a secular society by 2030

[DelToro]

CoE vicar on "This Morning"

"I don't think we should encourage people to be proud they are gay"

Fuck off you ****. Bring back the lions and the arena.

Aged 14 whilst at high school, I very vividly remember all of my friends starting discussions about sex and girls and who they fancied. I didn't get any of it, I wasn't interested and just carried on minding my own business. As that school year went on, I realised why: I wasn't attracted to the girls like all of my other friends, but the lads.

For two whole years, I was terrified that people would find out. I wanted to be the same as my friends, I wanted to fancy the girls and I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to spend every day in school worrying that people would discover my secret and use it as a weapon against me. I didn't want to have the threat of being beaten up because of the people that I found attractive. I didn't want to grow up into a world where, if I walk down the street holding the hand of a partner, I would get more noticeable looks and more people staring than if I was holding a girl's hand.

Every hour of every day was spent with torment trying to, firstly, work out what was going on in my brain and then, secondly, try and come to terms with it and accept it. I was fortunate that I never really hated that side of myself, but there are so many teenagers who do. Throw into the mix the number of young people who kill themselves because of their sexuality and the society they live in's reaction to it - bullied at school, disowned by parents or family.

And it's statements like this one made by some buffoon on TV that does nothing for the self-esteem of teenagers worrying about their sexuality and attitudes towards them from other teenagers.

*sigh*

A very heartfelt and honest post that should be compulsory reading for the narrow minded bigots on here who masquerade as caring Christians,and one that should make them reconsider their outdated and blinkered worldview and see just how out of touch the intolerant dogma of their church is with the reality of growing up as a gay person in today's society.
Sadly I am not holding my breath that it will make a jot of difference.

Well said, all of you.

 

[Shadz69]

Another nail in the coffin for the church over here.This priest is well liked and respected in Ireland and he likened it to the inquisition .'frightening, disproportionate and reminiscent of the Inquisition'.It also looks like he has the support of his priests union
The ACP yesterday affirmed “in the strongest possible terms” its support for Fr Flannery. It believed he was being targeted as “part of a worldwide effort to negate the influence of independent priests’ associations in Austria, USA, Germany, France, Switzerland”.

Also at yesterday’s press conference was Fr Helmut Schuller of the Austrian Priests’ Initiative. He was “very surprised they [CDF] came down on Tony and on Ireland”. He criticised the “lack of basic rights and respect for personal conscience” in the church.
A lot of church goers I know are not happy with this and the constant silencing of priests is gonna cost Rome dear.


AN OUTSPOKEN cleric is facing excommunication for suggesting women might become priests in the future.

Fr Tony Flannery, who also writes on religious matters, said he is being forced to choose between Rome and his conscience, and is taking legal advice under canon and civil law.

The 66-year-old, who joined the Redemptorists in 1964, said he has been told by the Vatican that if he wants to remain in the church and in his congregation he must end his involvement with the liberal Association of Catholic Priests (ACP).

He added that the ban on him ministering, which was imposed by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), will continue until he fulfils the terms laid down by Rome.

This includes publishing an article that has been pre-approved by the CDF and accepting that the Catholic Church can never ordain women. He says he must also accept the church's stance on contraception and homosexuality and its refusal of the sacraments to people in second relationships.

Despite being ordered not to engage with the media, Fr Flannery said: "I have served the church, the Redemptorists and the people of God for two-thirds of my life.

Subversive

"I have in good conscience raised issues I believed important for the future of the church in books and essays largely read by practising Catholics, rather than raising them in mainstream media.

"I'm hardly a major and subversive figure within the church deserving excommunication."

He has now decided to step down from the leadership of the ACP, which numbers more than 1,000 Irish priests, saying he does not want to have his circumstances blurred with the association's agenda.

Fr Flannery was silenced last year after a complaint about his views on the church's ban on artificial birth control and support for the ordination of women made its way to the "Vatican civil service".

The ACP said in a statement that it believed the "targeting of Fr Flannery" is not about church teaching but part of a worldwide effort to negate the influence of independent priests' associations.

Fr Helmut Schuller, the leader of the Austrian Priests' Initiative, a reform-minded group similar to the ACP, described Fr Flannery's treatment as "a scandal".

Formerly a monsignor, he was demoted following his group's "call for disobedience" on issues such as married priests and female priests.

A statement from the Irish Redemptorist Community said: "Although not all Redemptorists would accept Fr Flannery's views, we understand and support his efforts to listen carefully to and at times to articulate the views of people he encounters in the course of his ministry."

- Sarah MacDonald

Irish Independent

 

[Damocles]

I see no problem with the above.

The Church is a private club. It has its own rules and code of ethics to join. If you don't follow those code of ethics, you get kicked out of that club.
It's nothing to do with us how the Church treats its members outside of the wider moral implications of society.

Banning women shows them to be hypocrites, especially as they worship a guy who spent most of his later life going round and preaching about social justice and equality, but if we have to post in this thread every time a religious institution shows themselves to be a hypocrite then we would literally be here all day.

 

[Ian Paisley]

If it gets rid of christmas in its present form then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing.Many have declared themselves as non believers but happily celebrate christmas and other christian celebrations marriage etc.Christianity is the backbone of our society and it would be rather sad to see it eroded away.It's part of our history and heritage.I think many would understand it better if there were not so many denominations of what is the same thing.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

If it gets rid of christmas in its present form then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing.Many have declared themselves as non believers but happily celebrate christmas and other christian celebrations marriage etc.Christianity is the backbone of our society and it would be rather sad to see it eroded away.It's part of our history and heritage.I think many would understand it better if there were not so many denominations of what is the same thing.

I must admit that a distinct lack of religious holidays is possibly not atheism's strongest selling point.
I think that I personally would understand Christianity better if it wasn't completely fabricated homophobic and misogynistic claptrap.

 

[Scareye]

If it gets rid of christmas in its present form then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing.Many have declared themselves as non believers but happily celebrate christmas and other christian celebrations marriage etc.Christianity is the backbone of our society and it would be rather sad to see it eroded away.It's part of our history and heritage.I think many would understand it better if there were not so many denominations of what is the same thing.

I must admit that a distinct lack of religious holidays is possibly not atheism's strongest selling point.
I think that I personally would understand Christianity better if it wasn't completely fabricated homophobic and misogynistic claptrap.

Looks like you understand it perfectly well.

 

[Damocles]

If it gets rid of christmas in its present form then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing.Many have declared themselves as non believers but happily celebrate christmas and other christian celebrations marriage etc.Christianity is the backbone of our society and it would be rather sad to see it eroded away.It's part of our history and heritage.I think many would understand it better if there were not so many denominations of what is the same thing.

Did you read your own post?

In the exact same paragraph you have said that Christmas is a Christian holiday and inferred that non-believers are hypocrites for celebrating it. Then you say that Christianity is part of our culture and heritage but have not made the connection that this also means that Christmas is part of our heritage and culture so isn't a religious holiday any more.

You've managed to argue against your point whilst arguing your point.

 

[andyhinch]

Aged 14 whilst at high school, I very vividly remember all of my friends starting discussions about sex and girls and who they fancied. I didn't get any of it, I wasn't interested and just carried on minding my own business. As that school year went on, I realised why: I wasn't attracted to the girls like all of my other friends, but the lads.

For two whole years, I was terrified that people would find out. I wanted to be the same as my friends, I wanted to fancy the girls and I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to spend every day in school worrying that people would discover my secret and use it as a weapon against me. I didn't want to have the threat of being beaten up because of the people that I found attractive. I didn't want to grow up into a world where, if I walk down the street holding the hand of a partner, I would get more noticeable looks and more people staring than if I was holding a girl's hand.

Every hour of every day was spent with torment trying to, firstly, work out what was going on in my brain and then, secondly, try and come to terms with it and accept it. I was fortunate that I never really hated that side of myself, but there are so many teenagers who do. Throw into the mix the number of young people who kill themselves because of their sexuality and the society they live in's reaction to it - bullied at school, disowned by parents or family.

And it's statements like this one made by some buffoon on TV that does nothing for the self-esteem of teenagers worrying about their sexuality and attitudes towards them from other teenagers.

*sigh*

A very touching and sobering post mate. I can't begin to think how I'd have coped with those feelings (on top of the usual teenage feelings of vulnerability and angst).

He went on to say that teaching children about homosexuality at school would lead to pupils being confused about which they should pick. It was ridiculous and to be fair to Holly, she did say she couldn't believe that he had just said that and didn't agree with him.

I still don't know why he was given the opportunity to spout his outdated feelings to the nation though.

To be honest, for me that WAS the teenage angst and vulnerability. I think all that comes from different experiences and we all have our own shit to deal with - mine was working out why I was gay, while other people have other things.

The whole teaching will lead to more gays things is baffling, though. I had very little teaching of homosexuality; if I had, I might have had a less angsty time.

Great post mate

 

[pominoz]

I see no problem with the above.

The Church is a private club. It has its own rules and code of ethics to join. If you don't follow those code of ethics, you get kicked out of that club.
It's nothing to do with us how the Church treats its members outside of the wider moral implications of society.

Banning women shows them to be hypocrites, especially as they worship a guy who spent most of his later life going round and preaching about social justice and equality, but if we have to post in this thread every time a religious institution shows themselves to be a hypocrite then we would literally be here all day.

This is a big issue in Australia at the moment, as,

"In recent weeks the issue of ''faith-based'' organisations being allowed to discriminate against its employees and those in its care has reached a level of public discussion that is unprecedented in Australia. That's because attitudes have changed.

At issue is the fact that religious organisations are very large employers. They run hospitals, charity groups, nursing homes, employment services and schools. In doing so, these groups have long argued for exemptions to Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws on the grounds of "religious freedom".
In truth this matter is all about maintaining homophobia, not religious freedom."

I can not believe that our "Atheist" PM has bent over for these arseholes.


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/exemptions-for-religious-groups-keep-fears-alive-20130121-2d2f8.html#ixzz2IfPfI8Kq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/exempt ... z2IfPfI8Kq</a>

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I see no problem with the above.

The Church is a private club. It has its own rules and code of ethics to join. If you don't follow those code of ethics, you get kicked out of that club.
It's nothing to do with us how the Church treats its members outside of the wider moral implications of society.

Banning women shows them to be hypocrites, especially as they worship a guy who spent most of his later life going round and preaching about social justice and equality, but if we have to post in this thread every time a religious institution shows themselves to be a hypocrite then we would literally be here all day.

This is a big issue in Australia at the moment, as,

"In recent weeks the issue of ''faith-based'' organisations being allowed to discriminate against its employees and those in its care has reached a level of public discussion that is unprecedented in Australia. That's because attitudes have changed.

At issue is the fact that religious organisations are very large employers. They run hospitals, charity groups, nursing homes, employment services and schools. In doing so, these groups have long argued for exemptions to Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws on the grounds of "religious freedom".
In truth this matter is all about maintaining homophobia, not religious freedom."

I can not believe that our "Atheist" PM has bent over for these arseholes.


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/exemptions-for-religious-groups-keep-fears-alive-20130121-2d2f8.html#ixzz2IfPfI8Kq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/exempt ... z2IfPfI8Kq</a>

Your atheist PM is obviously more pragmatic and deep thinking then. As Damo said the church, ( in the broadest sense, Christian, muslim, mormon, whatever) is a club, with it's own rules and if you don't like them, or think them homophobic, misogynistic, or archaic then don't join.

 

[pominoz]

I see no problem with the above.

The Church is a private club. It has its own rules and code of ethics to join. If you don't follow those code of ethics, you get kicked out of that club.
It's nothing to do with us how the Church treats its members outside of the wider moral implications of society.

Banning women shows them to be hypocrites, especially as they worship a guy who spent most of his later life going round and preaching about social justice and equality, but if we have to post in this thread every time a religious institution shows themselves to be a hypocrite then we would literally be here all day.

This is a big issue in Australia at the moment, as,

"In recent weeks the issue of ''faith-based'' organisations being allowed to discriminate against its employees and those in its care has reached a level of public discussion that is unprecedented in Australia. That's because attitudes have changed.

At issue is the fact that religious organisations are very large employers. They run hospitals, charity groups, nursing homes, employment services and schools. In doing so, these groups have long argued for exemptions to Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws on the grounds of "religious freedom".
In truth this matter is all about maintaining homophobia, not religious freedom."

I can not believe that our "Atheist" PM has bent over for these arseholes.


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/exemptions-for-religious-groups-keep-fears-alive-20130121-2d2f8.html#ixzz2IfPfI8Kq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/exempt ... z2IfPfI8Kq</a>

Your atheist PM is obviously more pragmatic and deep thinking then. As Damo said the church, ( in the broadest sense, Christian, muslim, mormon, whatever) is a club, with it's own rules and if you don't like them, or think them homophobic, misogynistic, or archaic then don't join.

It has nothing to do with being a member of their "club", they run schools, hospitals, hostels and even employment agencies, funded by tax payers. They have the right to sack a single mother, anyone that is openly gay or someone of a different religion/no religion that is working for them, on those grounds only.
If they are taking my tax money to help run their business's, they should abide by the laws that any other business has to.

"I hesitate to say this but the Prime Minister is living in sin. I don't give a damn. Nor do most Australians. But that sort of thing bothers religious leaders. So much that Labor's Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill will renew their authority to bar anyone in Julia Gillard's shoes from any job in any of their schools, hospitals and charities, even those they run with public money.
It's a curious spectacle, a prime minister legislating against herself.
Only school funding is as heavily defended by bishops, orthodox rabbis and imams as the "freedom" to punish these sinners in the workplace.

Should she wish to work some day as, say, a cleaner in an Anglican hostel, she could solve the problem by marrying. But the woman who will be shepherding the legislation through the Senate really hasn't a hope. The new law will back any faith-based organisation that refuses to hire Penny Wong if having a lesbian on the payroll injures "the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion".


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillards-bizarre-act-of-faith-leaves-vulnerable-unprotected-20130113-2cnf0.html#ixzz2IhMcmmlS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z2IhMcmmlS</a>

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I agree, that if they are recipients of taxpayer funds, then whatever laws are in place there in the wider society, they should be bound by them, so I agree with you there. However, regarding religious institutions beliefs and strictures, if that involves them excluding folk because of them, and it's their own money,it is their privilege, as it is their train set, however ridiculous it may appear.

 

[pominoz]

I agree, that if they are recipients of taxpayer funds, then whatever laws are in place there in the wider society, they should be bound by them, so I agree with you there. However, regarding religious institutions beliefs and strictures, if that involves them excluding folk because of them, and it's their own money,it is their privilege, as it is their train set, however ridiculous it may appear.

I kind of agree, but only because if you become a member of one of these cults, that is your look out.

 

[Yaya_Tony]

The whole 2030 date is based on what people put down on the census forms as being their 'religion'. In reality a large percentage of those people are defining themselves as, for example, c of e for nothing more than cultural reasons. In a poll carried out by MORI on behalf of Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science it basically shows that in terms of what people actually believe, atheists and agnostics already outnumber believers. This is in accord with what I expect most of us would pick up from general chit chat amongst mates in pubs etc. I know my mum would always fill out the census forms and put us down as c of e, yet all of us were atheists! It's not a losing battle for the churches; it's already been lost.

If there is a god (I think that's a different argument) surely he/she/it will be mightily displeased with how organised religions have used and abused him.

eg. 1) To hate people of different religions.
2) To have great wealth and magnificent buildings when people are in poverty.

These two quotes probably best sum up the discussion for me. I was raised Catholic and I would say that for developing humans (as children are) there could be worse influences. Once a human reaches a certain level of understanding regarding their place in the universe though, Catholicism, Islam, Buddism, etc should all become irrelevant as that individual makes their way through life trying to be a good person.

In time all our religions will become part of history, this has been proven time and again over the course of human history so far so why it should be any different for Christianity or Islam, I don't know.

What I hope happens this time, is that religions are buried forever and instead of worshipping a creator, we marvel at and investigate what we don't know and will likely never fully understand, but that we can see through telescopes.

If humanity persists in hunting the truth one day we will hopefully get there, but to act as one species searching for the meaning of the Universe would take an immense effort from everyone, and will not happen whilst people are still so deeply divided. There would need to be an almighty shift in attitude for anything like this to happen, and for people of all nations to actually work together.

Which, funnily enough, is what Jesus would have wanted all along.

 

[tonea2003]

i wonder how many catholics know this, i bet not many!!


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/21/vatican-secret-property-empire-mussolini" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ja ... -mussolini</a>


How the Vatican built a secret property empire using Mussolini's millions

Papacy used offshore tax havens to create £500m international portfolio, featuring real estate in UK, France and Switzerland
Share14593




inShare.73
Email


David Leigh, Jean François Tanda and Jessica Benhamou

The Guardian, Monday 21 January 2013 20.23 GMT



Behind Pope Benedict XVI is a porfolio of property that includes commercial premises on London's New Bond Street. Photograph: Alessandra Benedetti/Corbis


Few passing London tourists would ever guess that the premises of Bulgari, the upmarket jewellers in New Bond Street, had anything to do with the pope. Nor indeed the nearby headquarters of the wealthy investment bank Altium Capital, on the corner of St James's Square and Pall Mall.

But these office blocks in one of London's most expensive districts are part of a surprising secret commercial property empire owned by the Vatican.

Behind a disguised offshore company structure, the church's international portfolio has been built up over the years, using cash originally handed over by Mussolini in return for papal recognition of the Italian fascist regime in 1929.

Since then the international value of Mussolini's nest-egg has mounted until it now exceeds £500m. In 2006, at the height of the recent property bubble, the Vatican spent £15m of those funds to buy 30 St James's Square. Other UK properties are at 168 New Bond Street and in the city of Coventry. It also owns blocks of flats in Paris and Switzerland.

The surprising aspect for some will be the lengths to which the Vatican has gone to preserve secrecy about the Mussolini millions. The St James's Square office block was bought by a company called British Grolux Investments Ltd, which also holds the other UK properties. Published registers at Companies House do not disclose the company's true ownership, nor make any mention of the Vatican.

Instead, they list two nominee shareholders, both prominent Catholic bankers: John Varley, recently chief executive of Barclays Bank, and Robin Herbert, formerly of the Leopold Joseph merchant bank. Letters were sent from the Guardian to each of them asking whom they act for. They went unanswered. British company law allows the true beneficial ownership of companies to be concealed behind nominees in this way.

The company secretary, John Jenkins, a Reading accountant, was equally uninformative. He told us the firm was owned by a trust but refused to identify it on grounds of confidentiality. He told us after taking instructions: "I confirm that I am not authorised by my client to provide any information."

Research in old archives, however, reveals more of the truth. Companies House files disclose that British Grolux Investments inherited its entire property portfolio after a reorganisation in 1999 from two predecessor companies called British Grolux Ltd and Cheylesmore Estates. The shares of those firms were in turn held by a company based at the address of the JP Morgan bank in New York. Ultimate control is recorded as being exercised by a Swiss company, Profima SA.

British wartime records from the National Archives in Kew complete the picture. They confirm Profima SA as the Vatican's own holding company, accused at the time of "engaging in activities contrary to Allied interests". Files from officials at Britain's Ministry of Economic Warfare at the end of the war criticised the pope's financier, Bernardino Nogara, who controlled the investment of more than £50m cash from the Mussolini windfall.

Nogara's "shady activities" were detailed in intercepted 1945 cable traffic from the Vatican to a contact in Geneva, according to the British, who discussed whether to blacklist Profima as a result. "Nogara, a Roman lawyer, is the Vatican financial agent and Profima SA in Lausanne is the Swiss holding company for certain Vatican interests." They believed Nogara was trying to transfer shares of two Vatican-owned French property firms to the Swiss company, to prevent the French government blacklisting them as enemy assets.

Earlier in the war, in 1943, the British accused Nogara of similar "dirty work", by shifting Italian bank shares into Profima's hands in order to "whitewash" them and present the bank as being controlled by Swiss neutrals. This was described as "manipulation" of Vatican finances to serve "extraneous political ends".

The Mussolini money was dramatically important to the Vatican's finances. John Pollard, a Cambridge historian, says in Money and the Rise of the Modern Papacy: "The papacy was now financially secure. It would never be poor again."

From the outset, Nogara was innovative in investing the cash. In 1931 records show he founded an offshore company in Luxembourg to hold the continental European property assets he was buying. It was called Groupement Financier Luxembourgeois, hence Grolux. Luxembourg was one of the first countries to set up tax-haven company structures in 1929. The UK end, called British Grolux, was incorporated the following year.

When war broke out, with the prospect of a German invasion, the Luxembourg operation and ostensible control of the British Grolux operation were moved to the US and to neutral Switzerland.

The Mussolini investments in Britain are currently controlled, along with its other European holdings and a currency trading arm, by a papal official in Rome, Paolo Mennini, who is in effect the pope's merchant banker. Mennini heads a special unit inside the Vatican called the extraordinary division of APSA – Amministrazione del Patrimonio della Sede Apostolica – which handles the so-called "patrimony of the Holy See".

According to a report last year from the Council of Europe, which surveyed the Vatican's financial controls, the assets of Mennini's special unit now exceed €680m (£570m).

While secrecy about the Fascist origins of the papacy's wealth might have been understandable in wartime, what is less clear is why the Vatican subsequently continued to maintain secrecy about its holdings in Britain, even after its financial structure was reorganised in 1999.

The Guardian asked the Vatican's representative in London, the papal nuncio, archbishop Antonio Mennini, why the papacy continued with such secrecy over the identity of its property investments in London. We also asked what the pope spent the income on. True to its tradition of silence on the subject, the Roman Catholic church's spokesman said that the nuncio had no comment.

 

[SWP's back]

If it gets rid of christmas in its present form then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing.Many have declared themselves as non believers but happily celebrate christmas and other christian celebrations marriage etc.Christianity is the backbone of our society and it would be rather sad to see it eroded away.It's part of our history and heritage.I think many would understand it better if there were not so many denominations of what is the same thing.

In what way is Christianity the backbone of our society?

And marriage is a Christian celebration now is it?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I must admit I didn't know that tonea,and it is interesting,although sadly not surprising,as the Vatican's strong links to second world war fascism generally are fairly well documented.

 

[Blue Tooth]

I agree, that if they are recipients of taxpayer funds, then whatever laws are in place there in the wider society, they should be bound by them, so I agree with you there. However, regarding religious institutions beliefs and strictures, if that involves them excluding folk because of them, and it's their own money,it is their privilege, as it is their train set, however ridiculous it may appear.

I kind of agree, but only because if you become a member of one of these cults, that is your look out.

A significant number of people do not become members. They are indoctrinated from birth. At birth I was baptized a Catholic. At 7 years of age I took part in the ritual of Holy Communion after having given my first confession. At 11 years of age I confirmed my Faith in a deeply indoctrinating ritual. At the time I was unaware of the implications or of the power these rituals would have over me. I honestly don't think I had any choice. At 18 I walked away from the church but by fuck had they exacted a cost on me. Not my choice to become a cult member but I have had to deal with it all of my life since.

 

[tonea2003]

I agree, that if they are recipients of taxpayer funds, then whatever laws are in place there in the wider society, they should be bound by them, so I agree with you there. However, regarding religious institutions beliefs and strictures, if that involves them excluding folk because of them, and it's their own money,it is their privilege, as it is their train set, however ridiculous it may appear.

I kind of agree, but only because if you become a member of one of these cults, that is your look out.

A significant number of people do not become members. They are indoctrinated from birth. At birth I was baptized a Catholic. At 7 years of age I took part in the ritual of Holy Communion after having given my first confession. At 11 years of age I confirmed my Faith in a deeply indoctrinating ritual. At the time I was unaware of the implications or of the power these rituals would have over me. I honestly don't think I had any choice. At 18 I walked away from the church but by fuck had they exacted a cost on me. Not my choice to become a cult member but I have had to deal with it all of my life since.

very similar to me mate, but i wouldn't say i walked away from it rather than a realisation through intelligence(thats no slight on you by the way far from it, it just the way i feel about it)

 

[Blue Tooth]

I kind of agree, but only because if you become a member of one of these cults, that is your look out.

A significant number of people do not become members. They are indoctrinated from birth. At birth I was baptized a Catholic. At 7 years of age I took part in the ritual of Holy Communion after having given my first confession. At 11 years of age I confirmed my Faith in a deeply indoctrinating ritual. At the time I was unaware of the implications or of the power these rituals would have over me. I honestly don't think I had any choice. At 18 I walked away from the church but by fuck had they exacted a cost on me. Not my choice to become a cult member but I have had to deal with it all of my life since.

very similar to me mate, but i wouldn't say i walked away from it rather than a realisation through intelligence(thats no slight on you by the way far from it, it just the way i feel about it)

No slight taken. I definitely made a choice and it came about after a discussion with a priest. I just could not square up his answers to my questions and so decided it was a crock of shit. I do think it leaves an imprint on your psyche though. Like a distant echo.