Is religion on the way out?

"A social group with more members of a society is typically more attractive to potential new members.
A social group with a higher perceived social status or utility is more likely to draw in new members."

And if that's the kind of religion which is on the decline, then good-o.

Of course, there is one incy wincy little factor that this theory has failed to take into account, and that is that it is based on the assumption that the philosophy of naturalism is true, and therefore that 'religion' has to be understood in naturalistic terms. (I suppose it's only a minor point, isn't it?!)

Alternatively, I suppose one could argue that 'religion' - according to a certain definition - is a natural phenomenon, but then we would need to limit the term to a description of social dynamics. This, of course, would have nothing to do with what people actually believe about reality and even less about what is actually true.

Finally, as I have written elsewhere, the theory assumes that the march of history is on the side of the philosophy of naturalism, whose disciples nonchalantly assume that religion will eventually die out 'naturally'. This, of course, is a totally unproven and unprovable assumption, but we must never underestimate the power of human self-delusion when it comes to these kinds of predictions, based as they are largely on wishful thinking.

(I think I'm seeing a general trend in these blog subjects.)
Don't these researchers take population growth into consideration?

Can someone paraphrase Dr Wiener's summary please?

Because I glaze over each time I start to read it.

"We can express these two statements as mathematical rules..."

Oh really?

Surely the fundamental question when evaluating these things is how well it describes the trend of religions in the past.

For example, when Christianity started it had the status of a man who had just been executed and almost no members. But within 300 years, the Roman Empire converted to being a Christian state.

Will, this research is about Social Conformity. It is tricky to tie Religion and Conformity too closely together as a matter of generality - not everything in religion is necessarily devoted to their status qua collective organisation. Undoubtedly, this is a point that can generally be ignored in the cases of Islam and Protestant Christianity, regrettably the two more prominent religions in our society, and hopefully this research is good news for the rest of us in terms of revealing Fundamentalism as a temporary sociological trend. But not all religious traditions operate within these kinds of conditions.

Judaism and Buddhism (perhaps some of the Emergent Christianity stuff as well, and maybe even Catholicism to some extent, though probably less so) appear to be more essentially conservative than that, being aimed at exploring, applying and maintaining particular collections of classical teachings, institutions and philosophies rather than at developing a theological foundation for the sake of its members.

(Incidentally, this distinction could perhaps be applied to atheistic philosophies too. If one sees the Explicit Atheist as a fundamental naturalist in LSV's sense, the Implicit Atheist seems to be more focused on exploring Science as an enclosed set of propositions, rather than on advocating its discipleship in the general public.)

I would be skeptical of treating this research as revealing something fundamental about the end of Religion, though it does seem to say something interesting about its future development!

what's probably of greater significance is the respective birthrates of the religious and the irreligious. Last time I looked believers had far more children than atheists. Liberals will abort themselves out of existence. Greatest cause of death in New York City? Abortion. Most dangerous place in the world for a black American? Their mother's womb.

@mccamleyc

That is really nasty.

Women in the developing world don't enjoy reproductive freedom.

I don't buy it either. McCamley is closer to the reality on this, which is that the religious are the gratuitous breeders, and people who are better educated (almost exclusively Western) tend to have less children. Perhaps (I would posit) out of a more enlightened sense of responsibility to the planet and some sense of the plague we are upon it. I use that term advisedly.

Eric Kaufmann has done a pretty robust piece of research on how the religious are likely to simply outbreed smarter people. Find details here: https://www.sneps.net/

That makes forwarding and fighting for secularism a very urgent battle to me. Surely we've had enough of the dominance of this guff?

The research William mentions covers 9 countries far flung from each other around the globe and which are unlikely to change the world as individual nation-states. Which is what they would have to do if we were to worry about this research as (I suspect) religious people are supposed to.

And why am I not remotely convinced that William Crawley doesn't have an agenda? Why is that Willy?

LucyQ - which bit of the truth was nasty? and to whom was it nasty?

But you're right about the third world - lots of woman have western practices foisted on them, as well as the selective culling of unborn girls in countries like India and China.

The religious might be the bigger breeders, but they're also the faction with the highest levels of drop-out from following the traditions and values of the parents.

It's relatively rare for the children of liberal and/or non-religious (not always the same) parents to adopt a fundamentalist religion, but all too common for the children of the highly religious to leave said faith.

I'm quite happy for the Quiverfull movement in America, for example, to churn out children (with the caveat they take responsibility for the over population of the planet) because, chances are, most of those children will abandon their parent's religion. If the opposite were true, then congregation numbers and statistical values for church going would be on the increase in the USA. As it is, it's not, the opposite is true.

And all this -without- the evangelism that the church needs to use to gain new followers. People become atheists and agnostics on their own say-so, not the brain-washing of missionaries.

Is religion on the way out?

Clearly not, when you consider how the likes of mccamleyc trawl blogs with a view to shoehorning dogma into every discussion!

Yesterday on Sunday Sequence we had that arch-God-botherer, Reverend McIlveen, obsessing on homosexuality yet again. Are there no problems in Northern Ireland that he could be focussing on instead?

