Ireland Recalibrates Ties to Roman Catholic Church
-
Irish Rupture With Vatican Sets Off a Transformation
By SARAH LYALL of The New York TimesDUBLIN — Even as it remains preoccupied with its struggling economy, Ireland is in the midst of a profound transformation, as rapid as it is revolutionary: it is recalibrating its relationship to the Roman Catholic Church, an institution that has permeated almost every aspect of life here for generations. This is still a country where abortion is against the law, where divorce became legal only in 1995, where the church runs more than 90 percent of the primary schools and where 87 percent of the population identifies itself as Catholic. But the awe, respect and fear the Vatican once commanded have given way to something new — rage, disgust and defiance — after a long series of horrific revelations about decades of abuse of children entrusted to the church’s care by a reverential populace.
While similar disclosures have tarnished the Vatican’s image in other countries, perhaps nowhere have they shaken a whole society so thoroughly or so intensely as in Ireland. And so when the normally mild-mannered prime minister, Enda Kenny, unexpectedly took the floor in Parliament this summer to criticize the church, he was giving voice not just to his own pent-up feelings, but to those of a nation. His remarks were a ringing declaration of the supremacy of state over church, in words of outrage and indignation that had never before been used publicly by an Irish leader. “For the first time in Ireland, a report into child sexual abuse exposed an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an inquiry into a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago,” Mr. Kenny said, referring to the Cloyne Report, which detailed abuse and cover-ups by church officials in southern Ireland through 2009.
Reiterating the report’s claim that the church had encouraged bishops to ignore child-protection guidelines the bishops themselves had adopted, the prime minister attacked “the dysfunction, the disconnection, the elitism” that he said “dominate the culture of the Vatican. The rape and torture of children were downplayed, or ‘managed,’ to uphold instead the primacy of the institution — its power, its standing and its reputation.” Instead of listening with humility to the heartbreaking evidence of “humiliation and betrayal,” he said, “the Vatican’s response was to parse and analyze it with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer.” The effect of his speech was instant and electric.
“It was a seminal moment,” said Patsy McGarry, the religious affairs correspondent for The Irish Times. “No Irish prime minister has ever talked to the Catholic Church before in this fashion. The obsequiousness of the Irish state toward the Vatican is gone. The deference is gone.” While both sides are talking in more emollient terms now, there is no question that Mr. Kenny’s declaration deeply angered the Vatican. It immediately withdrew its ambassador from Dublin, ostensibly to help fashion the Vatican’s formal response. (The ambassador has since been reassigned to the Czech Republic.) The position of Irish ambassador to the Vatican is currently vacant, too, and there is talk here of merging it with the ambassadorship to Italy. While government officials say the question is part of a general re-examination of the diplomatic budget, such a move would be seen as a pointed snub to the Holy See, a sovereign state to which countries generally dedicate separate embassies.
Meanwhile, in what has developed into a tit-for-tat war of words, the church’s latest formal communication with Dublin — 24 pages of densely argued prose — took issue with both the Cloyne Report and Mr. Kenny’s remarks, saying that a crucial document had been “misrepresented” by the inquiry and calling “unsubstantiated” Mr. Kenny’s assertion that the Vatican had tried to “frustrate an inquiry” into the abuse scandal. Sympathizers with the church’s position say the Vatican made valid and nuanced points. And they say Mr. Kenny went too far. “Personally, I think it was excessive,” David Quinn, founder of the Iona Institute, a right-leaning religious advocacy group, said of the prime minister’s speech. In an interview, Mr. Quinn said that the relationship between the Vatican and the Irish government was “at a very low ebb.” The state of affairs had not been helped by the fact that newspapers in China, he said, had written editorials using Mr. Kenny’s remarks as an argument for “why the church should be under government control.”
