Mary says YES!

Kiwi in IE

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/

What do you think of this A&A?

Well done to the authors of 'Grow in Love'. The more ridiculous and inappropriate they are, the sooner the RCC will be kicked out of schools hopefully.

In all seriousness this is slightly shocking don't you think?

lazygal

It pretty much makes children feel that saying yes to anyone in power regardless of their feelings of doubt or fear is what God wants. Very very creepy and I'm wondering how many parents will reassess whether their children should be indoctrinated.

eviltwin

Saw this on FB today, was shocked and disgusted that someone signed off on this. I work in the area of child protection and we're trying to get the message of bodily integrity and the right to say no to kids and then a flippin school book comes out with this message?? Unbelievable....

volchitsa

That is actually quite sinister, kiwi.

Even assuming they just didn't themselves grasp the unsafe message they are now actively teaching to children, one has to wonder not only how they could be so tone deaf, but whether it's safe to have people who have so little understanding of child safety involved in children's education at all.

Mary looks like a little girl in the picture that is to be displayed in all classrooms. When Mary says ‘YES’!, she is sitting on her bed looking startled, it is nighttime, and there is a little kitten with a heart on it beside her on the floor.

This is an extraordinary and dangerous message to give to young children. ‘SAY YES’!, even if you are afraid and confused. Just trust someone that comes to your bed in the night.

Of all organisations, the Catholic Church should know that we have higher standards of child protection today than were common when this myth was first invented two thousand years ago, at a time when Jewish girls were typically betrothed for marriage at about twelve years of age.

The ‘Grow in Love’ religion course is based on the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum. The Catholic Church sought and received approval from the Holy See for its use in publicly funded Irish National Schools.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

It pretty much makes children feel that saying yes to anyone in power regardless of their feelings of doubt or fear is what God wants. Very very creepy and I'm wondering how many parents will reassess whether their children should be indoctrinated.

Unfortunately I don't think many parents even care.....

frostyjacks

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

Zamboni

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

What's a lot creepy is that the "Holy Sea" can authorise the use of Grow in Love in Irish schools, published by Veritas, owned by the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference using money taken from my payslip by the state in a Republic.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

You really don't think there's a problem with teaching children that if somebody asks you to do something you feel unsure about, something that frightens you, you should say yes anyway?

I hope you aren't a parent!

frostyjacks

Zamboni wrote: »

What's a lot creepy is that the "Holy Sea" can authorise the use of Grow in Love in Irish schools, published by Veritas, owned by the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference using money taken from my payslip by the state in a Republic.

And there's plenty of rational debate to be had on that topic. But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt. You may as well go through nursery rhymes and do the same thing.

gctest50

frostyjacks wrote: »

......... Can't they find something else to complain about?

yip .... time to get this sky-fairy stuff away from kids at school time for once n for all

ffs like, someone has an affair, gets pregnant, comes up with the dodgiest excuse ever and we're still hearing about it 2000 years later

Lithium93_

That is several kinds of weird on the Catholic Church's part, then again nothing new for the Catholic Church, and for starters why even teach that sort of stuff to 6 year olds is beyond me..

The Randy Riverbeast

I dont think it helps when you consider the history of the organisation. Saying yes to a person in authority has led to a few issues in the past.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

and 'Grow in Love', if that's not some kind of euphemism...

Links234

I begin to wonder if there's any depth of depravity from the religious instutions that frostyjacks won't make excuses for?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/

What do you think of this A&A?

Well done to the authors of 'Grow in Love'. The more ridiculous and inappropriate they are, the sooner the RCC will be kicked out of schools hopefully.

In all seriousness this is slightly shocking don't you think?

The way that article is written is supposed to be shocking. The tone of the article suggests that strange men are going to come into little girls bedrooms at night and impregnate them, and of course these little girls must say "YES", enthusiastically suggesting that they as pre-pubescent children want to be raped and molested.

That says a hell of a lot more about the mind of that particular author of that story, and some of the minds of people here in A&A that they would interpret a story so literally, almost like a Creationist would. Bizarre sort of a comparison I grant you, but that's exactly what the hysterics are like.

Is it any wonder then there's an atmosphere of paranoia and 'stranger danger' among grown adults nowadays that have their children wrapped up in cotton wool, never let them sleep over in a friends house, never let them participate in extracurricular activities after school, and now they may have to withdraw their children from school altogether because they object to their children being exposed to stories about teenage pregnancy and imaginary child molesters.

Makes complete sense...

volchitsa

There are two levels at which it's odd though : one is the literal meaning, the one frosty jacks is upset at posters pointing out, and which I'm not commenting on in this post, to avoid confusion.