(Something appears to be wrong with the iplayer. It "plays" but there is no sound. All seems OK with Radio 4. Also, programme not divided up into chapters).

I'm from Canada, so I'd like to comment from that perspective. This study by 3 US scientists focuses on the rising trend of no religious affiliation in the countries studied. This pattern holds in Canada. Census data shows the percentage of Canadians reporting “no religion” grew from 4% in 1971 to 16% in 2001. The US science professors pooled data from nine western countries and then fit curves displaying exponential growth of the “no religion” category. Extrapolating these curves forward yields the prediction of inevitable extinction—decades from now, if current trends continue, 100% of Canadians will report “no religion.” The obvious Achilles' heel is the statement, “if current trends continue.” Moreover, the study’s focus on population percentages in never justified. When accessing the risk of animal extinction we look at the number of breeding pairs, not the percentage. Canada’s Jewish community represents 1% of the population. If this community grows slower than the overall population, does this imply extinction? Not at all; it’s still growing. 4,000 years of Jewish history have proven many extinction prophecies and projects wrong. This e.g shows a religious minority (even a shrinking minority in percentage terms) can survive and thrive. The percentage of Canadians identified as “Christian” declined from 83% in 1991 to 77% in 2001. Does that imply extinction? No, the absolute number increased from 22.5 Million to 22.9M.
These scientists’ predictions conflict with other projections. They predict 60% 'no religion" in canada by 2050. Demographers at Statistics Canada (a government agency) expect “the share with no religion would rise from about 17% to 21%,” by 2031. [Stats Can: The Daily, Tues, March 9, 2010] THat's a 4-percentage point increase over 25 years. At that rate there's no way this group will top 60% by 2050. Census data shows Canada’s “no religion” category has been increasing, but at a decreasing rate. In the 1970s Canadians with no religious affiliation grew at 7% per year (doubling from 0.9M in 1971 to 1.8M in 1981). In the 1990s they grew at only 3.7% per year (from 3.4M in 1991 to 4.9M in 2001). Over the past 30 years each decade shows a slowing growth rate. Those figures are not consistent with the esxponential curves fit by the US scientists. Slowing growth suggests the “no religion” category will peak at some future date below 100%. For Canada at least (& I suspect some others among the 9 countries studied) Religion’s extinction is not on the cards.
A Jewish proverb says “prophecy is for fools and children.” Statistics can be coaxed to tell contradictory tales. Take for example the growth of Islam in Canada. The 1971 Census found 33,000 Muslims in Canada, only 0.15% of the population. This number grew by 11% during the 1970s to 100,000 by 1981. By 2006 Canada’s Muslim population numbered 784,000 (2.4% of the population). The growth of Muslims has exceeded the overall population. Statistics Canada forecasts that by 2031 the number of Muslims will reach 3M (7% of Canada’s population). Naïve forward projections imply a majority of Canadians will be Muslim at some future date. Clearly we have a contradiction. Both the “no religion” and the “Muslim” categories have been growing faster than Canada’s overall population. Projecting one trend forwards implies the extinction of religion; extrapolating the other predicts a Muslim majority! Both these forecasts cannot come true; I expect neither prediction to be fulfilled. Perhaps the US science professors’ next research topic should be the growth of Islam in western countries! That should generate some sensational headlines! "Muslims set to takeover 9 western countries!" "Muslim domination is inevitable say US scientists!" etc

7. At 00:48am on 28th Mar 2011, mccamleyc wrote:
"what's probably of greater significance is the respective birthrates of the religious and the irreligious. Last time I looked believers had far more children than atheists. Liberals will abort themselves out of existence. Greatest cause of death in New York City? Abortion. Most dangerous place in the world for a black American? Their mother's womb. "
***********************
Quite true.
And sometimes the truth may be unpleasant, even "nasty" as in the statistics for African American women & abortion. Or gender selection.

Newlach, I've been reading this blog and providing occasional comments for several years. How does this equate with your suggestion that I "trawl blogs". Which blogs? If you don't agree with me that's fine, but best play the game, not the man.

Mccamley- why make it a racial issue? What are you trying to infer- that some other races are inhuman and cull their own? You can look closer to home to see it's not a race thing- its a human thing - a social issue.
I'm sure Obama and the UCC wouldn't agree with you singling out African American women for attack when it's clearly a larger issue enveloping everyone.
You could argue a Mexican child living in Ciudad Juarez is in more danger of being killed by his fellow countrymen than if the child lived a few miles across the border in a different countries culture

Ryan

MCC's concern for the welfare of children is questionable. The moral outrage he expresses re abortion doesnt seem to extend as far as children abused by Catholic priests. Over the "several years" he has posted on here he has consistantly attempted to pin the blame on everyone else apart from the actual perpetrators and those who have covered up. (He has also displayed a considerable lack of awareness as to what brought about this behaviour by priests in the first place.)

As regards "playing the game, not the man", have a wee squint at his web site and you might get a taste of how utterly hypocritical that statement is coming from him.

13.Nigel Tomes:

Hi Nigel,

I am familiar with parts of Canada, having lived there for about 3 years.

