff like Calvin's 'Institutes'. I guess I was your classic hardline Proddy. But I've moved on since then I guess, I got frustrated with some other Proddies that seemed to me to have become too much like a new form of Catholic. They would speak of Puritan theologians like they were venerating a saint. When I said something they didn't like, they would quote the Westminster Confession of Faith like it was scripture. And I don't like that... they follow the old Reformers to the letter but they don't have the spirit of Reformation. So yes I've found myself in different 'circles' I guess where maybe more anti-establishment ideas like the above mentioned British Isrealism (dubbed a heresy by your old school hardline Calvin-quoting Proddies) is common. So I guess we're the fringe within the fringe. With the whole Babylonian world system agains us... just the way things should be!

There I just wrote an essay for you. :smug:

[gaelic cowboy]

To be fair I suppose we have hijacked Don's thread and shipped it to Ireland/UK, I assume he is really talking about his experiences at home in the USA.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think so looking at the OP. Better not be anyway after I wrote that essay! :stare:

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't think so looking at the OP. Better not be anyway after I wrote that essay! :stare:

:laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

heh, oh well. I wonder if my St. Patrick's day sig is what inspired the OP (given he mentioned the Tiochfaidh ar la thing)?

[Shibumi]

And then you have those who pretend they don't care, yet feel the need to ridicule the religious people.

There are indeed those too.

There are also those who honestly do not care, but still ridicule religion.

Imagine some loony walking into the bar screaming about having seen unicorn. As you see, it is quite easy to ridicule even without caring that much.

As to ridiculing religious people, there is a fine line there. And if I understood the rules of this boards correctly, a matter hard to discuss freely.

[Strike For The South]

I have no problem with catholics

I have a problem with certain members of the Irish dispora whom send money to terrorists so they can feel more Irish at heart *see south Boston* They should've left that pettiness on the boat, but they didn't.

It's not an OMG Protastents keeping me down, Its OMG the catholics are blowing us up

Of course no one does and then they use American institutions to further causes in the old country

I have a nice healthy hate for my English anscetry, why the Irish dispora still clings to erie I can't explain

[Don Corleone]

heh, oh well. I wonder if my St. Patrick's day sig is what inspired the OP (given he mentioned the Tiochfaidh ar la thing)?

Well, to be honest, given views you've expressed in the past, it does come off as pretty snarky. But that's not really what my post was about. I don't imagine you're out there skulking in an alley-way someplace in Glasgow, ready to glass the next Celtic fan that crosses your path stumbling out of a bar.

But these people DO exist... In the USA, in Scotland, in Canada, in Australia....and it's not limited to anti-Irish bias, it's an anti-Catholic sentiment. I'm wondering aloud to it's causes and whether it'll ever subside. I suspect probably not, as the progenitor of it, English nationalism, has already made it's peace and moved on. The rest of the English speaking world though seems mired in it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hardline protestants really are some of the most weird religious groups on the planet. Remarkably similar to the Sunni extremists from Arabia, though.

[Viking]

There are indeed those too.

There are also those who honestly do not care, but still ridicule religion.

Imagine some loony walking into the bar screaming about having seen unicorn. As you see, it is quite easy to ridicule even without caring that much.

As to ridiculing religious people, there is a fine line there. And if I understood the rules of this boards correctly, a matter hard to discuss freely.

Ridiculing is a collapse of reason and communication. You will never convince/convert anyone by the act of attempting to ridicule them.

If it is not your intention to convince anyone, then you are trolling. The bottom line is that you are up to no good.

[johnhughthom]

Well, to be honest, given views you've expressed in the past, it does come off as pretty snarky. But that's not really what my post was about. I don't imagine you're out there skulking in an alley-way someplace in Glasgow, ready to glass the next Celtic fan that crosses your path stumbling out of a bar.