Mr. Kenny, who took office in March after the long-dominant Fianna Fail party imploded over the financial crisis, has been accused of opportunism by some critics. But his position as a practicing Catholic from a conservative area helped give moral weight to his speech. And his government’s feisty new tone has been met with widespread approval in a place that feels doubly betrayed: first by the abuse itself, and second by what many see as a cover-up by the church, compounded by the often opaque, legalistic language with which it defends itself. “You can talk about the finesse of diplomatic ties and maneuverings, but what Kenny was actually saying was that you have to prioritize the victims of abuse, and you have to assert very loudly that this is a republic and civil law has to take precedence over canon law,” said Diarmaid Ferriter, professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin.
While most people have not abandoned their religion, many seem to have abandoned the habit of practicing it. The archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, recently estimated that only 18 percent of the Catholics in his archdiocese attended Mass every week. The government has announced that it will introduce a package of new legislation to protect children from abuse and neglect, including a law — considered but rejected as too contentious by previous governments — that would make it mandatory to report evidence of crimes to the authorities. It has also established a group to examine how to remove half of the country’s Catholic primary schools from church control. In a recent interview, Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s deputy prime minister, said that Ireland had asserted its role as a “modern democracy.”
No longer would the church enjoy its previous privileges and powers as in times past, when it, with the government’s collusion, “effectively dictated the social policy of the state,” he said. “Historically, there was a view within the Catholic Church that there was a parallel law, that they had their own system of law, and that was the law to which they were accountable,” Mr. Gilmore said. “At a minimum, that blurred the understanding of the necessity for full compliance with the law of the state.” He added: “The Catholic Church is perfectly entitled to have its own view and its one rule and to view matters according to its own light. But this is a republic. And there is one law.”
When it comes to protecting children, Mr. Gilmore said, “Everybody in the state — irrespective of whether they’re ordinary citizens doing everyday work, or a priest or a bishop — has to comply with the law.”
-
That is quite an assertion put forth in this article that secular governments are superior to religious ones. For this to be true, one would have to conclude that politicians only respond to the will of the people, never latch onto an issue solely for reelection and that all citizens under such systems have full equality and opportunity regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Prisons would be uniformly humane, and capital punishment wouldn't exist. Environmental standards would be high and uniform between nations and corporations would all employ fair labor practices and provide adequate pensions (which by the way, would be subject to stringent regulation and not be allowed to be reinvested at great risk by the company at their discretion). For just one example, why then do some of the richest countries, such as the USA not have universal health insurance which somehow the United Kingdom residents were able to afford not many years after a devastating world war ravaged the country, costing billions to repair? Could it be the war negatively impacted most of the populace, underscoring the commonality of experience rather than widening the gulf between the rich and poor as is so evident in the majority of countries in the world?
There is also much in the modern welfare state that goes unexamined or woefully underexamined for such claims of superioirty to be accepted at face value. Take the last sentence in the article …."everybody...must obey the law, priest and commoner alike." While it is beyond dispute that many wrongs were committed (and still are) by the Church and the clergy escaped most if not all penalties, it is equally false that "all obey the law" in a secular state." In the USA for sure, one gets the best justice one can afford based on the lawyers one can hire and for the super-rich, often the very laws are subject to their influence, probably much more so in the economic rather than the criminal arena. Although if the rich serve time at all, they often go to country club minimum security prisons while the poor and racial minorities almost always serve time in far more harsh facilities.