“prophecy is for fools and children.”

I agree.

Ryan, which bit of the truth do you wish to refute? It's a simple fact that abortion rates are phenomenally high in New York City. And it's irrefutable that abortion rates are even worse with African American women. How is it racist to point that out? It's like saying most serial killers are white males. Just a fact. Sadly it's a white solution to black social problems.

And the word you meant was "imply", not "infer".

And RJB, I never blamed anyone other than the perpetrators of abuse. You chose to infer something which I never implied. I have regularly pointed out that the vast majority of sexual abuse is not carried out by Catholic priests. I have pointed out that the concentration by the media on priests, while understandable to some extent, has allowed the main problems to be ignored. RJB continually pretends that presenting these facts is akin to supporting child abuse. That's his choice.

Mccamley, it would be more honest to identify the problem within a culture that shares some commonality with your own, rather than what you might regard as some alien culture race of people. Why not highlight Latin America. Tight restrictions there have led to an epidemic of backstreet abortions, with the United Nations putting the number as high as four million per year across the region (2006). You can't disown & project towards another culture you don't identify with. And the reasons have less to do with religion and more to do with socio economic factors , education & support for mothers who may be vulnerable.

Re sexual abuse. There is a very real need for transparancy and accountability in relation to the duty of care and responsability the Catholic Church has for the youngest and most vulnerable in society. You say the issue of Priests is a sideshow to the bigger picture. Many would say it's an integral part of the bigger picture. Unless the church deals with it in the head-on manner that RJB does many more will walk away from the Catholic church. Living in the secular West means we *can* just walk away and choose another way to define our spirituality . This inevitably means some will question whether they feel the need to explore any spiritual or religious elements to who they are at all. I think it's important to take onboard that RJB's approach is effective. Often it's the arrogance, lack of empathy and slimey triumphalism of the religious which is the biggest turn off- along with the very important fact extreme cruelty is often a defining experience of the human face of religion.

"That's his choice."

Not really. I'd say its the only possible conclusion given the volume of posts you put on here defending Ratzinger's inaction and dereliction of duty over 25 years, his complete dismissal of any concept of collegiality, his appointment of ultra-conservative Bishops and his claims that his 'hands were tied.'

These are all parts of the bigger picture and areas where the Church is culpably ignorant.

I also believe that your "God Bless the Pope-ery" responses display that you are not really engaging seriously with the issue. I'd even go so far as saying that your lack of real empathy for people who have suffered in this way is verging on sociopathic.

@19:
Correct re. NYC & America in general. Abortion rates for African American women are much higher than for other groups. I think it's Martin Luther King's neice who has spoken out on this recently.
And on the 2nd point re. sexual abuse-it can happen wherever adults are placed in charge of minors or the vulnerable.We have instances every day in the news here.The most current was in an Episcopal school .It happens in Boy Scout troops, detention homes, mental health facilities & the elderly & handicapped have been victimized as well. Religious denomination does not an abuser make, but the religious can certainly be more trusting of those in authority.

22. mscracker wrote:

"...the religious can certainly be more trusting of those in authority."

On what grounds?

mscracker

"It can happen wherever adults are in charge of children..."

Sure. But it DID happen with thousands of Catholic priests and hundreds of thousands of children. It was then covered up by hundreds of Bishops, Cardinals and even Popes.

How does pointing a finger at other denominations in any way excuse that? That argument will only result in the continuing refusal of the RC Church come clean.

Ryan, I do not regard black American women as an "alien culture race" - do you? As for backstreet abortions, it makes no difference to the child if it's killed in a backstreet or a shiny clinic but it makes a big difference to society - in one case it is recognised as a crime which it should be, in the other as a right which it shouldn't be.

I don't think I ever used the term "sideshow" in respect of abuse by priests. I've consistently said it's piece of the bigger picture. The problem is that the likes of RJB want to see it as part of a bigger picture of general horrors within the Church which they detest rather than part of the general picture of child abuse in society. Am I the only one who cares about the great majority of abuse victims who have no one to sue, no tribunal to care about them, no journalist to make documentaries about them?

RJB, it's a bit rich to complain that I defend the Pope when I only have to do it because you keep attacking him and spreading lies about him.

I was dismayed, not a surprise though really, while listening to last Sunday, Broadcasting House (R4) podcast. A young Irish woman was talking about her life in a place that is rife with petty religious tribalism. The infighting between Catholics and Protestants over there is quite absurd and yet this continues in a Western nation? Who makes the kids so crazy?

My suggestion is that Ireland abolish religion completely, banishing clerics to real jobs and sending any of the antiquated, anti-social, anti-community folks for brain retraining via the new science of neuro-plasticity.

Here is some good news from Middle Earth:

"Youngsters will continue to learn about the six major faiths - Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism - but they will also be taught humanism, the belief that there is no God or Gods, and that moral values are founded on human nature and experience."