The other, a far more pragmatic one, is simply the fact that the message sent to 6 year olds in the text directly contradicts that of campaigns by child protection groups to give children the confidence to say NO to would-be abusers and to grooming. Like this NSPCC campaign :

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/underwear-rule/

So my question to frosty Jack and to anyone else who thinks it's unfair to object to this is this:
Even assuming this unfortunate subtext was written completely innocently, is that potentially confusing message of,"it's ok to say yes to an adult in authority even if what he's asking you to do is scary" there, yes or no?

If it is, then either it doesn't matter, and the NSPCC are wasting money on their campaign (have they done any research on how to protect children from abusers?) or it does matter, and "just say yes" is not a suitable message to be sending to children.

evolving_doors

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way that article is written is supposed to be shocking. The tone of the article suggests that strange men are going to come into little girls bedrooms at night and impregnate them, and of course these little girls must say "YES", enthusiastically suggesting that they as pre-pubescent children want to be raped and molested.

That says a hell of a lot more about the mind of that particular author of that story, and some of the minds of people here in A&A that they would interpret a story so literally, almost like a Creationist would. Bizarre sort of a comparison I grant you, but that's exactly what the hysterics are like.

Is it any wonder then there's an atmosphere of paranoia and 'stranger danger' among grown adults nowadays that have their children wrapped up in cotton wool, never let them sleep over in a friends house, never let them participate in extracurricular activities after school, and now they may have to withdraw their children from school altogether because they object to their children being exposed to stories about teenage pregnancy and imaginary child molesters.

Makes complete sense...

Leaving the artilce aside, (and going back to the lesson in the book). What do you think Mary was saying yes to in the middle of the night in her bedroom?

Ice cream?

I think opponents of the article are a little bit unaware of the fable themselves (ironically!). The story itself is that the angel Gabriel basically comes down and impregnates Mary (unbeknown to Joseph).

Or else maybe there's a simpler/cleaner version we weren't told in school, like surrogacy and an IV clinic or something.

If this is education, then what exactly is the message kids are supposed to take from this fable. Maybe OneeyedJack and FrostyJacks can tell us?
Some one mentioned that earlier "But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt."

There's nothing 'innuendo' about it, it's quite explicit. It's a about an 'angel' impregnating a woman to have another mans child.... and this is to kids who probably havn't even done the facts of life yet. I'd love to sit in on that lesson and see how a teacher delivers that 'education'.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

There are two levels at which it's odd though : one is the literal meaning, the one frosty jacks is upset at posters pointing out, and which I'm not commenting on in this post, to avoid confusion.

The other, a far more pragmatic one, is simply the fact that the message sent to 6 year olds in the text directly contradicts that of campaigns by child protection groups to give children the confidence to say NO to would-be abusers and to grooming. Like this NSPCC campaign :

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/underwear-rule/

So my question to frosty Jack and to anyone else who thinks it's unfair to object to this is this:
Even assuming this unfortunate subtext was written completely innocently, is that message potentially there, yes or no?

There are an infinite number of potential messages and interpretations there, but it would take Ionaist levels of "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy"-ism, to interpret that story the way the author has done, and the author is an adult!

It's incredibly unlikely that a 6 year old would interpret that story in the same way an adult would. Unless of course you're willing to accept that children also believe that a wolf could blow their house down and come in and eat them, or that if an adult stranger doesn't come into their bedroom at night, the bogeyman will molest them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays instead, on the Sandman's days off.

If you think the messages they get from two different sources are contradictory, then you must also fear for children when one parent tells them one thing, and another parent tells them something else. It must be incredibly frightening to turn on television and have children exposed to all those conflicting ideas, let alone the internet!

To bring it back to the classroom - last week there was a poster campaign intended to be distributed to primary schools, aimed at enabling teachers to teach about all sorts of families in the classroom, and in particular about those families whom are considered "non-traditional", be they one-parent families, blended families, same-sex.parent families... and David Quinn as usual lost his shìt and we all had a good giggle about it and the embarrassment he was making of himself.

The hysteria here in the article, and in this thread, surrounding this non-story, is no less embarrassing for those who are losing their shìt over something so mundane.

If it is, then either it doesn't matter, and the NSPCC are wasting money on their campaign (have they done any research on how to protect children from abusers?) or it does matter, and "just say yes" is not a suitable message to be sending to children.

The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

evolving_doors

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are an infinite number of potential messages and interpretations there, but it would take Ionaist levels of "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy"-ism, to interpret that story the way the author has done, and the author is an adult!