Public assistance and the social service system which I am intimately familar with often creates abusive environments for children. Speak to any child protective services worker - hundreds, if not thousands of parents routinely abuse their own children! Since workers can only issue benefits and not attempt to counsel, under the false prohibition of "moralizing" many of these parents are barely out of childhood themselves. Due to the very misguided modern approach of not distinguishing between the "deserving and undeserving poor" generation after generation reproduces with abandon, making fathers almost irrelevant to a large segment of this population. Non payment of a few thousand in child support can perversely affect the payor resulting in prison time (usually more costly than what is owed) and then the person is released with a felony on his record, making employment even more difficult. Again, this affects racial minorities at a far higher rate than others in the U.S. This is not to say no one deserves financial assistance in time of need, but most people have no idea how truly counterintuitive welfare systems can be. Just this week I have spoken to three mothers who have never met the father's parents (the children's grandparents), claimed they had no idea whether or not the man had a job, been in prison and/or found out later that the man had three to 10 other children besides theirs! They are having children without knowing anything at all about their partner! I ask sometimes how they were planning to financially care for the child if neither they nor the father had a job. This question is usually greeted with a response of "what do you mean?!" As if the government has more responsibility for them than they do themselves! My state's protective services system will not process a referral on a teen mother unless she is under 13 years old! I have another friend who rented her house, due to wanting to retire up north and not sell it for a fraction of its worth due to the housing market decline. The renter lost her job, moved in her adult daughter on welfare and used $3,000 of illegally obtained electricity. They will not be prosecuted because (a) it would cost the utility more in legal fees and (b) due to such persons knowing how to hide assets and work under the table, etc. they would never pay a judgement anyway. The list goes on and on and is almost never discussed in any public media forum.
To summarize, every system has strengths and weaknesses and often a change in systems is simply an exchange of one set of problems for another.
-
Religion should be banned.
If religion was such a good thing and helps people, other than those who are directly in it (priests, etc), then why are they amassing so much obscene wealth? They should be using that money to help people rather than buying paintings and statues. Their libraries should be public, not secretive.
I find it dishonest to say that if secular governments aren't 100% perfect at everything, then it's better to have a religious one.
Religious governments are hostile to gays and women, without exception. The same statement can't be said for secular governments.
The UK has a failing National Health System and it's costing us a fortune through extremely high taxes. It's a post code lottery on how good your medical care is. It almost killed me a couple years ago because of the procedures that you have to go through before you can get referred to a specialist. I'm also left with permanent nerve damage in both hands thanks to the NHS. If you want even a slightly decent level of health care, you still need private health insurance.
-
Secular governments have a lot to answer for too. In the USA, the eugenics policy of the 30's was supposedly to keep the mentally ill from reproducing and yet minorities, simply for being minorities were sterilized as well. The Japanese were rounded up during WWII, their homes and businesses were confiscated and they spent the war in camps. Many were born here! etc. etc. etc.
As to your statement ALL religious governments are hostile to Gays and women without exception - the world is a big place and has been around for several thousand years. Isn't it true that at least some cultures have homosexuality incorporated into puberty rites? Ancient China or Japan accepted some forms of homosexuality. Were all the governments of the past completely separate from the religion? I don't think so. That was supposed to be, at least in theory, a new concept when the USA started.
I am sincerely sorry about the nerve damage to your hands, but it is not as if all medical care is equal in the USA. I have waited weeks and months to be scheduled for tests. (and lets not forget millions have no coverage at all) How specifically is that a flaw of universal coverage and how does that explain the overall better health of the UK compared to the US?
Religion or churches have never helped anyone? ST. Vincent DePaul Society in France started during a great depression to help feed starving people. And even if they (wrongly) accumulate wealth, there isn't one priest worth 100 million yet in our capitalist societies there are lots of people worth that much yet a minimum wage job (without pensions or health insurance) only pays about $14,000 a year. And out of this you are a supposed to provide health care, food, shelter, utitlites, transportation etc. for yourself.
I never said a religious government was preferable, but some in the article were quoted as saying secular governments are superior so that means they should be a lot better, not necessarily perfect.
-
okay, here we go again…
while churches have their faults, who doesn't?
Here in the philippines, they do have some link to politics, but we can't discount the facts that they were responsible for educating a huge portion of the leaders today. three of the top four colleges are run by either jesuit, franciscan, or the la sallian brothers. of course the state university (where i came from) wasn't a religious institution, though.
I've also been a donor to a convent which houses orphans and victims of rape (who then became unwed mothers) and tries to get them back on their feet. Not all religion is bad, in my book.
I think both with the government and the church, the people (thus constituents) should take a stand, and in Ireland, they finally are. So there.
