Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


thejournal.ie regarding the up and coming abortion referendum of 2018

 

Do you really want to force a woman to carry an unwanted baby? Does a child's right to life go that far? Thought experiment: What if eggs, sometimes they do, start turning into babies without sperm? We would all agree that the woman can abort. Do we really consider somebody terminating at 12 weeks to be the equal of somebody who kills a baby in a cot? No. And the relationship between law and morality is that the law is about public order and thus abortion is a private matter and none of the laws business.


http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/03/father-forgive-us/
 
Confession is disgusting. It has you apologizing to God through the priest for sin instead of apologising to the people you hurt. Religion is a placebo for “sin”. The process of facing the person you have hurt and saying sorry is far more important than any confession to a god or priest. In fact to say anything else matters insults both victim and perpetrator. Anybody who hurts a child and apologising to God is more important to him than to the child even if he does apologise to the child should be told to keep his insulting apology. Religion invents sins too thus making people seem worse than they are which helps you feel better about the bad things you have done. It brings them down to your level. Sin itself is an invention. It is not the same thing as wrongdoing. Sin is breaking God’s commands. Wrongdoing is about hurting not about breaking God’s commands.

 

2014 Tim Stanley preaches that people should become Catholics and not liberals in the Telegraph 

It is an appalling abuse of one's position when a journalist uses his column in a secular paper to proselytise. And even worse when he promotes a faith despite the evidence that this faith is incorrect and man-made. If Catholicism is just another error-ridden religion and not really all God's creation, then Stanley has the internet and should know this. Even most of its own followers are sceptical and have a faith so weak that they might as well become atheist out and out. I find that people that ignore truth to promote faith, are taking advantage of the fact that lots of people do the same thing or they think that people are too stupid or lazy to search for truth anyway so you can tell them a load of religious or superstitious tripe. If you are looked up to as a religious authority, you will never feel as powerful or honoured as when people believe your nonsense just because you tell them to. Priests and ministers of religion are really after the ego boost.

It is obvious that religious denialism, where people turn a blind eye when their religion is proven wrong or dubious or insane, is a huge problem. And Catholics no doubt would see Mormonism as an example of religious denialism (the RC Church says all religions are man-made and prone to error and nonsense except itself) where the truth has no impact on Mormons for they only care about what they want to believe. But why are Catholics so sure that they have any right to think they are not in denial themselves??



A comment regarding how a poll showed that 65% of Irish thirty-somethings would still get babies baptised

So 65 % would still have their babies baptised? People are not told the truth about the meaning of baptism by the Church. It is supposed to be a huge deal even more important than marriage for it marries you to God and the Church. To take a child for baptism while not intending to make her or him a believing Catholic as opposed to a dishonest cherry-picker is akin to perjury. Church teaching is that a child that fails to seriously live up to baptism will be damned forever in Hell. Is it really right to imply that people can be accused of being capable of such an evil when there is no hard evidence for anybody going to Hell? Also, is it really right to raise a child in a religion when you have made little or no effort to make sure the religion in terms of morality and honesty and evidence really is the best to raise the child up in?

 

Evil Catholic fundamentalist, Mary Doherty of the Christian Solidarity Party Donegal defended Cardinal Sean Brady.

Brady had known of the crimes of serial child sex abuser Father Brendan Smith and took notes and did absolutely nothing. This was revealed - not by sneaky Brady we must add! And he refused to resign and gave an insincere apology when forced and delayed that apology for as long as he could! How sincere it was! Doherty argued he did right as it was not his place to try and get Smith exposed. Because of Brady's silence, the abuse escalated and even the parents of the victims were kept in the dark. Charmer Bishop Boyce of Raphoe was as bad as her.
 
MY REACTION: Doherty knows her Bible and she is a total hypocrite like Bishop Boyce another defender of Brady. Jesus Christ though a Jew believed that religion should exist for man and not man for religion. He even committed the sacrilege of attacking the money changing and market stalls in the Temple to make the point that religion should not try to make a profit. The lesson of the day is that you break the rules for the greater good. Brady did not have enough compassion to break the rules in order to protect children. It was easy for him to learn that nothing had been done about Smith. Jesus considered the fact that nobody else was breaking the rules for the greater good as a reason for him to do it. Brady knew that ending the culture of silence and protection of the abuser needed to start with somebody. He should have become the whistleblower. instead he cooperated with the culture of silence. he had to know his inaction would have had horrendous consequences for the innocent. its alarming to think that a woman would defend his inaction and his stubbornly arrogant and unrepentant attitude. I thought women experienced nurturing tendencies to protect children...!
 