It's incredibly unlikely that a 6 year old would interpret that story in the same way an adult would. Unless of course you're willing to accept that children also believe that a wolf could blow their house down and come in and eat them, or that if an adult stranger doesn't come into their bedroom at night, the bogeyman will molest them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays instead, on the Sandman's days off.

If you think the messages they get from two different sources are contradictory, then you must also fear for children when one parent tells them one thing, and another parent tells them something else. It must be incredibly frightening to turn on television and have children exposed to all those conflicting ideas, let alone the internet!

To bring it back to the classroom - last week there was a poster campaign intended to be distributed to primary schools, aimed at enabling teachers to teach about all sorts of families in the classroom, and in particular about those families whom are considered "non-traditional", be they one-parent families, blended families, same-sex.parent families... and David Quinn as usual lost his shìt and we all had a good giggle about it and the embarrassment he was making of himself.

The hysteria here in the article, and in this thread, surrounding this non-story, is no less embarrassing for those who are losing their shìt over something so mundane.


The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective.

So what exactly is the message of that story, what is Mary saying 'YES' to Oneeyedjack? Youve talked around everything else but the intended lesson itself.

The message from the 3 little pigs is simple, you build a good goddam house and prepare for the wolf in advance.

One eyed Jack

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Leaving the artilce aside, (and going back to the lesson in the book). What do you think Mary was saying yes to in the middle of the night in her bedroom?

Ice cream?

I think opponents of the article are a little bit unaware of the fable themselves (ironically!). The story itself is that the angel Gabriel basically comes down and impregnates Mary (unbeknown to Joseph).

Or else maybe there's a simpler/cleaner version we weren't told in school, like surrogacy and an IV clinic or something.

If this is education, then what exactly is the message kids are supposed to take from this fable. Maybe OneeyedJack and FrostyJacks can tell us?
Some one mentioned that earlier "But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt."

There's nothing 'innuendo' about it, it's quite explicit. It's a about an 'angel' impregnating a woman to have another mans child.... and this is to kids who probably havn't even done the facts of life yet. I'd love to sit in on that lesson and see how a teacher delivers that 'education'.

I find it rather interesting that you would have all these fears for children who haven't done the facts of life yet and so on, yet if a child in primary school identified as transgender, you'd be among the first on social media to scream that children can be aware of their sexuality from as young as two years of age.

If you read that story as explicit, best keep your children protected from nursery rhymes like Jack and Jill and what they must have got up to when they went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. A likely story indeed... :rolleyes:

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are an infinite number of potential messages and interpretations there, but it would take Ionaist levels of "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy"-ism, to interpret that story the way the author has done, and the author is an adult!

It's incredibly unlikely that a 6 year old would interpret that story in the same way an adult would. Unless of course you're willing to accept that children also believe that a wolf could blow their house down and come in and eat them, or that if an adult stranger doesn't come into their bedroom at night, the bogeyman will molest them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays instead, on the Sandman's days off.

If you think the messages they get from two different sources are contradictory, then you must also fear for children when one parent tells them one thing, and another parent tells them something else. It must be incredibly frightening to turn on television and have children exposed to all those conflicting ideas, let alone the internet!

To bring it back to the classroom - last week there was a poster campaign intended to be distributed to primary schools, aimed at enabling teachers to teach about all sorts of families in the classroom, and in particular about those families whom are considered "non-traditional", be they one-parent families, blended families, same-sex.parent families... and David Quinn as usual lost his shìt and we all had a good giggle about it and the embarrassment he was making of himself.

The hysteria here in the article, and in this thread, surrounding this non-story, is no less embarrassing for those who are losing their shìt over something so mundane.

The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

A very, very long (overly defensive? Certainly contradictory anyway) "explanation" there.

Yes, parents telling children different things is definitely known to be a source of confusion in terms of child rearing. That's accepted. It's why parents are advised if possible not to undermine the other parent in front of the children even when there is major conflict between them.

Secondly, in order to minimize the possible risks of this message you've had to write,off the NSPCC and equate official school teaching material with the Internet and celebrity TV shows.

Now maybe you really think your kids get as much learning from watching celebrity BB as from going to school. I don't, and nor do I think the lessons they learn there have the same value in their minds.

Or of course you could just be desperately scraping the barrel for anything to avoid acknowledging that this is a crazy and dangerous message to be sending to 6 year olds in the official learning zone that is their classroom.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I find it rather interesting that you would have all these fears for children who haven't done the facts of life yet and so on, yet if a child in primary school identified as transgender, you'd be among the first on social media to scream that children can be aware of their sexuality from as young as two years of age.

If you read that story as explicit, best keep your children protected from nursery rhymes like Jack and Jill and what they must have got up to when they went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. A likely story indeed... :rolleyes:

The difference with Jack and Jill is that the moral of the story does not lead explicitly to Jill giving birth, and nor is it an explanation of how Jill came to be pregnant in the first place.

