Mary says YES!

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Indeed, and they've a rightly a huge focus on trying to find even a microbe of evidence.
I think evidence can prove something either way, but until then it'll just have to be a belief / non belief.

This is true. So I take it you agree that teaching children to believe unquestioningly in something that cannot be proven to exist and to engage in ritualistic behaviours in the hope of placating this unproven thing, is not particularly healthy and doesn't really have a place within a state funded education system?

Dan_Solo

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This is true. So I take it you agree that teaching children to believe unquestioningly

Cue OEJ demanding they're not being "taught" at all, only presented with possibilities to ponder. Just that they all happen to be Roman Catholic possibilities with no suggestion at any stage that they may not be true at all.
Funny that.

_Kaiser_

So anyway...

I've read the first few pages here but what I've read is frankly disturbing and deepens my worries for my own little fella who in a few years will be taught stuff like this as historical "fact" with the added weight of "God said so" to reinforce it!

I guess I was lucky in that my own mother had a very simple attitude to this when myself and my sister were in school - "When they're old enough and capable of making an informed decision they can believe in whatever they want - until then no, they won't be attending Religion classes" - on reflection probably quite the brave standpoint in the late 70s/80s in Good Catholic Ireland. As it's turned out, neither one of us has ever felt any need for a faith, but as I've gotten older I've realised just how big a favour my mother did for us.

I think I'll be taking a similar stance with the little fella's school, but his mother would have concerns about him being excluded/bullied by the rest as a result. It didn't happen to me, but I can't entirely dismiss her concerns either - particularly with the ease such things can happen in our cyber-bullying world.. (I don't envy any parent/child growing up today. Thankfully I was just past the "wild 20s" stage when camera phones started to become popular so don't have to worry about drunken antics being immortalised on Facebook, nevermind stuff I might have done as a child).

Educate Together was something that was looked at but was warned off of on the basis that many of the students are not native English speakers and thus much time is devoted to getting them up to speed.. something I would have never thought of beforehand (seeing only the benefits of a multi-denominational ethos like the one I later attended myself in Second level) but it is a valid point I suppose, and so he's signed up for the "best" Catholic primary in the area.

Really in 21st century Ireland parents shouldn't have to choose between trying to give their kids the best opportunity they can, against the risk of them being indoctrinated with stuff like this (to say nothing with the time wasted on these classes and the various extras like Communion, Confirmation etc - and I haven't even mentioned Irish yet!) but here we are!

Kiwi in IE

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Cue OEJ demanding they're not being "taught" at all, only presented with possibilities to ponder. Just that they all happen to be Roman Catholic possibilities with no suggestion at any stage that they may not be true at all.
Funny that.

I have avoided entering into to OEJ's line of discussion, because frankly I have found reading the posts exhausting enough, but at some stage he wanted evidence that the above is not the case. I would recommend the 'Grow in Love' textbooks as a good place to start to clear up any confusion.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This is true. So I take it you agree that teaching children to believe unquestioningly in something that cannot be proven to exist and to engage in ritualistic behaviours in the hope of placating this unproven thing, is not particularly healthy and doesn't really have a place within a state funded education system?

I do, I was always encouraged to ask questions about my faith, others sadly were not, but you get good and bad teachers in all walks of life. The state, like a lot of developing countries, inherited the position of no public state education being available, and no money to do so anyway until recent decades, and then a good old complicated Irish mish mash evolved.

Current and continuing trend is not enough schools for non Christians, and the state has largely ignored this, hoping again some other ministers will take care of the problem "after the next election" and they have qualified for their own minister's pension.

Non Christians should genuinely take care about wanting the state running their schools, the Irish state has an abysmal track record at running most things, and I think small personable local schools, with groups of local parents running them with the ethos they want, in line with state guidelines is the way to go. Not one size fits all supersize grey factories attempting factory line education. Parents should have the right to bring their kids up in the school ethos they prefer.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Listen

I'm listening Dan. I'm getting a poor signal to noise ratio, but I'm still listening, waiting for your evidence to back up your claims that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools. I've invested quite an amount of time in this thread for what appears to be very little in return, but I remain hopeful that you'll come good with the evidence at some stage.

you got caught red handed using bolloxology

I did? When did that happen? It appears the bollocksology is in your claims that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools, and you've been caught trying to pass this off as a fact, because it appears to you to be true, and yet, you have presented no evidence that what you claim to be true is actually a fact.

I feel kinda sorry for you at this stage.

Only kinda sorry for me? Well that's a pity. Fortunately for me I can manage quite well without your pity, I've done alright for myself so far without needing any pity from anyone, let alone pity from strangers on the internet.

Truth for this, fact for that, utter tripe "one is more this than the other" definition. Everybody saw straight through it from the start. It's lame word juggling.

The only word juggling I see is the word juggling in that article written by someone associated with Atheist Ireland, arousing fear among parents in order to promote their own agenda.

Now your latest wheeze is "non-literal concepts". Well that makes you sound clever doesn't it?