Adorable Pope Benedict XVI addressed the fools who attended the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin in 2012 in a distant and unfriendly and cold way. He said it was a mystery how child abusing clerics and religious could eat the Lord's body and confess their sins and go out and commit the crimes they did.

 

MY REACTION: A mystery why people can receive the body of Christ and confess their sins and still go out and abuse children? If we depend on sacraments that do not work then there is no mystery! If the sacraments work Catholics would be better than other people. But they are neither better or worse. Where are the tests and trials to see if the sacraments really have an effect on people? Sacramentalism is in violation of the fact that religion should stick to the evidence. It does not respect our right to truth and evidence.

 

If man wants to feel he does good without doing it, the ideal way is to resort to prayer and giving out sacraments!

 

Also, the church says the Eucharist does not physically change into Jesus but it still says it is Jesus. Sounds like pretending to me! The Bible is very severe against the worship of something that when attacked cannot defend itself. Can a wafer prevent you from tossing it into the fire?

 

Religious teachers who give useless remedies for sin and evil are responsible if their victims do evil. Benedict is to blame as well as the perpetrators and he knows it. And he only apologised for the abuse because he was forced to. He only started doing something about it when put under pressure.

 

The implication of the Lord's body thing is that by providing it the Church was giving medicine against the sins of child sex abuse by clerics!  That is a disgraceful superstitious assumption and a cop-out.

Some try to pretend you can be a good Roman Catholic while deliberately opposing the doctrine that the bread and wine literally become Jesus Christ during the Eucharist. The idea of a chance is an essential Catholic teaching. Richard Dawkins correctly observed that whoever does not believe and who scoffs at it is not a Roman Catholic but deceiving themselves if they say they are.

 

MY REACTION: Every religion has to have rules about who is a member. The Catholic Church regards the Catholic who repudiates transubstantiation as a Protestant - ie a Christian who has declared independence from the Roman Church. The person who knows a teaching is essential for being a Catholic and rejects it should look for another Church. He should not be pretending to be a Roman Catholic. To go through the motions of staying when he can join his local Anglican Church smacks of sectarianism. If he is to be considered a Roman Catholic then the word hypocrite becomes meaningless. You cannot be a genuine member of any community if you reject its ideals. Any Catholic who does not believe but who is trying to can be a Catholic. The one who is not trying is not. Moreover, an individual Catholic who acts as if he can pick and choose what to believe is not recognising the Pope as the head teacher of the Church who allegedly stands in the place of Jesus Christ.

 

Papal documents were being leaked by Vatican staff causing a scandal for the Pope.

 

MY REACTION: The stuff that is not leaked is scandalous enough by itself! Few know that the Church has a shocking attitude towards attempts by married couples to be responsible about how many children they will have. It says its a morally neutral issue! The Church allows “natural” family planning despite banning contraception. It merely permits it and does not praise it. That is warped! Those who have children they cannot feed are bad eggs end of story! This is the same hypocritical faith that claims to be against contraception as it allegedly indicates that the birth of a child is a burden and a mistake!
See Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368, 2370, 2399. It says the motive to regulate births is neither good nor evil, as long as there is an openness to new life. Even seeing a child as a curse would be as good as that kind of teaching!

A person objected to Tim Stanley's statement that it's a sin to deny Catholic doctrine. The person said it was not the teaching of the Church.

My response was, If Catholic dogma is to be believed, Stanley is right to say, "One of the greatest sins in the world is to participate in the Church and not really believe in its teachings. That's a sure way to get to Hell."

The Church has always taught that to hear Church teaching and disbelieve it is calling God a liar for the Church is his voice.