-
You are putting an extreme burden on secular governments by saying they have to be "a lot better" than religious governments if they are to be preferable. That shows your bias in favor of religion.
Why is the Vatican swimming in such extreme wealth? All that money could be used to help people, but NO, they need some more artwork. The same applies to other religions and churches around the world. Sell off all that obscene wealth and fund aid for the people.
While priests may not be multi millionaires, the church is obscenely wealthy.
Here's just some of the wealthy that the catholic church has in the Philipines; hXXp://moneygurado.blogspot.com/2011/06/catholic-church-in-philippines-has.html
Why is the Vatican stifling knowledge by keeping it's library so secret?
We could do a nice little tit for tat of what secular governments and religious governments did to their people. You also have to remember, that even though secular governments, such as the US, aren't supposed to be based on religion, they are quite often run by religious nutters; ie Michelle Bachmann, GWB, Rick Perry and countless others in the US. Papa Bush famously said atheists aren't citizens or patriots. So how can you be so absolute in claiming it's the supposed secularism of the government that did wrong and not the believers that run it?
On the other hand, anything done by a religious government is the blame of religion, as that is at it's core.
Can you name me a religious government today that supports total equality for gays and women?
Even though the CofE is the official church in the UK, it's the catholic church that is screaming for blood and demanding that they should be allowed to discriminate against gays and they have been getting their way.
In the supposedly secular US, churches are getting tax payer money to run their charities and discriminating against gays.
I think you've been reading some wonky websites, if you think that the UK has better health care or personal heath than the US. The UK has shockingly horrible health compared to most of Europe and countless other places around the world.
According to the UK's Office of National Statistics, life expectancy at birth for a male is 63 and 65 for a female, for an average of 64. In the US, the average life expectancy for both male and female is 78.14. 78.14 is a lot higher than 64, so the US wins this one.
Even though I had private insurance, I still had to wait 3 months before my doctor would refer me for an ear infection. The whole one side of my head was swollen and extremely painful, I was taking toxic levels of OTC pain killers to dull, not remove the pain, because my doctor wouldn't give me anything for it. Finally I got refered to a specialist. If I had to wait for an NHS doctor I would be dead because the infection was eating away the bone between my ear and brain. I was rushed into emergency surgery after the CT scan by my private insurance specialist. It would have been another 17 weeks at the earliest before I would have been able to see an NHS specialist, meaning I would have been dead 17 weeks prior.
-
come on Raph - I am not putting the burden on anyone. The people quoted in the article said secular governments are SUPERIOR to religious ones. That does not show my bias in favor of religion, it shows you are not reading what I wrote. I even went further to say a religious government is NOT preferable.
I don't know how much wealth the Vatican has, lets say it has tons as you suggest; I will offer what a philosophy teacher once said - the Vatican could melt down everything made of silver and gold, sell every painting and statue. Poverty would be alleviated for about an hour (pricelesss in money and artistic treasures would be lost to the public forever also) and then it returns to business as usual by the greedy millionaires and corporations. The Church teaches social justice, which is a fundamental paradigm shift in how society operates, but will probably never happen. Even some pretty anti-catholic posters on J-M-God said the Catholic Church looks super liberal compared to the TV prosperity gospel ministries that never mention spirituality, Jesus or helping your neighbor. It is all about tithing to the TV host so YOUR OWN cup will return 100 fold or whatever it says in the Bible. (i'm referring to South America where a TV minister just ran off with 100 million but we have our own in the USA too)
But even if we agreed 100% on religion, there are so many more ills in the world that wouldn't be touched by religion vanishing and giving up all its assets.
As to the Vatican Library, CBS news went there in April 2011, so it is hardly secret. Being not open to the public is different than secret. It is open to scholars. In reading about it there are priceless treasures and artifacts there which would be worn out if everyone from the public went there to see them.