Is it?

Whereas the Angel Gabriel....

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

It's not creepy, it's merely looking at the "facts" of the situation.

Mary if she did exist was 12 years of age, as was the custom at the time. In this book she is drawn as a child.

Pregnancy biological requires sex and this book suggests that to be made pregnant even when confused, scared etc you should say yes even when approached by an unknown person/thing.

A extremely confusing and idiotic message to send to small children, it's completely opposite to the message sent at preschool level!

One eyed Jack

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So what exactly is the message of that story, what is Mary saying 'YES' to Oneeyedjack? Youve talked around everything else but the intended lesson itself.

The message from the 3 little pigs is simple, you build a good goddam house and prepare for the wolf in advance.

Well if you're going to be that ridiculous about it, I'd say the message could easily be to children to make sure whoever rapes them wears condoms, sheepskin condoms, may help prevent teenage pregnancies where they're impregnated and they can say a ghost did it.

The message from the three little pigs story I always took it to mean that bacon is delicious, in many and all it's forms, certainly tastier than christ crackers!

amdublin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

I am not aware of a "just say no" campaign in relation to children. I thought the "just say no" campaign was against drugs in the 80's

You mention isolation and context:
What am I aware of a is stay safe program where amongst other things it is taught to a child that if you have a bad feeling you need to tell a trusted adult plus it is ok to say no. This seems at odds with what is being in Mary's story.

Ps. Just to get things straight. Is it really being taught in schools that the angel Gabriel IMPREGNATES Mary?? From my school days I just remember the angel Gabriel coming to Mary and TELLING her she was going to have a baby. "Don't be afraid you are going to have baby"

Avatar MIA

Some people will defend anything.

Brainwashed much?

Somehow I don't think this will make it to the schools (cue someone telling me it already is :pac: )

looksee

If the story had been left as the vague, miraculous, inexplicable happening between an adult and a god that has always been taught it would simply go over the children's heads to be filed in the general 'stuff' sections of their brains and forgotten about except when asked for.

The authors of the the book have deliberately provided the setting of a bedroom and introduced a nervous child.

Then 'Mary says yes' - yes to what? The bible has an angel telling a woman that this is how it is going to be, and the woman accepts something that is inevitable. Anyone who has been pregnant will understand that overwhelming sense of inevitability.

This book has the child saying yes to a proposed sexual encounter - or more to the point, saying yes to something that she is worried about and that takes place in the environment of her bedroom. If this stuff must be taught to children, the sanitised fantasy version in the bible would be more appropriate than offering an adult the excuse and argument of this book's lesson to assault a child. Whole conspiracy theories have been spun out of weaker bases.

I do not usually subscribe to alarmist 'pc' notions, but in this case I think it is creepy and inappropriate. The thinking behind this and the fact that it has been 'approved' by a group who you would hope would have more awareness of child protection, given their reputation, is disturbing.

The whole business of having our children's education dictated by a foreign power is a whole other discussion, but one that maybe it is time we had.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

A very, very long (overly defensive? Certainly contradictory anyway) "explanation" there.

Yes, parents telling children different things is definitely known to be a source of confusion in terms of child rearing. That's accepted. It's why parents are advised if possible not to undermine the other parent in front of the children even when there is major conflict between them.

Secondly, in order to minimize the possible risks of this message you've had to write,off the NSPCC and equate official school teaching material with the Internet and celebrity TV shows.

Now maybe you really think your kids get as much learning from watching celebrity BB as from going to school. I don't, and nor do I think the lessons they learn there have the same value in their minds.

Or of course you could just be desperately scraping the barrel for anything to avoid acknowledging that this is a crazy and dangerous message to be sending to 6 year olds in the official learning zone that is their classroom.

I'll keep it a bit shorter this time and say no, this isn't a defence of anything, it's pointing out the ridiculous hysterics that some people nowadays will highlight as objectionable, offensive, etc.

No, I don't think it's any more a crazy and dangerous message than allowing six year old children to believe that the world revolves around them.

As far as desperate barrel scraping goes, may want to check with the author of the article for that, they even go so far as to suggest the cartoon drawings are objectionable... kinda reminds me of another fundamentalist group that have issues with cartoon drawings :rolleyes:

Avatar MIA

Strawman 1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don't think it's any more a crazy and dangerous message than allowing six year old children to believe that the world revolves around them.

Strawman 2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

kinda reminds me of another fundamentalist group that have issues with cartoon drawings

Lets start with the basics, because one can never be too sure.