But these people DO exist... In the USA, in Scotland, in Canada, in Australia....and it's not limited to anti-Irish bias, it's an anti-Catholic sentiment. I'm wondering aloud to it's causes and whether it'll ever subside. I suspect probably not, as the progenitor of it, English nationalism, has already made it's peace and moved on. The rest of the English speaking world though seems mired in it.

If that was the intent of the op I apologise for my dismissive reply, it came across as the typical Irish American view with no real idea of the situation in Northern Ireland bemoaning the fate of the poor Catholics in Northern Ireland. Though you have to admit the use of the words Tiocfaidh ár lá and Orange made that an easy assumption to make. And I'm not saying it has been a bed of roses for the Irish Catholics over the last 800 years either, unfortunately it does look to the Protestant community at times that the forgive and forget part of peace is very one sided.

[Furunculus]

Okay, I get that Protestant Christians, at least those from the British Isles, don't consider Roman Catholics to be Christian, or even human for that matter. Your virulent animosity has been clear for centuries. I don't understand it, I don't like it, but you've made your points loud and clear.

But why do you keep going on with taunts and nationalistic chants, in an era where we're all supposed to be moving past all of that?

Or is this the Orange anti-version of Tiocfaidh ár lá? May the day Catholics are treated like normal people never come?

Just wondering...

you do realise that church of england is one of the meekest creeds ever created, they're so limp wristed they'd probably faint if they thought they might offend someone, they are so cringingly PC it makes my teeth grate!

in short, what you describe is the very definition of local sectarian trouble, possibly allied to local sectarian protestants, but in no way accurately swept up in broad generalisations of non-catholic anti-catholic hatred.

[Shibumi]

Ridiculing is a collapse of reason and communication. You will never convince/convert anyone by the act of attempting to ridicule them.

If it is not your intention to convince anyone, then you are trolling. The bottom line is that you are up to no good.

First of all, Viking, I have not ridiculed anyone. Sure, I do find some aspects of certain religions laughable. Others I find grotesque. But bear in mind that I have the deepest respect for some religious practitioners. Not because they are religious however, rather even though they are religious.

As to ridiculing being the collapse of reason and communication - I disagree. Ridiculing can be quite healthy, I remember this guy from school who was rather loony. You know the type, hardcore christian. He was heavily ridiculed and what do you know? One day he picked up a(nother) book and soon thereafter dropped the whole religious thing.

Religion is by and large brainwashing, so a healthy dose of ridiculing from society at large can have a rather good impact. Not to mention a very strong impact.

You are right though, it is rather hard to convince/convert someone by ridiculing them. However, ridiculing might give them an incentive to convince/convert themselves.

As to me being up to no good? Depends on what you mean. I would say I am "up to" debating religion. My perspective is that I am very much against it. As to that being good or not I do not know.

[Shibumi]

you do realise that church of england is one of the meekest creeds ever created, they're so limp wristed they'd probably faint if they thought they might offend someone, they are so cringingly PC it makes my teeth grate!

in short, what you describe is the very definition of local sectarian trouble, possibly allied to local sectarian protestants, but in no way accurately swept up in broad generalisations of non-catholic anti-catholic hatred.

You obviously are not read up on the Swedish church. They have pretty much given up on religion completely. Last I checked, you didnt even have to believe in god to become a priest over here. And no, I am not joking.

The last ad-campaign from the Swedish church was against racism, religion was not even mentioned. It linked to a facebook page. Even I as an atheist think they have taken things a step to far. Being anti-religion in Sweden is like beating up a corpse.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't imagine you're out there skulking in an alley-way someplace in Glasgow, ready to glass the next Celtic fan that crosses your path stumbling out of a bar.

You don't know everything about me.

Anyway, if you read any of my post at least take on board that point that even in Scotland, sectarian trouble has pretty specific roots in the myre of ethnic/social/political/religious issues in Northern Ireland.

In any case, I still have more respect for Catholicism, than say, atheism. It is just based on brainwashing and ignorance. I mean, I knew a kid at school that was an atheist, but then one day he picked up a book, and next thing you know he's telling everyone about Jesus.