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371084/Children-young-educated-atheism.html

@24:
Most institutions, religious or otherwise, are less than forthcoming when it comes to admitting error, much less abuse.
It's not a matter of denominations, but fallen human nature.Secular institutions have had the same issues & similar histories of covering them up. If you check out our nursing homes in the States, you'll find these problems cropping up over & over again.Ditto for our public & private schools & the foster care child programs which are run by the states.
Here in the US since most of the population has been Protestant, there tend to be more abuse cases involving Protestants.If it were a majority Catholic population the cases would reflect that instead. The uglier side of human nature does not respect denominational lines nor politics.
Who is "pointing a finger at other denominations"? Just wondering.

newdwr -23- I think you touch on the crux of the issue here. Perhaps it allows certain societies to be susceptible- in huge swathes- to manipulation.

post 22- Maybe it's more constructive to look at our own communities first. Before we start identifying other cultures with criticism

It's like standing in a queue, looking over at the queue next to us and saying look at what they're doing- such inhumanity, what animals- when all the while refusing to look at what people in our own queue, front & back are doing.

We really shouldn't separate out , scapegoat and act like our own faith (or lack of it) is a bastian of morality. It's all smoke and mirrors, we are no better and no worse than anyone else- however we choose to affiliate ourselves

We have a tendency as humans to try & disown something as belonging to some *other* It's dishonest

In the same way in another thread theopane is smearing Atheists as Fascists, when Priests & Monks were slaying other Christians in the lifetime of my grandparents

In the same way Catholics smearing others re abortion when Latin America (according to UN files) has a backstreet abortion figure of 4 million lives a year.

In the same way LSV pointed out in the "Top stories" thread that Atheists were discriminating against people of faith for jobs

In the same way Andrew points out in *news this week* thread "The stakes never burn out and the pitchforks never lay idle."

It's something Atheists as well as Theists should be mindful of. This is a human problem.Disowning what we don't like about humanity and laying it at the door of a foreign culture- dehumanizing it in the process isn't helpful or honest.

Atheism isn't the answer to Theism, as Theism isn't the answer to Atheism
If we keep carrying out the same patterns of behaviour

MCC

You have never once defended the Pope against lies. You have defended him against facts. You have attacked anyone and everyone who has had anything to say which is critical of the Church, no matter how true.

And now you claim that your lack of empathy for victims of clergy abuse is because you were really trying to defend ALL victims of abuse. Lol. Actually, that's so pathetic its not even funny.

I dont detest the Catholic Church. I do detest those who continue to drag it through the dirt with their cowardice and denial though.

Mccamley "concentration by the media on priests, while understandable to some extent, has allowed the main problems to be ignored"
You said Main problems ignored. It is part of the main problem
In Mainland UK, because Catholicism isn't such an intrinsic part of the culture- the issue of abuse isn't centred around Catholic priests- It's seen simply as predatory adults taking advantage of vulnerable children. Here in Ulster, you have 2 cultures sitting side by side, raising their children under different influences . The culture that's hemorrhaging under the weight of abuse on the Island of Ireland is the Catholic culture- because of the Catholic heirachy , their approach & way they've dealt with the problem within their own group- this is through no fault of any external force. It's highlighted more here because Catholic culture is the more mainstream culture & because as Men of God, representatives of God - it undermines their role as bastions of morality and godliness & pierces through what we are brought up to believe are good people

mscracker

Do a wee google about estimated instances of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and you'll find two factors which make Catholic clergy's abuse of minors different from that of abuse in other sections of society:

1. The exalted position in which priests operated and the esteem they were given by ordinary Catholics meant that victims had two chances of being believed - little and none.

2. The Bishops cared more about the image of the Church than they did about victims. Therefore they covered up and moved abusers where they could continue their evil.

I would also add that the reason people have been so outraged at the Catholic Church - as opposed to social workers who abuse, for example - is because social workers dont step into a pulpit on Sundays and lecture people about their sex lives! Hypocrisy!

@ 31:

I would agree that deeply religious folk may be more vulnerable to abuse in that they place their trust with their religious leaders, but I think if you were to look at non-Catholic clergy in America who have been found to have feet of clay, they were put in quite an exalted place by their flock, too, & often had little to no accountability to a hierarchy.
When members of the hierarchy fail in their duty it is a crying shame, but when self made preachers attain a cult-like following & then abuses occurr, there is no system in place to rein them in or hold them accountable.You can end up with Jim Jones & the like.
And I'm not correcting you in your perceptions of events in Ireland. You would know better than I.It's just a different mix of fallen nature here in the States-at least in the section I live in.

@28:
I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your comment. Who is criticizing which culture?

mscracker

# 27 "Who is pointing a finger at other denominations?"

# 32 "But if you were to look at non-Catholic clergy in America...."

@34 RJB:
Well I hear you, but I don't know how else to express the comment.I thought "non-Catholic" was pretty non-specific.That might include anyone else.But you do seem to demonstrate a desire to pounce upon posters.
These generally aren't exactly denominations, rather followings of charismatic preachers that branch off, sometimes into cults. But I suppose some might classify cults as denominations,too.
It's not so much the denomination as the lack of a system in place for accountability that can be problematic. And as repeatedly demonstrated in these blogs, I see few that hesitate to point fingers at Catholics.