Do you believe that many children were abused by adults, including some abuse being carried out by people in authority?

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

Just say no campaign had NOTHING to do with sex abuse, it was a US anti drug campaign - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No
This suggests you haven't a clue what you are on about.

There is a underwear campaign alright, only part of which is "no means no" - http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/underwear-rule/

The message of mary saying yes is the completely opposite to the PANTS campaign after all it ignores "Always remember your body belongs to you"

Let your child know their body belongs to them, and no one else.

No one has the right to make them do anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. And if anyone tries, tell your child they have the right to say no.

Remind your child that they can always talk to you about anything which worries or upsets them.

Having a scared and confused Mary in relation to her body is deeply, deeply worrying.

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Lets start with the basics, because one can never be too sure.

Do you believe that many children were abused by adults, including some abuse being carried out by people in authority?

I get that you can never be too sure and all, but we can go a little above the basics if you want, I'm not going to be an arse-hole if I believe you have a genuine question and a genuine reason for asking, rather than a lot of the piss ripping of people who are religious that goes on around here a lot of the time.

Anyhow, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that many children were abused by adults, and I hope you don't interpret it as a strawman, but rather an expansion on my answer - I still believe that children are abused today by adults and particularly adults in positions of authority, in spite of numerous public information campaigns and media scaremongering and all the rest of it.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyhow, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that many children were abused by adults, and I hope you don't interpret it as a strawman, but rather an expansion on my answer - I still believe that children are abused today by adults and particularly adults in positions of authority, in spite of numerous public information campaigns and media scaremongering and all the rest of it.

So that means you think its ok to say yes when you are in your bedroom when somebody wants you to do something and you are scared and confused about it.

On the basic level its a completely idiotic message to send to any young child, it goes against all other stranger danger and safety campaigns.

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I still believe that children are abused today by adults and particularly adults in positions of authority, in spite of numerous public information campaigns and media scaremongering and all the rest of it.

Then how can the media be scaremongering? Surely it's right that a concerted effort should be made to warn children.

Would you agree that children should be taught not to take lifts from strangers?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

And there's plenty of rational debate to be had on that topic. But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt. You may as well go through nursery rhymes and do the same thing.

You realise humans reproduce sexually ,right?

The 'Mary says Yes!' lesson doesn't explain why God can, without consent, can impregnate Mary. Because she wasn't asked, she was given an ultimatum essentially. Her saying Yes is redundant.

In addition, I've not seen anything that says it's okay to say no when someone tells a girl /woman she's going to have a guys baby.

Time would be better spent teaching about consent rather than a lesson about resigning yourself to having a baby without consenting.

It's a truly thoughtless, and potentially harmful, lesson to teach young children.

Cabaal

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Would you agree that children should be taught not to take lifts from strangers?

Don't be silly,
Kids still get occasionally kidnapped, as such this is 100% proof that all stranger danger campaigns don't work
:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Just say no campaign had NOTHING to do with sex abuse, it was a US anti drug campaign - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No
This suggests you haven't a clue what you are on about.

It can suggest to you what it likes really, I'm becoming less and less bothered by people's choosing to interpret my posts literally and search for anything they can nit pick about rather than discuss the actual issue of child abuse. It's no different than the author of that article has done in suggesting the story is an endorsement of child abuse.

There is a underwear campaign alright, only part of which is "no means no" - http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/underwear-rule/

The message of mary saying yes is the completely opposite to the PANTS campaign after all it ignores "Always remember your body belongs to you"

If the STORY of Mary were taught as fact, then you might have a point about there being conflicting messages being taught to children, but there's quite a distinction between faith formation and campaigns related to the prevention of child abuse and child safety, and to try and compare and contrast the two as if they offer conflicting messages to a child, really is, to borrow from another poster - barrel scraping.

It's the ultimate "won't somebody please think of the children?", because of something the adults find offensive to their sensitivities.

Having a scared and confused Mary in relation to her body is deeply, deeply worrying.

It's only a story Cabaal, there's no need to worry, Mary isn't real remember?

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the STORY of Mary were taught as fact

Hang on, are you missing the or :rolleyes: smilie?

While some of the bible is now taken as allegorical (try that a few hundred years ago if you wanted to know what your burning flesh smelt like) by some and not to be taken literally (although see Free Presbyterian etc.) I'm pretty sure the whole Jesus being conceived through God's intervention is pretty much considered as, erm, gospel.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It can suggest to you what it likes really, I'm becoming less and less bothered by people's choosing to interpret my posts literally and search for anything they can nit pick about rather than discuss the actual issue of child abuse. It's no different than the author of that article has done in suggesting the story is an endorsement of child abuse.