[Pannonian]

First of all, Viking, I have not ridiculed anyone. Sure, I do find some aspects of certain religions laughable. Others I find grotesque. But bear in mind that I have the deepest respect for some religious practitioners. Not because they are religious however, rather even though they are religious.

As to ridiculing being the collapse of reason and communication - I disagree. Ridiculing can be quite healthy, I remember this guy from school who was rather loony. You know the type, hardcore christian. He was heavily ridiculed and what do you know? One day he picked up a(nother) book and soon thereafter dropped the whole religious thing.

Religion is by and large brainwashing, so a healthy dose of ridiculing from society at large can have a rather good impact. Not to mention a very strong impact.

You are right though, it is rather hard to convince/convert someone by ridiculing them. However, ridiculing might give them an incentive to convince/convert themselves.

As to me being up to no good? Depends on what you mean. I would say I am "up to" debating religion. My perspective is that I am very much against it. As to that being good or not I do not know.

Nearly all my knowledge of the Catholic Church comes from a TV programme ridiculing every aspect of it, specifically the Irish branch. I highly recommend that programme to everyone.

[Shibumi]

You don't know everything about me.

Anyway, if you read any of my post at least take on board that point that even in Scotland, sectarian trouble has pretty specific roots in the myre of ethnic/social/political/religious issues in Northern Ireland.

In any case, I still have more respect for Catholicism, than say, atheism. It is just based on brainwashing and ignorance. I mean, I knew a kid at school that was an atheist, but then one day he picked up a book, and next thing you know he's telling everyone about Jesus.

I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic? You think they all individually "saw the light"? Hardly, I would say. So some form of brainwashing must take place. No?

Atheism on the other hand is wide spread across any national border.

You are a clever guy, I am sure you see the difference.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have a nice healthy hate for my English anscetry, why the Irish dispora still clings to erie I can't explain

Well to be fair Stike there are still lots of first generation immigrants in South Boston so there is your connection, also you don't have to worry too much about US money funding terrorism the majority of the money came from robbing banks in the Rep. of Ireland.

[drone]

I don't imagine you're out there skulking in an alley-way someplace in Glasgow, ready to glass the next Celtic fan that crosses your path stumbling out of a bar..
The No True Scotsman fallacy, Protestant corollary? :inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic? You think they all individually "saw the light"? Hardly, I would say. So some form of brainwashing must take place. No?

Atheism on the other hand is wide spread across any national border.

You are a clever guy, I am sure you see the difference.

Religions are varient belief systems, and in that sense Atheism is no different than Islam and Christianity. Richard Dawkins' arguments and patterns of thought are recognisable to anyone who has faced fundamentalist Christianity, the sole difference is the belief itself - the thought patterns verge on being identicle. Those who think like this and raise their children like this indocrinate like any fundamentalist, and the result is that a fairly large portion of people "raised atheist" latch onto a religion as soon as they leave home. Personally, I think this is why simple, evangelical Christian sects do so well in universities.

To address Don's original point:

Underlying your post seem to be a lot misconceptions: that there is a monolithic Protestant/Roman Catholic divide, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is in some was equivilent to the Pope, and that England deliberately exported a form of Catholic-hating Christianity. None of that is true. There are a multiplicity of "protestant" denominations, some of whom are Catholic, some reformed; the Archbishop is merely the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England; abd we kicked the nutters out because we didn't want them stirring up sectarian hatreds.

[Shibumi]

Religions are varient belief systems, and in that sense Atheism is no different than Islam and Christianity. Richard Dawkins' arguments and patterns of thought are recognisable to anyone who has faced fundamentalist Christianity, the sole difference is the belief itself - the thought patterns verge on being identicle. Those who think like this and raise their children like this indocrinate like any fundamentalist, and the result is that a fairly large portion of people "raised atheist" latch onto a religion as soon as they leave home. Personally, I think this is why simple, evangelical Christian sects do so well in universities.