Does it? I shall weigh that compliment with the same regard as your earlier pity - utterly meaningless to me as the source of either, has no value to me personally.

You're claiming truth is non-literal now? You are, aren't you?

Would you like me to answer that question with a version of the truth that suits you, or would you rather I gave you a factual answer?

Take your time with that one before you answer, I'm off to bed now and I'd rather not have my sleep interrupted by strangers asking me questions for which they have already determined my answer that suits their own agenda.

Christy42

It says that if God is mentioned that the kid should say yes to something they are unsure or uncomfortable with. That is a horrific message. It doesn't even have to be sexualised for it to be horrible. Inappropriate touching is not the only thing a child can be uncomfortable with.
I can't see why this should see a classroom.

For those arguing that the kid should be smart enough to know better then A: why is there if it is meant to be ignored, B: they should also know jumping off a cliff is wrong, we don't teach them to do that either and C: kids really don't know better. Why do you think the church was able to keep a lid on the abuse for so long? Their victims were vulnerable and easily pressured. Parents weren't aware of the danger and so were unable to warn their children about it. Children can seem incredibly competent and confident, right up until the moment they hit something they can't deal with.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

The flood of pedantry and side stepping continues. Cut to the chase: why on earth does any state continue to indulge a group who send out messages like this, no doubt an accurate reflection of their beliefs with their official recognition, which are so clearly at odds with the message that the state has realised children need to hear.

I'm going to go with... because States that decide which religious viewpoints may or may not be indulged aren't that popular these days.

Fleawuss wrote: »

The thread is useful for ventilating the problem and showing that the RCC is really an archaic relic which sits very uncomfortably with the best of modern Ireland. And the time is close when its anachronistic grip on primary education will have to be set aside.

It's certainly a great way of seeing which posters will jump on even the ricketiest bandwagon in order to be seen to be taking a pop at a religion. Beyond that I can't see it really has any real use. It's rather unlikely to prompt any change to the Grow In Love curriculum the OP is so incensed by, in my opinion. They say God loves a trier though.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I'm going to go with... because States that decide which religious viewpoints may or may not be indulged aren't that popular these days.

And religious organizations that inbed themselves into government operations are popular?
You must remember that the Irish government previously decided what religious viewpoints were acceptable or not (divorce is wrong, condoms are wrong, a husband raping his wife is fine etc)...of course those were catholic viewpoints and they were dictated to the Irish state by the catholic church...so I guess that was alright then?

Hell, they still are doing it on certain levels...otherwise we wouldn't have talking about this subject and those silly catholic ethos schools.

It's certainly a great way of seeing which posters will jump on even the ricketiest bandwagon in order to be seen to be taking a pop at a religion. Beyond that I can't see it really has any real use. It's rather unlikely to prompt any change to the Grow In Love curriculum the OP is so incensed by, in my opinion.

Don't be too sure, I've pointed this section out to a few people lately and the general response is disbelief in such a very odd message to send young children.

I might add that two of the people I've shown it to go to mass and had their kids baptised but still found the message a very concerning one to teach any child. One relation I showed it to is involved in child protection side of things and they were pretty disgusted by the message given.

They say God loves a trier though.

So nothing loves a trier then?

frostyjacks

Has anyone actually voiced their concerns to teachers about this, if it's so blatantly at odds with child protection policies? They'd be laughed out the door.

Dan_Solo

frostyjacks wrote: »

Has anyone actually voiced their concerns to teachers about this, if it's so blatantly at odds with child protection policies? They'd be laughed out the door.

Who, any teachers trying to defend this prehistoric twaddle?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This however, I cannot get behind, because I don't believe that children are in any immediate danger that they need protection from indoctrination if their parents choose to place their children in religious ethos educational institutions to be educated in loco parentis.

According to the Irish Constitution, parents are their children's primary educators, and the school is a secondary educator, so if parents choose to place their children in religious ethos schools, they are doing so in the full knowledge that there is the potential for their children to be indoctrinated. This is a choice those parents make for their children.

You seem to think that parents have a choice? 96% of primary schools in this country are under religious countrol.

Also parents have a constitutional right to prevent their children undergoing religious instruction in school, but schools frequently do not respect this right or facilitate its exercise by providing alternative supervision.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Educate Together was something that was looked at but was warned off of on the basis that many of the students are not native English speakers and thus much time is devoted to getting them up to speed..

There are many non-English speakers in religious schools too - in some areas of Dublin the newly-established 'ghetto school' is catholic

Like the bullying thing, I can't help but think that it suits some people to spread myths and FUD about anything other than conformist RC education here. Make decisions for your child based on facts not what someone's mother's cousin's daughter said.

La Fenetre wrote: »

Current and continuing trend is not enough schools for non Christians

Why should kids be segregated on the basis of religion? Can't you see how wrong and damaging to society and community that is - just look up North.