If you're going to suggest the nspcc had a just say no campaign when it actually doesn't then its disingenuous to then critisie in relation to this campaign not working.

The reality is you knew right well no such campaign existed but you still decided to go on about how it wasn't successful. Now you've decided to cry about it and claim people are nitpicking because you've been called out on it.

Utterly pathetic,

If the STORY of Mary were taught as fact, then you might have a point about there being conflicting messages being taught to children, but there's quite a distinction between faith formation and campaigns related to the prevention of child abuse and child safety, and to try and compare and contrast the two as if they offer conflicting messages to a child, really is, to borrow from another poster - barrel scraping.

errr, in catholic schools the story of Mary is thought as fact. So there's no "if" about it.

According to the religious class it did actually happen, after all a large part of the Catholic church's setup is based on Mary actually existing. The Catholic Church do not for one second suggest Mary might have existed....she did exist in their eye's and the eye's of Catholic schools.

It's only a story Cabaal, there's no need to worry, Mary isn't real remember?

Indeed, it is only a story...a story that sends a very stupid message.
You're being disingenuous again by claiming schools teach that she didn't actually exist,

The fact that schools teach Mary as fact and teach that it was ok for her to say yes even though she was scared and confused sends an extremely worrying message to young children. In the children's eye's (based on what they are told in class) Mary is as real as them.

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Then how can the media be scaremongering? Surely it's right that a concerted effort should be made to warn children.

I don't think children are any more likely or unlikely to be abused or be able to protect themselves from abuse on the basis of reading or not reading this story.

Would you agree that children should be taught not to take lifts from strangers?

No I wouldn't. I think what we teach our children has to be far more nuanced than that. I try and teach my child to use his best judgement in situations like that where if he is ever lost and so on, that he wouldn't be afraid to walk up to a stranger and ask could they borrow their phone to call me.

Football, hurling, rugby matches, scouts, I've never vetted every single adult who has come in contact with my child. I don't feel any particular need to do that. His friends may be his best buddies, but that doesn't mean their parents and I have to become best buddies.

How many more questions are there before you make your point?

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

And there's plenty of rational debate to be had on that topic. But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt. You may as well go through nursery rhymes and do the same thing.

It's about a teenaged girl getting impregnated. How can that not be sexual?


What I see in this is 'If someone tells you that it's what God wants then you should do it, even if you're confused and afraid'. Or do you think that child abusers would never say 'God wants us to do this. You're like Mary, so you have to be brave and say yes like her'. Because cult leaders already can and do use crap like that to coerce vulnerable women and girls into sex.

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How many more questions are there before you make your point?

You've answered enough for me to realise asking more would be pointless...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I wouldn't.

And then you went on with another strawman.

It's going to be a cold winter, leave some fodder for farmers to feed their livestock.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think children are any more likely or unlikely to be abused or be able to protect themselves from abuse on the basis of reading or not reading this story.

No I wouldn't. I I think what we teach our children has to be far more nuanced than that. I try and teach my child to use his best judgement in situations like that where if he is ever lost and so on, that he wouldn't be afraid to walk up to a stranger and ask could they borrow their phone to call me.

Football, hurling, rugby matches, scouts, I've never vetted every single adult who has come in contact with my child. I don't feel any particular need to do that. His friends may be his best buddies, but that doesn't mean their parents and I have to become best buddies.

How many more questions are there before you make your point?

Wait - at six? Your child was taught to walk up to unknown adults at six years of age and to ask for a loan of their phone? Really??

Mine certainly wouldn't have been - on the rare occasions at that age where they might find themselves without an adult who was already known to them, (if they ever got lost in a crowd, mainly) I always told them to look preferably for someone in authority, with a uniform for example : because those people are more likely to have been vetted - not by me personally, but then that's neither necessary nor possible.

I simply don't believe that you just allowed your six year old to be in situations where he not only knew no adults but may have had to walk up to random strangers and ask them for favours. I genuinely do not believe that a careful parent would show that level of negligence towards their child's safety.

So either you are (IMO) unfit to be a parent or you are still desperately inventing excuses to make this "Mary said yes!" business into unexceptionable. I suspect strongly that it's the latter.


EDIT:
I'm also deeply puzzled by what you think the "nuance" in the message you taught them was : mine was that no matter how trusted someone appeared to be, whether by me or by the children or by "authority", if what the person was asking the child to do made them feel uncomfortable, then they were to trust their own feelings about the situation and didn't have to obey - and that they should never be afraid to talk to us about it before doing anything that worried them.

It's the negation of that essential nuance that worries me in this business.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

If you're going to suggest the nspcc had a just say no campaign when it actually doesn't then its disingenuous to then critisie in relation to this campaign not working.