Source? I do find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe even.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic?

Or so many Swedes atheist? :balloon:


I do not see atheism as brainwashing, on the contrary. If you let someone grow up without religion, odds are he will be atheist.

A quick look at religion at large strengthens my point, why else would so many italians be catholic, so many indians hindu, so many arabs islamic? You think they all individually "saw the light"? Hardly, I would say. So some form of brainwashing must take place. No?

Atheism on the other hand is wide spread across any national border.

You are a clever guy, I am sure you see the difference.

Well, I'm going to go along with what Richard Dawkins said on the matter, and say the roots of religion are twofold. First of all, he argues that through natural selection a belief in a higher power is perhaps something that has become innate to mankind. I would agree that people do by nature seem inclined to believe in a higher power, though obviously I would disagree with Dawkins on how this came about.

And secondly, he points out the more structural side of things, ie how religion grew as a political force, how it became tied with society etc. And that is what is responsible for the big diversity of religious practices in the world today that seem to be defined along national or geographic borders. In this sense differing religious practices are not much different from differing cultural practices - that certain population groups follow their own customs does not mean they have been brainwashed.

So, you could say... why then Rhyfelwyr do you think that your particularly crazy version of Protestantism is the right one (my sig is a bit of a joke, btw)? Well, the answer is that I accept the first point above - that belief in God is something that is self-evident and innate to humanity. But I think the second point - the institutional aspects of religion - is all corrupt and idolatrous, and in denying all the ritualistic elements of religion my own beliefs are obviously unique from all the other ones. A Catholic has more in common with a Hindu or a Muslim than he does with me, despite me being a Christian.

[Viking]

First of all, Viking, I have not ridiculed anyone. Sure, I do find some aspects of certain religions laughable. Others I find grotesque. But bear in mind that I have the deepest respect for some religious practitioners. Not because they are religious however, rather even though they are religious.

When you try to ridicule an ideology, you do naturally attempt to ridicule its believers/followers as well. Humans are not really capable of making sharp distinctions between persons and ideology.


As to ridiculing being the collapse of reason and communication - I disagree. Ridiculing can be quite healthy, I remember this guy from school who was rather loony. You know the type, hardcore christian. He was heavily ridiculed and what do you know? One day he picked up a(nother) book and soon thereafter dropped the whole religious thing.

Religion is by and large brainwashing, so a healthy dose of ridiculing from society at large can have a rather good impact. Not to mention a very strong impact.

You are right though, it is rather hard to convince/convert someone by ridiculing them. However, ridiculing might give them an incentive to convince/convert themselves.


It is the break down of reason and communication because it makes no attempt to justify itself, but rather takes itself for granted. A bigot may ridicule another bigot and make him think like himself, but they'll still both be bigots. See, all kind of people may ridicule each other - all without justifying their views. It is not healthy, it detoriates logical debate and puts a lid on alle the interesting questions and the debates that would follow them. A sane world begins with a sane debate.

You talk about "brainwashing", but not much reflection lies behind that statement. "Brainwashing" is the way humans grow up - they follow the norms and culture of the society they are born in, to a large extent. What some anti-religious people de facto do, is to give religion a really special place - that it may easily be separated from from the rest of the human mind. That is really a delusional view that may accidentially support the notion that humans have an objective rationality. Religion is in reality just one piece of a large spectrum when it comes to human ideas.


As to me being up to no good? Depends on what you mean. I would say I am "up to" debating religion. My perspective is that I am very much against it. As to that being good or not I do not know.

We have someting in common then, when it comes to religion. The bad part is that you think religious debate, any debate at all, is exempt from logical reasoning and other general rules of debate.

[Shibumi]

Rhyfelwyr, Viking, I am out of time, and you both deserve a more thought out response. I will come back later, thanks for your time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Source? I do find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe even.

My life? At least 30% of my 100 or so school friends went Christian either after starting college, or starting university. That's a pretty poor retention rate in my book.