32."When members of the hierarchy fail in their duty it is a crying shame, but when self made preachers attain a cult-like following & then abuses occurr, there is no system in place to rein them in or hold them accountable"

Yes, that's true, in other denominations as well as Catholicism

33. It's about hypocrisy. It's easier for people to scapegoat, disown something & stick it on a different group of people. Then you can say- well that's the reason they are the way they are. They don't share the same upbringing , with the same value system as us. That's just not the case. We can dress it up and aportion blame, dehumanise those we villify but there is a lesson to be learnt in Catholicism right now, the message coming through is being interpretted by you as attack.It's meant to be more constructive than that

It's saying own the problems.Don't pass the buck. Own the fact it's no-one else's fault.

Don't foist Fascism on Atheism- face up to the majority role played by Christians and even Priests. Don't hold up abortion as an area of moral highground when 4 million lives a year are taken to backstreet abortionists in South America- It isn't fixed with religiously inspired law. It's fixed with education, socio-economic improvement & support.

Look, as someone with an Irish speaking Catholic heritage, I care enough to look at what needs fixed and not gloss over it & blame others to take the heat off.
I also didn't expect when I first began writing posts here, the person I agreed with the most would be a Catholic Priest-RJB. I have read his posts from before I started on this and was bowled over by how similar his replies are to my perception of things. I am very greatful for RJB's input. It shows me Catholicism and deep down spiritual goodness are compatible

RJB - I can't believe you're defending child abuse by social workers!

See what I did there? I read something you wrote and inferred you were defending abuse and cover up by social workers. That's what you do every time I provide any context and argue against the lie that Ratzinger covered up abuse.

Yes I see what you did there, MCC. You posted a silly post. (Again.)

@36 Ryan:
Maybe they're right about Americans, that we're a bit slow at times, but I still don't know which culture you are referring to. Was it about the statistics re. abortion in America? Or something else?
Sorry for my slowness here. About African Americans-if that was something you were referring to-the point was that many feel they are being targeted & victimized by abortion providers.This is what Martin Luther King's neice is trying to point out. Maybe I can find a link somewhere with the info.

39. Americans are as smart as they come, don't be fooled by the folksy, relaxed approach :P
We can all look first within our own culture /or the cultures we identify with to find the examples we look for.
Mccamely referred to India, China , etc & a culture with which he doesn't identify with.It makes it a *them & us* situation-A problem of people with a different value system to him. He doesn't need to look so far. Maybe it's impossible for him to be critical of Catholic societies & church heirachy. Yet, it's that human trait- of disowning a problem in our own group, levelling it as only specific to someone else that creates alot of problems in human societies. If we're not willing to be critical of back street abortions in Catholic Latin America,yet India, China, or African American women are fair game to take the criticism ,then it's not really an argument coming from a moral high ground. It's putting the problem & identifying it onto someone else & different values.
Same with the squirming of Mccamley and abuse. He's not comfortable facing the truth that it's part of the main problem. Apparantly, to him, the main problem is *being ignored* . I'm curious as to what he believes the main problem is

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ryan, you seem to have a bit of a problem with people from other countries. Not sure why you seem to think it's okay for me to talk about Latin America but not North America or China. I don't have the same difficulties you seem to have. Abortion is wrong wherever it is carried out. The examples I mentioned are some of the worst examples of its usage. If 60% of Irish pregnancies ended in abortion as is the case with black women in New York then I would mention it. If girls in Ireland were routinely aborted because they were girls I would mention it. But whatever the reason, it's wrong, in Ireland, Latin America, Italy or China.

Roy Bourgeois (it's a real name!) was excommunicated three years ago for participating in an attempted ordination of a woman. He was offered the opportunity to change his position and embrace Catholic teaching. He refused. His loss.

I really enjoy plucking names out of nowhere and putting them on here, MCC. It forces you to google them and educate yourself about what your pals are doing to the good people in our church.

If you are going to defend the Church's hypocrisy, you have to at least inform yourself first. I am actually providing a service for you, an education.

Care to comment on why not one abuser priest or cover up Bishop has been excommunicated? Maybe even a little treatise on 'punishment fitting the crime' perhaps?

RJB,

I could offer a reason, although it's probably not the 'official' one;

The ordination of women is a church doctrine matter, it effects the entire teachings of the church, it is an important issue within the church and has huge implications on the future of who and why people are ordinated as priests. Certains readings into the bible can imply that women simply are not allowed to participate in church governance or teaching and so it's a doctrinal line that should not be crossed. It's something the church can deal with itself, without interferance from that bothersome secular authority. Excommunication, whilst I'm sure is distressing for a devout catholic, isn't really an issue in the real world but feels impressive within the church.

Clergy child abuse, however, is a criminal matter that must (or should) be dealt with by secular authorities. It's a recognised wrong, by both biblical and legals standards and, as such, the church can go 'tut tut tut' and shake its metaphorical head sadly. The fact that they cover it up on occasion is irrelevent; it's not a doctrinal issue, they don't have to deal with it internally. If the secular authorities find out about it, bait and switch and deflect interest. The core doctrines of the church are not affected, they can say it's wrong and sinful, but they don't have to actually -do- anything. It's already acknowledged as a 'bad' thing.