The reality is you knew right well no such campaign existed but you still decided to go on about how it wasn't successful. Now you've decided to cry about it and claim people are nitpicking because you've been called out on it.

Utterly pathetic,

Spectacularly missing the irony there yourself in claiming that I'm crying about something and criticising something and being disingenuous, when religious ideas are regularly ripped the piss out of on here, to the point where I've often wondered am I dealing with six year olds, because my experience of some six year olds is that they are more than capable of telling adults to go fcuk themselves.

What's utterly pathetic is using the issue of child abuse to score points against an ideology you just don't like. It's really that simple.

errr, in catholic schools the story of Mary is thought as fact. So there's no "if" about it.

It isn't, and it never was, and that IS a fact, rather than what you're trying to claim is a fact.

According to the religious class it did actually happen, after all a large part of the Catholic church's setup is based on Mary actually existing. The Catholic Church do not for one second suggest Mary might have existed....she did exist in their eye's and the eye's of Catholic schools.

But in YOUR eyes Cabaal, did any of these things exist?

If your answer is no, then cool beans, you have nothing to worry about. I'll worry about my own child and his education rather than let you speak for me or my child in trying to use children and child abuse to object to something you just don't like.

Indeed, it is only a story...a story that sends a very stupid message.
You're being disingenuous again by claiming schools teach that she didn't actually exist,

Oh for goodness sake, I'm being disingenuous because I'm struggling to take this particular objection seriously, because I know it's less about preventing child abuse, and more about some people's objections to religion in schools.

I don't like the idea of religious ethos State schools, but for anyone to use child abuse in furthering their agenda, I'll quickly tell them to fcuk right off tbh.

The fact that schools teach Mary as fact and teach that it was ok for her to say yes even though she was scared and confused sends an extremely worrying message to young children. In the children's eye's (based on what they are told in class) Mary is as real as them.

Sure she is Cabaal. Sure she is. The most worrying part of that whole article is the fact that people like the author think the way they do - paedophiles, paedophiles everywhere.

Didn't Brass Eye do a spoof about this crap a few years back?

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get that you can never be too sure and all, but we can go a little above the basics if you want, I'm not going to be an arse-hole if I believe you have a genuine question and a genuine reason for asking, rather than a lot of the piss ripping of people who are religious that goes on around here a lot of the time.

Anyhow, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that many children were abused by adults, and I hope you don't interpret it as a strawman, but rather an expansion on my answer - I still believe that children are abused today by adults and particularly adults in positions of authority, in spite of numerous public information campaigns and media scaremongering and all the rest of it.

This is A&A! Its how we respond to the mind-boggling nonsense that our government insists can be imposed on us by a foreign power. If you want a discussion on how this beautiful mystery is being taught so sensitively to children maybe you would be happier in the Christianity forum?

Whats also creepy is the section of our community who are prepared to be offended by anything that look salacious to their (dirty) adult minds and transfer this to children who are still innocent.

They also have little faith in the ability of parents to pass over proper values to their children, believing they can be contaminated by fairy tales of religion. For a child that age Mary is just as valid as Cinderalla and Santa Claus. Don't worry; When you're six Hansel and Gretel trumps the Immaculate Conception any day.

This 'battle' is not about child abuse. Its about atheism and anti clericalism. Fair enough to fight those battles, but leave the kids out of it.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough to fight those battles, but leave the kids out of it.

Have you read any of the messages on here as to why the way this is being taught is inappropriate? Clue, for years children were being groomed in a very similar fashion.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats also creepy is the section of our community who are prepared to be offended by anything that look salacious to their (dirty) adult minds and transfer this to children who are still innocent.

They also have little faith in the ability of parents to pass over proper values to their children, believing they can be contaminated by fairy tales of religion. For a child that age Mary is just as valid as Cinderalla and Santa Claus. Don't worry; When you're six Hansel and Gretel trumps the Immaculate Conception any day.

This 'battle' is not about child abuse. Its about atheism and anti clericalism. Fair enough to fight those battles, but leave the kids out of it.

Leave the kids out of it? Who introduced a child into a story about a woman? Who is writing school lesson books about a child saying 'yes' to a sexual encounter? Who is endorsing this lesson?

Do schools devote entire classes to convincing children that Cinderella was real and they should accept it, believe it and take life lessons from it?

No-one is disputing that this forum is about atheism (see name of forum) and anti-clericalism - someone needs to be anti-cleric - but this discussion is about children and this really quite disturbing approach to what is otherwise just a story.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait - at six? Your child was taught to walk up to unknown adults at six years of age and to ask for a loan of their phone? Really??