I don't see the point of a tit for tat, secular vs. religious since AGAIN the point at issue is the supposed superiority of secular governments. I readily admitted more than once Church governments have a lot to answer for, even moreso I would say since they claimed to be representing God. But I gave examples of secular misconduct to show they weren't so superior after all.
I live in the USA and I'm Gay, how could I NOT be aware of all the religious nutters running for office or having been influencing public policy?
Now, you said there was not one religious government that wasn't hostile to Gays and Women, no exceptions. I'll grant that maybe you were referring to present day. That is a very hard thing to look up on the internet because it gets tangled up with Christian history. I readily admit I don't know but would posit that totally religious governments are probably in the minority compared to what they were 3 or 400 years ago so I have some more research to do but allow that probably that assertion is correct.
Don't get me started on Churches getting taxpayer money to run their charities. The Churches don't realize they will over time subjugate their principles and mission to continue taking Caesar's silver! Not to mention it is an obvious violation of separation of Church and state.
UK health - well, I haven't read anything lately, but I want to reiterate millions in the US have no health insurance at all. So how many people die because of that almost certainly isn't kept track of. I did watch a pretty long 8 hour special on public television that seemed pretty objective, watched Sicko and read about UK health stats in the New England Journal of Medicine.
So, when you were in extreme pain, you couldn't go to the emergency room?
-
But you did say that in order for secular governments to be preferable over religious governments, they have to be A LOT BETTER.
Nice excuse for the church (all churches) to amass obscene wealth. Am I assuming correctly that your philosophy teacher was at a catholic school?
Just because there are other ills in the world, doesn't mean that religion gets a pass.
The Vatican library could be done just like the Library of Congress, which is open to most and you can see anything you want. You may not get to see the exact original but you get to see an exact copy of the original. That is not the case with the Vatican library.
I never said it was secret, but they are extremely selective on who can see it and what is allowed to be seen.
That is the problem though, secular governments are riddled with religious nutters. So a lot of the problems in secular governments go back to religion. The Vatican threatened to excommunicate politician if they voted certain ways on issues. It happened in Canada, the UK, the US, Spain, France and I would guess every other country on the planet.
Churches are getting taxpayer money to run their charities and they are using that money to discriminate. It's another example of religious nutters in secular government pandering to their religion. SO again, secular governments are never truly secular.
Tony Blair gave the catholic church special rights to continue discriminating against gays for 7 years after everyone else had to stop doing it. Tony Blair was a closet catholic and he loaded his cabinet with catholics, like the Opus Dei member Ruth Kelly. So the catholic church gets special rights over the countries own state church, because the country was run by catholics. Ruth Kelly was a well known homophobe when Tony Blair made her the Minister for Equality.
Millions of Americans don't have health insurance, but I'm willing to bet that many of them would qualify for medical benefits under the welfare system.
I could have gone to the emergency room, but read up on that, people can wait days in there before being seen. On the next working day they would have just told me to go see my GP.
BTW, I'm a dual national (US/UK, American by birth) so I am well aware of what goes on in the US. I am forced to live in exile so I can be with my British partner.
-
NO I did not say "preferable", I said if they are to be SUPERIOR, they must be a lot better. It is unmodified, go back and read it.
Yes, the philosophy teacher was at a Catholic school but if the point is valid, what difference does that make?
Now you're entitled to be anti-religion and that's fine except that perspective is "making" me say things I didn't.
For example, your third sentence - "just because there are other ills in the world, doesn't mean religion gets a pass." That is NOT what I meant nor what I said. There is no other way to say it - If religion disappeared tomorrow, that would not alleviate corporate greed one iota. Major changes would STILL need to take place in order to make society a more humane place. That is all I was driving at.
I never said it was a secret, uh yeah you did. Go back and look at what you wrote! The Vatican is under no obligation to make it like the Library of Congress, and if they allowed CBS news in and explained it is open to scholars then I'm really not so concerned. Not sure why it is an issue with you since I'm guessing it is all religious stuff anyway.