It's the difference between knowing something is wrong but not doing anything to stop it (abuse), and deciding something is forbidden (but not legally wrong) and preventing it (women priests).

@42:
I appreciate your posts.
I don't think folks outside of the States quite understand that the outrage here over the statistics for abortions in African American women is not aimed at the women themselves, but rather at the perception of eugenics & population control practised through abortion.
And I agree with you, abortion is wrong everywhere & at all times.If slavery was practised outside our community or culture I don't think we'd be criticized for speaking out against it. And that was a defense used by some Southern slave owners responding to abolitionists."You don't understand our culture."

Mccamley 42- I agree with you ( amazing lol) but -& there is a big but :p This blog has a religious accent to it. The topic of abortion has been rumbling along for a while now , most recently at Theopanes behest- where he was trying to link the words Atheist, Fascism & murder to abortion. As mscracker points out, it's wrong that abortion clinics should be targeting a certain demographic, but to then make some subtle link between Catholicism, Catholic societies and an ability to better deal with the issue of abortion is fallacious. This isn't a religious issue where one faith can claim the moral highground, it's a social issue, one that affects Catholic Latin America just as badly, but perhaps with more serious physical consequences for the mother- since in Latin America they are illegal back street abortionists whih pose a greater threat to a mothers health

And btw i don't have problems with other countries. People are people. I don't care a jot whether Northern Ireland is in the UK or part of Europe. Im not a nationalist. I don't hold any value in fairy tale notions of patriotism. There are nice people of all races , all faiths, all over the world & and the converse is true

"Is religion on the way out?"

Karl Marx certainly thought so, and you can still see mostly neglected and weather-beaten statues of him in a handful of villages and provincial towns scattered across central and eastern Europe.

Ryan, post #46;

Please take care not to misrepresent the views of others. I have not ever linked the word `murder` to abortion and am uncomfortable with any such connection. The killing of one human being by another is not necessarily murder.

and Ryan;

"...in Latin America they are illegal back street abortionists which pose a greater threat to a mothers health."

Although the picture is necessarily very far from clear, because these activities are illegal, these abortions are often carried out by qualified doctors, as a way of earning extra income, and by organisations such as the IPPF, who break the law by providing these "services" in the very countries where they seek to be invited on a legal basis.

Well all those who have committed mortal sins, such as child abuse, or facilitating child abuse exclude themselves from the sacraments until they repent and receive sacramental absolution. Do you actually want more people to be excommunicated, RJB, or just making a point? Excommunication is used as a punishment for actions which tend to undermine the unity of the Church. And for once I agree with you RJB - in the current circumstances, I think it might be timely to consider extending excommunication to cover child abuse - but it would be a difficult penalty to impose - hard to prove in various circumstances. Perhaps making it automatic as in abortion.

And Theopane... Having strict laws on such matters often just drives it underground, which is no good for anyone. Rather than us pontificating- judging what's right & what's wrong, check out this link.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11845572
Similar laws to Latin America & someone on the ground who deals with the ramifications. It's all well & good to be an armchair idealist, often what humanity needs is pragmatism & compromise and to equip people with the education & confidence to follow their own moral urgency- often much more effective than the outside prescriptive imposition of religious dogma.

Religious fundamentalists & their sympathizers often think their specific religion is the "correct" religion, the "only" religion and regard all outsiders as savages or damned. Often the reality played out around the world is the religious fundamentalists & their sympathizers ARE the savages and often the only ones worthy of damnation

Tell me Mccamley, why wasn't Hitler excommunicated? Why hasn't he been posthumously excommunicated? A president has already been set with the exhumation of a Pope that was tried then posthumously excommunicated. Alot of people in the "real world" would want the far right elements of the Catholic Church excommunicated. The abuse dealt with head on. The Pope to be accountable under law like everyone else and not above it. Women to be ordained. Gay people to be accepted as openly gay and not the latent homosexuality we see bursting through the seams of the Catholic Church over the last century (ie- within living memory). It's sad , Gay men too messed up and scared by their own faith & their own body's impulse that they flock to the Church for succour, yet by the same token withdraw any empathy to the homosexuality they see outside of their Church. It's always do as I say, not as I do. No wonder so many are disillusioned with the Catholic Church. And with every attempt you make to gloss over it and grasp some moral highground, it looks empty, futile and lacking any power of persuasion

53 was in response to 51

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Yer fine, Ryan. I stopped getting chalk flung at me when I left Primary School.

Watched the film 'Romero' last night with a group of folk from the parish. I've seen it dozens of times before but, in the light of recent conversations on here about Popes and Bishops, what struck me was his honesty. (As well as his bravery, humility and love of the poor.)

He was an honest man. The people could see it a mile away and they admired and loved him for it. It inspired millions to try to be honest themselves.

This is the crux of why there are so many disappointed and disillusioned Catholics today. They detect dishonesty from their leadership.