Mine certainly wouldn't have been - on the rare occasions at that age where they might find themselves without an adult who was already known to them, (if they ever got lost in a crowd, mainly) I always told them to look preferably for someone in authority, with a uniform for example : because those people are more likely to have been vetted - not by me personally, but then that's neither necessary nor possible.

I simply don't believe that you just allowed your six year old to be in situations where he not only knew no adults but may have had to walk up to random strangers and ask them for favours. I genuinely do not believe that a careful parent would show that level of negligence towards their child's safety.

So either you are (IMO) unfit to be a parent or you are still desperately inventing excuses to make this "Mary said yes!" business into unexceptionable. I suspect strongly that it's the latter.

I'm ok with being thought of an an unfit parent by your standards. If it's any consolation though, I got him his own phone at six so he wouldn't have to be asking other people (and I could track him on Google Latitude!). I taught him from a very early age to be independent, much to my wife's frustration, because she was, like yourself, more concerned about his safety than his independence.

Different parenting styles I guess. I wouldn't ever suggest you were an unfit parent though if I didn't at least first try and understand you without being so quick to pass judgment. Kinda funny how that works, and you're not even religious?

EDIT:
I'm also deeply puzzled by what you think the "nuance" in the message you taught them was : mine was that no matter how trusted someone appeared to be, whether by me or by the children or by "authority", if what the person was asking the child to do made them feel uncomfortable, then they were to trust their own feelings about the situation and didn't have to obey - and that they should never be afraid to talk to us about it before doing anything that worried them.

It's the negation of that essential nuance that worries me in this business.

The message I taught him was that I'm not always going to be there to wipe his arse for him and pick him up when he falls. He has to learn to look after himself (and he does, he's 10 now and walks to school himself), because he's not afraid of the world around him, he's not afraid of strangers, he knows how to handle himself and what to do in an emergency situation, not just a situation where he breaks a nail or someone calls him nasty names.

He is a confident, happy, socially outgoing child, high achiever academically (up at half 5 the other morning doing extra math on his tablet), high achiever in numerous sports and social clubs, and has a healthy respect for adults and people in positions of authority.

In isolation of course, your judgement is that I'm an unfit parent, but working with social care professionals every day who have nothing but praise for my child, I think they're more likely to know my child and I better than a stranger on the Internet (no disrespect meant to you personally volchista, but it's one of the other things I talk to children about when I talk to them about protecting themselves - not needing validation from strangers on the internet).

Baggy Trousers

eviltwin wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't think many parents even care.....

And many are too cowardly to break from tradition.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the STORY of Mary were taught as fact, then you might have a point about there being conflicting messages being taught to children
....

It's only a story Cabaal, there's no need to worry, Mary isn't real remember?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It isn't, and it never was, and that IS a fact, rather than what you're trying to claim is a fact.

Jack, I realize you claim to be an atheist, and that may be true, going by your apparent ignorance about the fundamentals of catholic theology anyway - but there comes a point where someone with apparently zero knowledge of what exactly children are being taught in religion classes shouldn't be defending that content by posting direct falsehoods about what it consists of!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
The Virgin Birth is taught as fact, not only to children but as a basic tenet of Catholicism.

That you and indeed many practising Catholics may think that Mary had sex either with Joseph or with someone else entirely and that the virgin birth was just a made up story is not relevant when six year olds are being taught it as fact.

If schools were teaching in "Santa" classes that Santa was real, and that men in long red robes were fine to be let into the house when the child is home alone, I think parents would object - and rightly so. It wouldn't mean that the parents believed in Santa, would it? It's a question of children being expected to believe what their teachers tell them, and not getting the bits that are not meant to be taken seriously. Like religion, according to you. Which makes one wonder why you are so desperate to defend it in the first place.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

This is A&A! Its how we respond to the mind-boggling nonsense that our government insists can be imposed on us by a foreign power.

Well the evidence suggests that your methods simply aren't working to achieve your aims. One I'm assuming is a separation of Church and State? I'd like that too, which is why I don't get bogged down in the mind boggling mundanity that is pointing out and taking offence to every perceived slight and linking it to child abuse.

If you want a discussion on how this beautiful mystery is being taught so sensitively to children maybe you would be happier in the Christianity forum?

Christ no, the Christianity forum isn't half as much fun as this place! I never once suggested I found anything I've ever read here offensive. In order to be offended by something I'd have to take it seriously, and accusations of child abuse or accusations of endorsing child abuse?

No, no I don't take that seriously at all.

(I like Worztron's stuff in the funnies thread though, because it's genuine humour, as opposed to a lot of the stuff that's posted elsewhere in the forum that's unintentionally humorous).