 

"That faith thus understood is necessary to salvation no man can reasonably doubt, particularly since it is written: "without faith it is impossible to please God." For as the end proposed to man as his ultimate happiness is far above the reach of human understanding, it was therefore necessary that it should be made known to him by God. This knowledge, however, is nothing else than faith, by which we yield our unhesitating assent to whatever the authority of our Holy Mother the Church teaches us to have been revealed by God." (Catechism of the Council of Trent). The religious cherry picker does not really have faith but is inventing a faith of her or his own. And it is intellectually dishonest to claim to be a believing Catholic and do that. And if God's word can be doubted in some things then why trust him in anything?
 
However, we must remind ourselves that people who say without proof that we will be punished by God forever in Hell for not believing x and y and z have hatred in their hearts even if they won't let themselves see it.

Ireland closed down the Vatican Embassy. Response to "it was unwise to close an embassy that provided access to the Vatican’s unique global diplomatic network ” . The Irish Government, Eamonn Gilmore Tanaiste in particular, in 2013 expressed having no regrets about closing the Vatican Embassy.
But surely that access can be got in other ways? The point is that the Vatican is only regarded as a state because it is treated like one and not because it is one. That is unfair. Fair play to Gilmore for standing by the principle. And we must remember that the Vatican uses its role to try and stop the poor from having access to condoms even when the intention is to reduce the spread of HIV. And it is about undermining how the state should be neutral in religion.

 

The Vatican wants rights as a religion not as individuals.

 

Religious freedom has to start with all freedoms. That is, individuals first. And individuals, whether singularly or in groups, should be empowered to decide for themselves. But only for themselves. The Catholic Church looks to use conscience as an excuse for refusing rights to individuals. It argues that it must not be forced to provide contraception as if religious rights trump individual rights!

Re: The Telegraph reporting a surge in older children getting baptised seemingly because their parents want to get them into Catholic schools

Baptism in Catholicism imposes religious membership and the obligation to obey Church law on the baby. This is not right in itself. A baby is the best of humankind and does not need religion or religious membership for the alleged forgiveness of original sin in baptism. Also it is not right considering few parents know enough about religion and its controversies to make an informed decision. Interesting that parents don't reason, "The Church doesn't approve if we baptise our child ourselves but it will recognise the baptism as real. Maybe we should just tell the priest a fib that we did the baptism to get it into the school?"

 

The Christians today tend to say that God does not punish people in Hell but people make their own hell for they refuse forever to go near God and be happy. This is as bigoted as the bible doctrine that God DOES punish in Hell and the New Testament doctrine that God said that vengeance was his and he would repay. Why is it bigoted? You need absolute proof before you can accuse anybody of being sinful enough or possibly sinful enough to make their own Hell. Also Christian philosophy today says we have free will because of God and not in spite of him meaning he is ultimately responsible for what we choose. It proves that God and the rancid doctrine of predestination to good and evil or heaven or hell go together.

 

Is that the kind of God you want your child dedicated to?

Re Catholic Church looking for exemption to Obamacare on the grounds that it forces it to provide birth control
  
People who look for exemptions to the law on religious grounds, always plead for their case on the basis of religious freedom and human rights. It is strange for Christians to do that because ultimately for them it is God's rights that should matter as everything comes from God and he deserves all the love that is in us. Christ said that the first commandment is to love God totally and to love our neighbour not totally but as ourselves - ie we are to love only God ultimately - and love our neighbour for his sake and not ours or theirs. Thus if the law allows contraception and God forbids it there is a conflict.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/07/18/paedophile-priest-70-jailed-for-12-years/
 
I remember when the paedophile priest scandal was at its worst here in Ireland how many Catholics treated those clerics responsible for the cover-up like celebrities. To this day, the priests bleat, "We are not all bad". That is a sign that they are unrepentant because the point is not that they are not all paedophiles but that not a single one of them supported the victims or said anything to stop the abuse. That is the bottom line and they have been told it and they still keep trying to entice people into the Catholic faith by misdirection.

Re Vatican claiming that it never advised its representatives to cover up clerical sex abuse, UN, 2014


The Roman Catholic clergy would have known of the extent and nature of clerical sex abuse from the confessional. You get a penance in confession. No priest ever told his "penitent" paedophile priest to turn himself in. Because the unique way of getting knowledge - no other organisation has such access to the facts - the Church must be treated with utmost severity.