It's interesting (for me) there was no surprise in seeing About Face's response, instead a certain gnawing predictability to it. All I had to do was mention Gays & Religion. Apparantly to combine the two by About Face's estimation *isn't allowed*
In the Unprotected text thread, it was enough to set him off for weeks on this blog until he quietened down.
It came across as how dare people try and argue a space of acceptance for Gays within Christianity. He managed to scupper LSV in his debate with Andrew, and managed to see off Parrhasios completely- haven't seen him on the blog since his little run in with About Face
So apparantly if someone is gay- they have no right to spirituality- no right to religion- to argue for that right is to deal with About Face.
There are plenty of decent gay people out there, monogamous, quiet,homely, in long term relationships -who live regular lives and have a spiritual/religious side to them they need to respond to. Instead we get smeared -that we're somehow worse than straight people,that all we do is go clubbing, hedonistic, amoral, that only Atheism is somehow appropriate.
Yet I see a similarity between the extremes that are pitted against each other - That of the latent homosexuality in the Catholic Church ,for example, attracted by the love of ritual, decadence, pomp, dressing up, the camp, colourful costumes and hats & how similar it is to a small but very loud part of gay culture. The attraction isn't an altogether spiritual one

Judging from what I've seen on this blog, apparantly it isn't acceptable to be secular, to have a spiritual/religious interest and a love of Science. We have to be pidgeon holed by tribal preference

Natman,

"Clergy child abuse, however, is a criminal matter that must (or should) be dealt with by secular authorities. It's a recognised wrong, by both biblical and legals standards and, as such, the church can go 'tut tut tut' and shake its metaphorical head sadly."

I'd love to agree but I can't find where child abuse is condemned in the bible. Lots of other things that religious people rant on about are as it is supposed to be the complete book, but not child abuse, maybe the people who wrote it were not worried about it or maybe they didn't want to draw attention to it.

I can find "implicit" condemnation of lots of things, but not that.

Ryan,

There are lots of gay spiritual and even christians out there. I have been to two weddings (yes full marriages in Spain) and am looking forward to a church blessing for a couple next month here, the fact that I do not believe in god has nothing to do with it.

What I would say is that I have difficulty understanding how someone can be gay and christian but that is my problem not theirs, I will be there to support them in whatever they chose is the best way for them to celebrate their love.

I just wish McIlveen could see it that way.

BTW Ryan,

Not all gay people are camp, and not all camp people are gay.

With love !!!

He managed to scupper LSV in his debate with Andrew, and managed to see off Parrhasios completely- haven't seen him on the blog since his little run in with About Face

I'm not sure this is true; there was a bit of gap between LSV's last post in response to me and then my response to his response. By that time new threads had developed and priorities shifted. For my part, I was trying to tie up loose ends on the unprotected text thread and cutting down on posting in general.

Parrhasios also, I think, mentioned he was busy in a discussion He and I were having on the same thread, which came after his exchange with AboutFace.

It's also somewhat tendentious to say that AboutFace 'scuppered' LSV in his debate with me. LSV and I were having a good spirited debate for a good part of that thread's total postage; by the time it closed it had run it's course. I have argued my position and LSV has argued his, and people are free to decide who had the better argument.

Which, by the way, is really the best we can ask for on a blog such as this.

@62:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! 2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. " Luke 17- King James Version

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

hmmpf, the first paragraph of my 65 should be italicised.

I know that Dave Im gay! lol

Andrew, he was going to come back to you with a discussion, one that LSV and Parrhasios were better qualified to have with you than I. They both said they were continuing on a conversation with you,but About Face put his oar in

About Face, I doubt LSV or Parrhasios would agree with you last line any more than I would

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am very sorry you are so cowed Ryan. Your gay ideal seems to match that of the Daily Mail: "There are plenty of DECENT [emphasis mine] gay people out there, monogamous, quiet,homely, in long term relationships -who live regular lives and have a spiritual/religious side to them they need to respond to." Where are these people? I think you're making that up my friend. I don't doubt that they exist, but I doubt that you've really met as many of them as you make out.

You've seen a lot of bad wotsit? I wonder. I've seen you claim to be the victim of a particularly vile crime on here, and yet I'm "the most evil" [whatever it was] that you've ever come across?

The thing is, I get pretty upset when I see what happens to gay people who are brought up in our society, here in Northern Ireland. It is closed and it is poisoned. A lot of gay people do not have the opportunity to develop as they would and should be able to. It could be said that it's the same in any parochial place but in terms of the UK and Ireland people here get a particularly raw deal. On the one hand it is so endearing, and there is so much genuine warmth here, but on the other, it is one of the most deeply poisoned places in the developed world and by dint genuine tolerance is a long way off the agenda. This place is backward. Gay people here are afflicted by this backwardness very acutely. The opportunities for flourishing here are very, very limited indeed.

I'm fortunate to have had very rich experience of life for a young man - the good and the bad. The good has been and is very good indeed, and the bad has been atrocious. I'll say nothing more than that but that you can take me at my word.