As to the Vatican threatening to excommunicate politicians, as far as I know the issue is abortion but in any event we're straying far from the topic. I don't see what the problem is here either though. If you are a member of the KKK, you probably can't be a member of the NAACP at the same time. I'm sure if you were a politician and this were discovered, the NAACP would yank your membership too. It is not like the Vatican is trying to make poltiicians subvert their country's interest to give money or land to the Vatican. If a politician favors his own pet causes, such as Tony Blair, it isn't right, but they all do it anyway. You can't single out the Catholic Church for condemnation, that is a wrong THAT politician himself/herself is personally accountable for. (and you can't prevent that sort of thing anyhow as humans are corrupt, you can only punish after it is discovered.)
WE already agree Chuirches shouldn't get taxpayer money so not sure if you have a new point here. To say secular governments are not truly secular? Keep on hoping for the day religion completely disappears I guess is the only plan you have. I mean if you're a US citizen, then you know we are SUPPOSED to have separation of Church and State, it is up to everyone to make sure that is enforced.
People on welfare who have insurance (Medicaid) are not, therefore, uninsured. Millions of Americans have NOTHING.
Well, I'm glad the emergency rooms here work differently than the ones in the UK. Surely, then you've heard of the UNCUT movement which started in the UK. The government there gives huge (dare I say, sincerely, OBSCENE? OBSCENELY HUGE?) tax breaks to corporations just like here in the US. So, there is your money to improve UK health care. (The example on the internet was some telecom company in UK owed billions but it only paid a few thousand?)
-
Are you saying Iran's government (religious) is on the same level as the US's government (secular)? I would venture to say that the US government is far superior to Iran's.
A catholic school teacher defending the catholic church hoarding wealth rather than helping people is blatantly bias. It's sad that you are buying into the "we can't help everyone, so why bother, we'll just hoard the wealth" as being a good thing. As I've already said, this applies to all churches, not just the catholic church, though they are the most guilty.
While I wasn't saying that the Vatican Library was secret, but that it's contents are secret, they do not advertise it and only let in selective people that support their world view. So they aren't for the greater good, but for the good of a select few. The little bit we do know about it is mainly because of Dan Brown's books and the Vatican reacting to that.
The Vatican threatened to excommunicate politicians over a variety of issues, including abortion and gay rights. As a gay man you should know what your church has been doing on the topic. There is a huge difference between getting kicked out of a club and being sentenced by your religion to burn in hell for eternity. It was nice of you to compare the catholic church to the KKK.
Us unwashed immoral losers shouldn't be held to the same standard as your godlike side, so stop saying "you guys do it so why shouldn't we". You guys are doing everything in the name of your god, so you should be held to a very high standard.
So you are admitting that there is no such thing as a truly secular government, because religion will always weasel it's way in. Secular governments are tainted by religion, so they should get some credit added to counter the negative created by the taint. If it weren't for catholics in the UK government, gays would have more equality and the catholic church wouldn't get special rights to discriminate against gays for an extra 7 years, while using taxpayer money. Now that the 7 years are up, they've closed shop rather than not discriminate against gays.
I'm fully aware of the supposed separation of church and state, but your side is against that. This is why judges have the 10 commandments in the court rooms, churches get taxpayer money and the list goes on and on and on…........ Your side has done, and keeps doing, everything in it's power to destroy that separation.
Not everyone who qualifies for welfare is registered to get it. Also, not all medical cover requires welfare. In Texas you can get free health care even if you don't qualify for welfare. Cuba is a vile evil godless heathen society and they have a lot better medical system than many other counties in the west. Now compare that to Iran, Saudi, etc, etc, etc who are religious governments.
If religion is so great, then why hasn't it stamped out greed and all the other societal ills? After all, religion has pretty much controlled society since the beginning.
I also have a hard time understanding how you can so rabidly defend a church that hates you. Yeah, I know you say you disagree with their stance on homosexuality, but then you are disagreeing with a core belief of the religion.
-
The people quoted in the article said secular governments are SUPERIOR to religious ones.