[Sigurd]

I did suspect that those proddies (as the Scots call them) who barks anti-Catholicistic sentiments, was just confused to what being a protestant is all about. That is, the great bulk of them. You do have those fringe nutters like Chick and whatshisname Phelps, but most of them are just bullies jumping on a bandwagon with no understanding of the basics.

The root issue interest me though... if we go beyond the existence of God, and into the Christian history. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Who has the right of origin?
If there was a church organisation at 33 AD, who can rightfully claim to be most aligned with it? Did Catholicism stray? Do Protestantism return to the original?
If there was a theological battle between the two - what would be the arguments on both sides. Are there other options?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The root issue interest me though... if we go beyond the existence of God, and into the Christian history. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Who has the right of origin?
If there was a church organisation at 33 AD, who can rightfully claim to be most aligned with it? Did Catholicism stray? Do Protestantism return to the original?
If there was a theological battle between the two - what would be the arguments on both sides. Are there other options?

Why 33AD? The scripture says Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Didn't the Old Testament saints look to him for salvation? People have been called to look to Christ for salvation ever since God made his first covenant with men when he made the Adamic covenant, so that is when Christianity was created and that is when you need to go back to if you want to claim Christian heritage.

[Sigurd]

Why 33AD? The scripture says Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Didn't the Old Testament saints look to him for salvation? People have been called to look to Christ for salvation ever since God made his first covenant with men when he made the Adamic covenant, so that is when Christianity was created and that is when you need to go back to if you want to claim Christian heritage.
I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

[Shibumi]

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

Find something every christian agree on and you will win the internet.

Will elaborate earlier points asap.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

It is absolutely necessary for people to go back beyond that point, because only then will they realise that Christianity is not an arbitrary set of rules on a piece of paper, but rather it is the natural, self-evident religion for all mankind, and is written on mens' hearts as Paul himself says.

You talk about the "organization established by Christ", but what organisation is that? He never set up an earthly religious system, although he abolished an existing one. But the law of Moses was always separate from the law of Christ. It was a shadow of it, not a predecessor that was replaced in 33AD.

There is no new faith or religious system, just the same one that's been around since the time of Adam.

[Sigurd]

It is absolutely necessary for people to go back beyond that point, because only then will they realise that Christianity is not an arbitrary set of rules on a piece of paper, but rather it is the natural, self-evident religion for all mankind, and is written on mens' hearts as Paul himself says.

You talk about the "organization established by Christ", but what organisation is that? He never set up an earthly religious system, although he abolished an existing one. But the law of Moses was always separate from the law of Christ. It was a shadow of it, not a predecessor that was replaced in 33AD.

There is no new faith or religious system, just the same one that's been around since the time of Adam.
A very Mormon view you have there... :sneaky:

It can't be denied that an organisation was established in the meridian of time. It has been a long tradition that the christian church started at the day of Pentecost. But as it is an appeal to tradition - I can't really use it can I?
Since you are ignoring the obvious with your comment: "He never set up an earthly religious system", I have to wonder what you perceive as an religious organisation/system.
The New Testament refers 114 times to a church. The Gospels, Acts and letters refers to several instances of people being given offices (apostles, prophets, teachers, elders, pastors, evangelists, bishops, priests and deacons). If this is not talking about an organized religious system, I am curious of what your thoughts are.

Talking about the church of Adam is pointless as there is nothing documenting this. That is, within the canon. As anything outside it would be irrelevant right? :sneaky:
If you would consider extra-canonical literature - I would be happy to show you a few more.

[Sigurd]

Find something every christian agree on and you will win the internet.

Will elaborate earlier points asap.
That Jesus is the Christ? :beam:
the internet, is that a cookie?

[CountArach]

But you see it in Ulster, in Scotland, in Canada and in Australia too.
You... you do?

[HoreTore]

Oh please CA, you're the biggest sectarian bigot ever. :clown: