Annoyed to see my niece/nephews being brainwashed in Catholic education

speaking

Sonics2k wrote: »

People have every right to be religious, and to practice their faith within their homes and churches if they wish.

Do people have the right to abuse their children in their own homes. To brainwash their children?

As someone seeking separation of Church and State, and freedom from a form of 'oppression' felt by many in this country, it would be incredibly hypocritical to ban religion out-right.

Fair point, but I think you should agree that we should ban religious indoctrination for children of parents who want to have religion as part of their child's upbringing within the school system?

Would you agree that these parents do not have the right to have their religious beliefs reflected in the education their children receive. So in a sense we are oppressing parents with this view.

Oppressing ignorance is no bad thing though.

It's is not our place to control the minds of others, after all, that's part of the problem of Religion. Forced control.

But it is, we say to these people your children are not allowed to have what you want for them reflected in their education. We are controlling their minds. We are forcing them to adopt a particular world view. A superior world view, one which is good for them, but ultimately a particular world view at odds with what they want.

We are forcing them to adopt a secular system one which is at odds with their core beliefs.

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

...............

But it is, we say to these people your children are not allowed to have what you want for them reflected in their education. We are controlling their minds. We are forcing them to adopt a particular world view. A superior world view, one which is good for them, but ultimately a particular world view at odds with what they want.

You seem to be avoiding the question. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what you propose, what grounds do you have for thinking it would work?

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

..............



But it is, we say to these people your children are not allowed to have what you want for them reflected in their education. .

Where have "we" stated this? A quote and link please.

Bannasidhe

Education should not be about telling people what to think. Education should be about teaching people how to think for themselves.

Banning religion smacks of Totalitarianism. In a Totalitarian State unquestioning obedience to a religious authority is replaced by unquestioning obedience to the State. Both are equally heinous.

The Mad Hatter

speaking wrote: »

Oppressing ignorance is no bad thing though.

Oppressing anything is bad. Opposing ignorance is good. That's why your posts are getting so much response.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

Where have "we" stated this? A quote and link please.

It is the Royal we. Or the Secular we. The we that wants a complete church state separation.

The we that wants the end to the religious indoctrination of children which is a form of child abuse.

The we that wants no more religious indoctrination of children at the tax payers expense, regardless of what mindless superstitious parents want for their children.

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

It is the Royal we. Or the Secular we. The we that wants a complete church state separation.

The we that wants the end to the religious indoctrination of children which is a form of child abuse.

The we that wants no more religious indoctrination of children at the tax payers expense, regardless of what mindless superstitious parents want for their children.

You seem to presume that all catholic ethos schools be abolished. That isn't on the cards, nor has anyone in this thread suggested it. Other than yourself.

A state system paid for by the taxpayer should cater for all children of the state, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

Now - as I've asked a few times before - regardless of the rights and wrongs of what you propose, what grounds do you have for thinking it would work?

speaking

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Education should not be about telling people what to think. Education should be about teaching people how to think for themselves.

Excellent point

Banning religion smacks of Totalitarianism. In a Totalitarian State unquestioning obedience to a religious authority is replaced by unquestioning obedience to the State. Both are equally heinous.

But if the state takes a secular outlook and if this means the state bans religious instruction in schools are all parents not expected to be obedience in this regard.

Wont parents be expected to be obedient to this secular outlook, regardless of the fact that they may want religious instruction within the school system?

Don't get me wrong I am all for a secular schooling system, but it is imposing a particular view on these parents. A view in which I would want them to be obedient to.

Nodin

Whie you're at it, you might be good enough to explain why the sudden change of heart....

Speaking wrote:

Fair enough, but if your suggesting that atheism is inherently anti religious
I would have to disagree. For me atheism is absolutely nothing more than an absence of belief in God. I am not anti religious per say. Each to their own would be my take on it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79743325&postcount=41

Bannasidhe

speaking wrote: »

It is the Royal we. Or the Secular we. The we that wants a complete church state separation.

The we that wants the end to the religious indoctrination of children which is a form of child abuse.

The we that wants no more religious indoctrination of children at the tax payers expense, regardless of what mindless superstitious parents want for their children.

Don't know about the 'we'...

I want separation of Church and State. Many religious people also want separation of Church and State.

I believe that there should be no religious instructions in State funded schools. If State schools are going to teach RE it should be strictly examined to ensure all religions are given equal scrutiny.

However, if parent's wish to pay (without State subsidy) for their children to attend religious schools or if religious organisations wish to fully financially support such schools, that is none of my business.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to presume that all catholic ethos schools be abolished. That isn't on the cards, nor has anyone in this thread suggested it. Other than yourself.

I am suggesting that. Catholic ethos schools should be abolished. And if no one on this thread has suggest that why not?

Does anyone seriously think catholic parents should impose catholic beliefs on their children through the school system?

A state system paid for by the taxpayer should cater for all children of the state, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

Very true, as long as catholic parents don't expect a religious ethos.

Now - as I've asked a few times before - regardless of the rights and wrongs of what you propose, what grounds do you have for thinking it would work?

My stance is one of principle, in the middle of slavery in America in the 18 century if one had said, banning slavery is a good idea and all that but what grounds do you have for thinking it would work??????????????????????????

Bannasidhe

speaking wrote: »

I am suggesting that. Catholic ethos schools should be abolished. And if no one on this thread has suggest that why not?

Does anyone seriously think catholic parents should impose catholic beliefs on their children through the school system?



Very true, as long as catholic parents don't expect a religious ethos.



My stance is one of principle, in the middle of slavery in America in the 18 century if one had said, banning slavery is a good idea and all that but what grounds do you have for thinking it would work??????????????????????????

You seem to be missing the qualification most posters here are applying to their stance = No religion taught in State schools or all religions taught in State schools.

No one here, bar yourself, is advocating an outright ban on religions in all schools, just those funded by the taxpayer.

speaking

Bannasidhe wrote: »

However, if parent's wish to pay (without State subsidy) for their children to attend religious schools or if religious organisations wish to fully financially support such schools, that is none of my business.

So rich parents are entitled to have religious indoctrination imposed on their kids but poor parents with religious conviction............... (tough)

If you believe that there should be no religious instruction in state funded schools your are imposing this view on parents who do believe it is important for the education their children receive reflect and take into account their religious beliefs and for their school to have a religious ethos. You are denying these parents.

I think we should have some moral honesty here, you cant have it both ways.

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

I am suggesting that. Catholic ethos schools should be abolished. And if no one on this thread has suggest that why not?

Does anyone seriously think catholic parents should impose catholic beliefs on their children through the school system?

Not the state school system.

And you suggested there was support for this notion of yours. Its been conspicous by its absence as far as I can see.

You still haven't explained your volte-face

speaking wrote: »

My stance is one of principle, in the middle of slavery in America in the 18 century if one had said, banning slavery is a good idea and all that but what grounds do you have for thinking it would work?

I didn't ask you what your stance was based on, or for another rerun of your fallacious analogy. I asked on what grounds do you think your notion would work?

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

................

If you believe that there should be no religious instruction in state funded schools your are imposing this view on parents who do believe it is important for the education their children receive reflect and take into account their religious beliefs and for their school to have a religious ethos. You are denying these parents.

I think we should have some moral honesty here, you cant have it both ways.

You seem to be rather confused. Theres nothing stopping catholic parents either educating their children in their faith themselves, or sending them to private schools.

Considering your post history and behaviour in this thread, I find the notion of you asking for "moral honesty" a bit much.

speaking

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to be missing the qualification most posters here are applying to their stance = No religion taught in State schools or all religions taught in State schools.

I am not. I am all for the teaching of religion in schools from a comparative viewpoint, we probably can learn a lot from the world religions. Its probably a vital thing for schools to do. I know my own moral outlook has been informed by religion.

No one here, bar yourself, is advocating an outright ban on religions in all schools, just those funded by the taxpayer.

I am saying that religious indoctrination should be banned. I am also saying that this is denying parents who have strong religious conviction and conviction for their children the right to express this conviction in the schools they want.

I am all for imposing this on catholic parents.

Bannasidhe

speaking wrote: »

So rich parents are entitled to have religious indoctrination imposed on their kids but poor parents with religious conviction............... (tough)

If you believe that there should be no religious instruction in state funded schools your are imposing this view on parents who do believe it is important for the education their children receive reflect and take into account their religious beliefs and for their school to have a religious ethos. You are denying these parents.

I think we should have some moral honesty here, you cant have it both ways.

My parent's were not rich - but they wanted me to have a non-religious education so they found the money to send me to a private school which was non-denominational as it received no State funding.

There is always the Sunday School options or scholarships to religious schools.

France seems to manage it quite well.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be rather confused. Theres nothing stopping catholic parents either educating their children in their faith themselves, or sending them to private schools.

Considering your post history and behaviour in this thread, I find the notion of you asking for "moral honesty" a bit much.

What are you talking about my post history?? What behavior.

Okay personalize the debate. Begin the attack on the poster, not the post.

What about parents who cant afford to sent thier children to private schools?

speaking

Bannasidhe wrote: »

France seems to manage it quite well.

Which is why I find the resistance to what I am arguing unbelievable.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

I am not. I am(.........)parents.

You took a different tone here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79743325&postcount=41
Why the change? Bored under the bridge?

You still haven't stated what grounds you have for thinking your notion would work. Why is that?

speaking wrote: »

What about parents who cant afford to sent thier children to private schools? .

The state has to subsidise private protestant schools as is. Doubtless a similar arrangement could be made.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

You took a different tone here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79743325&postcount=41
Why the change? Bored under the bridge?

You still haven't stated what grounds you have for thinking your notion would work. Why is that?

I fail to see where the contradiction is in my outlook in that post and the one I have now.

I can separate me as an atheist from me as a believer in secularism. There is no contradiction at all.

Bannasidhe

speaking wrote: »

Which is why I find the resistance to what I am arguing unbelievable.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In France, the state recognizes no religion and does not fund religious education. However, the state subsidizes private teaching establishments, including religious ones, under strict conditions of not forcing religion courses on students and not discriminating against students according to religion. An exception is the area of Alsace-Moselle where, for historical reasons (it was ruled by Germany when this system was instituted in the rest of France) under a specific local law, the state supports public education in some religions mostly in accord with the German model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education#France

That is far removed from your calls to ban religious teaching in all schools.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

The state has to subsidise private protestant schools as is. Doubtless a similar arrangement could be made.

So you do believe the state should subsidies religious ethos schools for parents who choose this for their children???????????????????

This is not what I believe. I do not believe parents have the right to have schools with a religious ethos even if that is a conviction deeply held from these parents. I would deny these parents the right to this as I believe in a secular system of education

Galwayguy35

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Crap, that was involved in it too? I took "The Pledge", but I had a quarter of a pint of beer about a year and a half afterwards. :pac:

So were you drinking at 13?

speaking

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education#France

That is far removed from your calls to ban religious teaching in all schools.

No it is not. As the schools in this respect may be owned by religious groups but may not impose a religious ethos.

Anyway this debate is getting personal. I have no wish to be attacked for holding what I think is a fair view. that s me finished

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

I fail to see where the contradiction is in my outlook in that post and the one I have now.

I can separate me as an atheist from me as a believer in secularism. There is no contradiction at all.

You don't see a bit of a contrast? Here - try again

speaking wrote: »

I am not anti religious per say. Each to their own would be my take on it.

Vs

speaking wrote: »

...I know religion and religious belief is stupid and dangerous.....

speaking wrote: »

religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse and so religious indoctrination should be banned even within the home .

speaking wrote: »

I know as an atheist my world view is superior to religious people. I think it is only right that I actively try to stop children believing in these fairly stories. If I was an uncle of a child of any age I would tell them that thier parents are lying to them, there is no God and that praying is pointless. I would also say their parents are well meaning but stupid. .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80109822&postcount=133

speaking wrote: »

I would hope to achieve the end of mindless superstition, the end to child abuse through brainwashing.

The promotion of the power of science and reason.

the promotion of an education system that educated children in facts, science and atheism
It would make the workd a better place. Schools would be better, children more moral and the world would be a better place..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80110740&postcount=139

You still haven't stated what grounds you have for thinking your notion would work.

Bannasidhe

speaking wrote: »

No it is not. As the schools in this respect may be owned by religious groups but may not impose a religious ethos.

finish the sentence '...may not impose a religious ethos on those who do not want it.

Very important difference. Those who do want it may receive it.

Ellis Dee

Northclare wrote: »

Why are you so annoyed about your niece/nephews being.brainwashed in Catholic education.

Read what you wrote!:eek: Is it so hard for you to get it that many responsible, free-thinking parents cannot accept the idea of their children being brainwashed in any way?:rolleyes: And especially conditioned to believe a load of hogwash about some or other supernatural being who micromanages all of our life.:rolleyes:

A school is supposed to be a place where children acquire factual knowledge and are encouraged to learn to seek new knowledge and think for themselves.:)

I frankly don't know how I (or my wife) would have coped with having to send our kids to a school in Laois, because the only real option would have been a Catholic one (or a Protestant one, in which case the shit would really have hit the fan in certain circles and parts of my extended family). I fear we'd have been in permanent conflict with the system.;)

So we sent them to school in Finland, which has an excellent educational system, the only thing taught about religion is an outline of the major world faiths and philosophies, and the church (which is pretty easygoing anyway) has almost no role.

Northclare wrote: »

My son is going to a catholic school,he will make up his own mind whether he wants to believe it or not.

Or maybe his mind will have been made up for him and he will go easy on the thinking and rely more on his paradigm of received knowledge.:rolleyes:

Bythe way, OP, there is little you can do, because they are not your own kids, but I can undrstand your concern for the wellbeing of your small relatives. I feel it myself when I see it all around me.:eek:

Now they are balanced, sane adults.:)

Will this little fellow ever be a balanced, sane adult?

Bannasidhe

Ellis Dee wrote: »

So we sent them to school in Finland, which has an excellent educational system, the only thing taught about religion is an outline of the major world faiths and philosophies, and the church (which is pretty easygoing anyway) has almost no role.

Understatement of the year.

PopePalpatine

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So were you drinking at 13?

14, actually, and no more than about 100-150ml.

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

14, actually, and no more than about 100-150ml.

That's what? 3/4 wine gums?
2 liquor chocolates?

:pac:

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

2 liquor chocolates?

:pac:

god those are disgusting

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

god those are disgusting

Completely mank in every way.

AngryHippie

MagicMarker wrote: »

You'd be pretty wrong.

SO we are talking about the crazy bedtime stories that are the old testament then eh ?
It truly deserves its title greatest book ever written, but IMO the surviving Vedic evidence is far more convincing than the old testament.

Nodin

bluewolf wrote: »

god those are disgusting

No, the cheap ones are vile. If you get a good quality fresh one its a different ball game. Fatty isn't allowed them anymore though, because fatty is a fatty and can't understand what "moderation" means when fatty is on a choccy binge.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

No, the cheap ones are vile. If you get a good quality fresh one its a different ball game. Fatty isn't allowed them anymore though, because fatty is a fatty and can't understand what "moderation" means when fatty is on a choccy binge.

diabetic not allowed choccy diabetic had choccy dessert last night. let's just be glad no one thought to film the results of diabetic sugar high followed swiftly by diabetic crash and burn.

diabetic still think choccy liquors are mank.

byhookorbycrook

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No one here, bar yourself, is advocating an outright ban on religions in all schools, just those funded by the taxpayer.

How would this work, as the tax payer pays the teachers in fee paying private schools already??The other problem is the actual ownership of school buildings, very few are owned by the DES.

Wiggles88

AngryHippie wrote: »

SO we are talking about the crazy bedtime stories that are the old testament then eh ?
It truly deserves its title greatest book ever written, but IMO the surviving Vedic evidence is far more convincing than the old testament.

The god of the new testament enjoy the odd killing too, Acts 12:23 and Acts 5:1-10 for example. Still, he's quite the pussy compared to old testament god, old testament god knew how to get what he wants.

Bannasidhe

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

How would this work, as the tax payer pays the teachers in fee paying private schools already??The other problem is the actual ownership of school buildings, very few are owned by the DES.

Ruairi is working on it.

AngryHippie

Wiggles88 wrote: »

The god of the new testament enjoy the odd killing too, Acts 12:23 and Acts 5:1-10 for example. Still, he's quite the pussy compared to old testament god, old testament god knew how to get what he wants.

Clearly God struck them down........
Couldn't be explained any other way.

Struck down with guilt and struck down with grief is how it is written.
If that is the vengeance of a wrathful God then fair enough.

Death Toll =2

Gods don't kill people, People kill people.

Galwayguy35

PopePalpatine wrote: »

14, actually, and no more than about 100-150ml.

It's still very young to be drinking beer.

Bannasidhe

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's still very young to be drinking beer.

Tis, but no point tut tutting at him now. I imagine he's already swallowed it by now.

Galwayguy35

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tis, but no point tut tutting at him now. I imagine he's already swallowed it by now.

I wasn't, and I drank myself at 17 in a pub.

Mark Hamill

AngryHippie wrote: »

SO we are talking about the crazy bedtime stories that are the old testament then eh ?

Funny, that's not how Jesus described the old testament:

Matthew 5:17-20 wrote:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

He seemed to take the old testament pretty seriously.

AngryHippie

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Funny, that's not how Jesus described the old testament:


He seemed to take the old testament pretty seriously.

Probably due to the fact that he was Jewish in a land of Jewish people.

All he has attested to in those quoted above is the Ten Commandments. None of which refer to God killing people, but rather to denial of entry to heaven.
The OT in fairness is more of a historical document without an accurate timetable. To state that God has struck down all these people over history is bordering on Fantasy. particularly when since the birth and death of Jesus Christ his attributed count has been......2 !
I guess its all about how you read it

oldrnwisr

AngryHippie wrote: »

Probably due to the fact that he was Jewish in a land of Jewish people.

All he has attested to in those quoted above is the Ten Commandments. None of which refer to God killing people, but rather to denial of entry to heaven.

Since he was as you say above a Jew in a land of Jews, it is far more likely that when Jesus mentions keeping the commandments, he is referring to all 613 of them.
However, even if he wasn't, the question becomes, which 10 commandments is he referring to. Is he referring to the 10 commandments followed by the Catholic Church as found in Exodus 20 or the 10 commandments followed by mainline Protestants in Deuteronomy 5. Or maybe he is referring to the 10 commandments that are actually referred to as the 10 commandments by the bible in Exodus 34 which includes commandments such as observing the feast of the unleavened bread and not boiling a goat in its own mothers milk. Maybe its those commandments.

AngryHippie wrote: »

The OT in fairness is more of a historical document without an accurate timetable. To state that God has struck down all these people over history is bordering on Fantasy. particularly when since the birth and death of Jesus Christ his attributed count has been......2 !
I guess its all about how you read it

The Old Testamen is as much a historical record as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The problem with viewing the OT as a historical document is that its general reliability is undermined by accounts which are either unsupported by historical evidence such as the Exodus or events which are demonstrably false such as God stopping the Earth for a day in Joshua.
Of course its a matter of interpretation but if you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God then you have to accept the depiction of God as a genocidal prick, however unpalatable that may be.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I drank myself at 17 in a pub.

ugh

:pac:

Mark Hamill

AngryHippie wrote: »

Probably due to the fact that he was Jewish in a land of Jewish people.

Ah, good to know the reason Jesus was wrong about the old testament is because he was Jewish. Em, how exactly do you know better about the old testament than Jesus Christ?

AngryHippie wrote: »

All he has attested to in those quoted above is the Ten Commandments. None of which refer to God killing people, but rather to denial of entry to heaven.

That wouldn't be the 10 commandments that he gave to Moses would it? The Moses who God got out of Egypt by killing all the first born sons of Egypt at the time? How many do you think died then?

AngryHippie wrote: »

The OT in fairness is more of a historical document without an accurate timetable. To state that God has struck down all these people over history is bordering on Fantasy. particularly when since the birth and death of Jesus Christ his attributed count has been......2 !
I guess its all about how you read it

Funny then that Jesus seemed to reference it as truth so much, such as destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) and Noah's flood and all the people who died because of it (Luke 17:27 and Matthew 24:37-41). How many people do you think died when Sodom was destroyed or when Noah's flood happened? Less than 2?

jcf

Dades wrote: »

Look, it's a head-wreck and very frustrating. I feel it intensely as I have two young kids and see how trusting they are, and how capable they are of learning what they're taught.

Today, with the help of the amazing Solar Walk app on the iPad, my soon-to-be-four year old and I learned about the planets that circle around the sun, which of them are hot, which are cold, and why. She now knows more than her mother about the solar system.

And when she goes to school in a year, she's going to be taught that a man in the sky made everything, watches us, and likes us to worship him and pray and sing songs about him.

You can't 'help' other people's kids, only your own. And know that slowly, but surely, the RC is dying out - in this country at least.

exactly, all you can do is help your own and expose them to science,
kids that are exposed to science as well as religion will choose science - it makes sense,

problem is people who are strongly religious weren't exposed to science as a kid - only to religion , so it's difficult for them to trust science..

uberalles

Bannasidhe wrote: »

At last - a believer. I shall name you Basalt and upon your rock I shall build my church.

Now - go forth and preach the word of Bannasidhe (better get someone to write some gospels first - I'm far too busy watching women beat the living daylights out of other women on the telly right now.)

Basic message:
1. Do not be dicks to each other.
2. Well done steak is an abomination.
3. Ummmm...oh make some ****e up....just ensure that the ****e contradicts itself so my follower may use the 'context' argument. That makes me laugh and is pleasing onto mine eyes.

+1

He is the messiah. Lets all follow him.