When I say that your apparent "coming out" explains a lot, I meant only that I can see why you've taken up the cudgel so pointedly against me now. I have offended you not only as a Christian, but also your sensibilities as a gay Christian. For that, I apologise. Whatever works for you, if indeed it does work for you.

I would be better convinced that it does if, when I choose, from my perspective, and with my own experience of life, to attack the root cause of the kind of neuroses from which you and so many gay people here seem to suffer, you were more in agreement with yourself than to call me more evil than a rapist because I've rocked your boat on a piddling message board like this. It really doesn't do anything for your case and I'm afraid to have to tell you the problem is yours, and not mine. You can only work on yourself now, but don't try to tell me I can't attack what will make many more people after you suffer the same stuff as you appear to have done. This does not have to go on forever.

You seem absolutely intent on latching onto little things I've said, attributing obvious stereotypes to me, and stereotyping by me, such as that I'm sitting here bitter and lonely and screwed up and empty, and I can't actually tell you how many times you've done that. And to be honest, I've given nobody the beating you imagine I have. And you seem to be projecting onto me somewhat.

Live and let live as we say. I would dealy like it if young gay people here weren't almost universally damned to be fairly screwed up when they don't have the opportunity to consider leaving or getting an education or the other things that help a person see from higher ground. I do as much as I can to push for that. In doing so I meet with resistance all over, but I find religious hypocrisy to be particularly hard to stomach. So I find a nest here and I vent spleen of an odd night.

Really, buddy. What's it to you? I can do nothing staring at my navel. And my navel became very uninteresting to me anyway when I was about 21. Approximately three years after I'd got myself out of here and stopped thinking the way I was brought up to.

D'ya feel me?

No I don't feel ya.
You take out your frustration out on others without saying anything useful. You have no purpose here other than satisfying your own ego. I honestly don't think you even like people. You attack everyone except those who maintain the status quo- so quite clearly your happy enough. Maybe it's you who should be the one who stays here

I didn't think you would somehow. Good luck and all that.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

For the first time, I've actually appealed the moderation of one of my posts, an appeal to aboutface to rethink his style of contribution on here, # 79. It breaks no house rules, isnt aggressive to anyone and maybe even contains a bit of wisdom. Why was it removed?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Guys, this is becoming a farce. I appealed the removal of post # 79. An hour ago the moderators emailed me to say that my post was removed because it was "off topic." I then responded that most of the posts on this thread were off topic. It would appear that instead of reinstating my post, they are now removing all the other posts.

I give up. This is a complete waste of time.

It's cool RJB - we can't expect this blog to be anything other than a reflection of the imperfect world we live in- however we wish it not to be the case

RJB, your work is more important than this place. Meditate a while with your hands over your thymus gland & heart and stay strong, relaxed & happy!

Can we have another open thread please? It would be nice to actually have a discussion without Hatty Jakes bed-panning us.

LOL. Who's Matron?

RJB, I didnt want him upsetting you that was all. I'd rather take the hit than you

Ryan

I realised that and I thank you. What was really annoying was that I was actually responding to About Face with some understanding. It was quite a long post and it was chucked almost immediately.

For them then to turn around and claim it was off topic was laughable. Hardly any posts are on topic. However, I shall go for ten beers, have a wee spliffereenie, eat a salt-cooked sea-bass, then post again and see if it passes Mizz Jakey.

Haha!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Any chance of an OPEN THREAD?

Lol. Ye really cannae win. Could we open a thread on 'sense of humour', by-passes?

I believe that religion is on the decline, and I (for one) am glad for it. Religion is ring-fenced. It includes; it shuts out. You are either one of us, or you are not. It twists poor little minds that have come so perfectly-made from God and changes children's ability to think independently, spiritually, philosophically about life, death and other important existential matters.
How?
Because religion tells the next generation of children what they must think in accordance with the Bible, or the Koran, or the Old testament, or whatever.
While I believe that religion is declining, I see a spiritual growth that does not ring-fence, does not exclude, and that seems to bespeak: God's love for all his children.
I don't think that God - the real God - could chose a people to the detriment of other people. What kind of God is that? Is it not a very human, jealous sort of God?
If God is one, then we who are made in God's image (which includes all of us) are also one; this is my mathematics, and I truly believe in due course, it will be proven the penultimate spiritual mathematics of our planet.

BluesBerry;

"If God is one, then we who are made in God's image (which includes all of us) are also one; this is my mathematics, and I truly believe in due course, it will be proven the penultimate spiritual mathematics of our planet."

This has at least a ring of truth to it, but my mathematics meanwhile tell me that Spurs will need very little short of divine intervention to avoid going out of the Champions' League next week against Real Madrid, managed as they are by the "Portuguese Alex Ferguson", Jose Mourinho.

Shame about Spurs Theo, Always next year! Would have been nice to see 'ol 'arry Redknapp do good though :(

"If God is one, then we who are made in God's image (which includes all of us) are also one; this is my mathematics, and I truly believe in due course, it will be proven the penultimate spiritual mathematics of our planet."

The penultimate spiritual mathematics? I wish we could get to the last gasp of this stuff and move on already.