>>If your child has been baptised a Catholic, your child will get first dibs for enrollment...ie, the child is taken to be a Catholic even if it hasn't been in a church since the baptism<<

They have to live local parish as well to get preferential treatment - your type of baptism won't help if you want to go to the nicer Catholic school down the road.

But that's besides the point: the local Catholic school is not the same organisation as the Roman Catholic Church. The first one is a medium scale school educating a few hundred students. The second one is not. It's no surprise that as different organisation they have different membership requirements.

>>Church doctrine might say one thing, but the reality is that many "Catholics" ain't religious.<<

How does that work? Catholic doctrine is what sets out the membership requirements for the Church. How can people really be Catholics if they don't meet those requirements? Because you say so? Because they say so? I'm not a member of the Baker Street Irregulars but I really like Sherlock Holmes. I don't meet the membership requirements but working off the theory that they just forgot to send me my Irregular Shilling could you use your awesome powers to make me an Irregular? Or do you think I should just go ahead and declare myself one anyway?

>>If you believe that there is no real spiritual value in religion, then what makes you call a church "religious", but not a football or a golf club whose followers support it no less "religiously"?<<

A church is a religious organisation because its existence revolves around the idea - however much value it might hold - of God. A football club's existence revolves around football: saying somebody supports it 'religiously' refers to the strength of their devotion not the type of devotion.

And finally this because it's awesome. Except for the weird disco bit at the end. May contain strong language:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB958pxquj0

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

You're splitting hairs. I was referring to Yuyutsu's intimation that not all Catholics are religious.

As for Catholics not attending church or being religious, it's common practice to rely on one's technical Catholicism to get the kiddies into schools. Here's the "priority" list for enrollment at a local Catholic school.

* Catholic students from within the parish.

* Catholic students from outside the parish.

* Other Catholic students.

* Siblings of non-Catholic students.

* Non-Catholic students from other Christian denominations.

* Other non-Catholic students.

Catholic schools are fairly closely aligned with parish affairs and representations. Many parents of "Catholic" students are not religious but feel a connection to the institution and its rituals.

I see your point that if these types don't live up to the doctrine, how can they be called Catholics? But they are called Catholics, and they have the school enrollments to prove it.

Now if I wanted to join the Catholic church, I would have to go through quite a bit of preparation to be accepted. However if I had been baptised a Catholic, I would be already be in - even if I'd never set foot in a church since the day of my baptism.

Y I am aware of the deep intellectual theme to your posts here.
Are you however aware how very remote from most of us that is.
Try telling the mums and dads out side any Church,any Gods Church.
They are not religions followers.
I have lived in a time in my early life that saw the Catholic Church far from the only one that offended against Children in its care.
Yet it had very real strength , far beyond its numbers.
I have been loath to step side ways in this thread, to talk of the non Catholic, some are convinced that Church is the living Devil.
And my reluctance to include the Islamic creed may have ignored my concerns and took a plank awayb from my questions.
Even at this late stage,an underlining theme is.
Do Religions do more harm than good?

For those looking for spiritual reality sould check the words of Messiah Jesus,"The kingdom of heaven is within you" It is not pie in the sky when you die, it does not have a material dimension. It is motives, attitudes and character these values are the basis of Christ's teaching.

Godless tell the world we do not need pure motives, selfless attitudes and moral character based in compassion. It is all about looking after # one. Good Christian Churches are established to express and teach good motives, pure relationships and compassionate behaviour.

Dear Pericles,

<<Is this really what you think is happening here, Yuyutsu? Or are you just blowing off a little steam?>>

Yes, I know some Catholics personally, lay people who run their church, lead religious discussions, childrens' nativity play and youth camps, and do a beautiful job at that. Due to the shortage of priests in Australia (no wonder, how many agree to BOTH be celibates AND obey the corrupt church hierarchy), there isn't a priest every Sunday, so the service is usually led by lay-people. Sometimes they get an imported guest-priest from South America, but then the parish tells him what to do and not vice-versa.

<<I do see people expressing concerns about the privileged position of religions in our society>>

The BIG churches may get privileges, but it doesn't help the smaller groups and individuals of different religions. In fact, it doesn't even help the common church-goers of the big religions.

Humanism and atheism are quite two different things:
Pure atheism is neutral, it just says "such and such does not exist" and leaves it at that without placing value-judgement on anything or worshipping anything.
Humanism OTOH places great value on human achievements, including technological and social "advancement" and "progress", while worshipping Science and Evidence blindly as gods.

True scientists understand that science cannot circularly prove or provide evidence for its own importance or goodness, or that human achievements and progress are good: true scientists humbly understand science's limits and are busy in their labs and with complicated mathematical modelling which the masses don't even dream of understanding. They do not consider themselves as gods or even prophets: nothing stops true scientists from even being religious in every sense of the word. The humanist masses, however, don't understand any of that, thus they treat Science and Evidence as a deity beyond their capacity to understand.

<<try to obtain a measure of justice for some very abused and terminally damaged children.>>

By punishing those who are not perpetrators, not even Catholic priests, not even Catholics, not even Christian, just punishing every religious person on earth? You call that "justice"?

Dear Belly,

<<Are you however aware how very remote from most of us that is.
Try telling the mums and dads out side any Church,any Gods Church.>>

So what do you suggest? To leave mums and dads in their ignorance?

That they continue to believe that all religious people belong to an organised religion, all organised-religions are Christian, all Christians are Catholic, all Catholics are priests and all Catholic priests are either paedophiles or support paedophilia, thus every religious person ought to be burned at the stake?

<<Even at this late stage,an underlining theme is.
Do Religions do more harm than good?>>

Your original question, Belly, was: "Religion do we need it?"

So accordingly, my answer is: "of course: without religion there is no point in life!".

Now you wish to modify and limit the discussion to "religions" (in plural, meaning religious-organisations) and whether they do more harm than good.

Now this is a good question.

Just to make your question clearer, ask:

"Do organised religions do more harm than good?"

Or even better, ask about each organised religion in turn:

"Does the Catholic church do more harm than good?"
"Does Islam do more harm than good?"
"Does Judaism do more harm than good?"
"Does Buddhism do more harm than good?"
...

Then, once the question is set correctly, interesting and meaningful answers will begin to flow, even at this late stage!
(or in a new thread if you prefer)