Prime Minister Kenny's saying "superior" was not a proposition of value, it was a proposition of fact. Religious institutions are nominally subordinate to the laws of the government of Ireland.
-
hey, it's all about economics. you pay by your dollar vote or your actual vote. if the demand for religion wasn't so high (oh yeah the opiate of the masses) then they would have died out a long time ago.
governments are run by people, who are in turn voted by constituents. so if the people in power aren't what you want them to be, then make a movement of your own and try to convince the rest of the ambivalent country to care. ranting won't get anywhere.
it makes no sense to condemn religion or government because even your ability to put food on the table is a result of the system working for you.
on the other hand, maybe we need to look into ourselves and ask if we've done anything to even remotely relieve the "societal ills" that plague us. I can't say that i've done all that I can, which is why i don't judge.
just my thoughts. don't kill me.
-
Raph -
Are you saying since Churches hoard wealth, you are going to donate your entire income to help the poor and live in a tent?
Since religion upsets you so and it is corrupt, are you going to leave England and move to a deserted island?
Or another solution: Are you saying since all religion should be banned, that people who are religious should be deported to their own country? But then since it should be banned completely according to you, should religious people be done away with somehow?
–-------------
Now you didn't say any of those things, except taking your religious ban to the extreme, what would be done with Churches and religious people?
But that is what you're doing to me (for example) when you say "the philosophy teacher defends the Church hoarding wealth." Actually I didn't defend hoarding money and don't defend it, but many have called for the Church to sell off all its art treasures and give the money to the poor.
And I ask again - how long would poverty be alleviated EVEN IF the Church did that? Not long, since wealth is primarily concentrated in the hands of individuals and corporations. But really, I don't mind you attacking the Church for being "obscenely wealthy" but do you think they have MORE wealth than Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? Do you have as much or more outrage at them? Or better still, what is it specifically that bothers you about Churches accumulating wealth? (as long as it is not via the taxpayers?) Or excommunication? Belonging, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries is completely voluntary.
I NEVER said, to quote you, that people who disagree with me are "unwashed immoral losers" and I have stated emphatically that I DO NOT think governments should give taxpayer money to Churches. I even stated a reason - that the Church risks government control when taking government money. But you STILL say "your side …is against separation of Church and State"
You really have stretched me out of context when you ask if Irans' government is superior to the USA. I never said that. I never said relgious governments are preferable.
Ok, I think I"ve made my points and if you think I haven't please bold the exact phrases from my writing to prove your point or I can't discuss this any further.
-
As the "unwashed immoral loser" it's not my job to help the needy, even though I do. I'd be willing to bet that IF your side were honest and opened their books, we'd see that I give a larger portion of my income to help the needy than churches do.
Religious people need to learn that we are all atheists, just that some of us believe in less gods than others.
Religious people need to understand that there are others on the planet as well, but they tend to forget that or worse.
++++
Ok, so you and your philosophy teacher think that instead of trying to help people, the Vatican should just hoard the wealth.
We'll never know exactly how much the RCC et al has, because it's broken up into mini sub corporations and they aren't exactly open and honest about such things. However, we do know just a tiny fraction of the money they have because we know at least some of the money the church's Philippines branch has from the line I posted earlier.
The difference between Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is that they aren't trying to claim the moral high ground. However, both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates give away huge chunks of cash every year.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates doesn't hate you, but your church does.
Churches should pay taxes as they use the nation's infrastructure. It's another example of them using and giving nothing back.
"Unwashed immoral losers" is in reference to non believers, not people that disagree with you.
Churches haven't lost control to government by taking taxpayer money. In fact, the government, due to being full of believers, is pandering to churches and allowing them to use taxpayer money to fund their hate.
Your side (believers) are doing everything in their power to destroy the separation between church and state. The first clue is GWB creating the so called "faith based initiatives" giving churches money to fund their hate. I'm sure you can find countless examples of believers doing everything in their power to destroy the separation of church and state.