Non Christians should genuinely take care about wanting the state running their schools, the Irish state has an abysmal track record at running most things

Whereas the record of churches is above reproach :rolleyes:

It certainly suits the RCC to keep the state starved of resources, it magnifies their power. It's a completely hypocritical stance anyway as the state on behalf of taxpayers funds the schools, the churches do not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm listening Dan. I'm getting a poor signal to noise ratio

:pac:

, but I'm still listening, waiting for your evidence to back up your claims that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools.

You claimed that they are not, but are taught as 'truths'. You have not provided any evidence as to why this distinction is significant, if it is a distinction at all.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

It's certainly a great way of seeing which posters will jump on even the ricketiest bandwagon in order to be seen to be taking a pop at a religion.

Oh no he didn't.
So you think people object to stone age superstition being taught in state funded schools because they think it makes them look cool? The percentage of Christian converts vs Christians natives will give you a pretty good clue as to which side suffers most from a herd mentality.

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You claimed that they are not, but are taught as 'truths'. You have not provided any evidence as to why this distinction is significant, if it is a distinction at all.

A truth is more truthy than a fact, while being less facty.
A fact is more facty than a truth, while being less truthy.
When it's a fact, 6 year olds take the lesson literally.
When it's a truth, they engage "adult brain" and know immediately that trusting strangers is dangerous and the story is meant to be taken metaphorically, or as just a suggestion that they might want to consider as a fact.
Or some such shyte...

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So children are only in danger through trusting strangers because adults know that it puts them in danger? Next you'll tell us children should be allowed play with guns because only adults know they are dangerous.

You haven't answered this OEJ. You'll have to invent a new word or phrase to make this contradiction OK? If only adults know how dangerous it is to trust strangers, why should children be taught to trust strangers simply because they don't yet know this?
I mean, it's almost like brainwashing them with religion in advance of them being able to make their own decisions, so you should approve, yes?

Dan_Solo

La Fenetre wrote: »

I do, I was always encouraged to ask questions about my faith

As a matter of interest, did your religious instruction include considering the possibility that there is no god at all? Or, even worse, that you're worshipping the wrong god?

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

A truth is more truthy than a fact, while being less facty.
A fact is more facty than a truth, while being less truthy.
When it's a fact, 6 year olds take the lesson literally.
When it's a truth, they engage "adult brain" and know immediately that trusting strangers is dangerous and the story is meant to be taken metaphorically, or as just a suggestion that they might want to consider as a fact.
Or some such shyte...

Don't forget the mental reservation.

robindch

Mod:

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, you're lying.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

[...] bolloxology [...] your latest wheeze is "non-literal concepts". Well that makes you sound clever doesn't it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would tend to view anyone who would be so desperate as to make those kind of insinuations as an ignorant scumbag.

And if anybody continues to make these oblique insinuations, indulge in anglo-saxon argot, or impute intentional dishonesty upon the part of another forum poster, yiz'll be tending to take a view from the perspective of somebody with a brand-spanking new collection of forum cards and probably an occasional ban.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You seem to think that parents have a choice? 96% of primary schools in this country are under religious countrol.

If parents were actually being forced to enrol their children in religious ethos schools, then I would admit that parents do not appear to have a choice in the matter, but as it stands, they absolutely do have a choice. They choose to enrol their children in religious ethos schools, and then complain about the fact that religious ethos schools are religious ethos schools. Without wishing to state the obvious, but what do those parents expect from a religious ethos school, where religious education is half an hour in the day, but the religious influence is in every part of the school throughout the day?

Also parents have a constitutional right to prevent their children undergoing religious instruction in school, but schools frequently do not respect this right or facilitate its exercise by providing alternative supervision.

Those parents should take the issue up with the school Board of Management.

There are many non-English speakers in religious schools too - in some areas of Dublin the newly-established 'ghetto school' is catholic

This I agree with, I don't know where people get the impression that religious ethos schools are not accommodating of children of other cultures and faiths, and ET schools are not. They're both equally accommodating of children from other cultures and faiths, and now I think of it, one of the issues I've heard raised about ET schools is that parents were complaining about the idea that the children of parents who identified as Roman Catholic, were being over-represented in ET schools.

I wouldn't take my word for that though, could just be hearsay. I could have read it in a news article somewhere or on a website, but I wouldn't recommend anyone believe everything they read on the internet. I always question my sources, it's good practice so I'm not making false claims and trying to pass them off as fact.

Like the bullying thing, I can't help but think that it suits some people to spread myths and FUD about anything other than conformist RC education here. Make decisions for your child based on facts not what someone's mother's cousin's daughter said.

I agree with that, especially the bit in bold there, there's a lot of that about, being spread by organisations with their own agendas. It seems everyone has an agenda these days, so it's always a good idea to encourage people to do their own research, uncover the lies behind the truths and discover the facts for themselves rather than believe something because someone told them a story that fed into their already held prejudices.

Why should kids be segregated on the basis of religion? Can't you see how wrong and damaging to society and community that is - just look up North.

Didn't you make the complaint earlier upthread about the fact that the children of non-religious parents are not adequately segregated from children of religious parents during religious education classes? I guess when it suits you, segregation is A-ok, and when it doesn't - down with that sort of thing!

I'm not a fan of these new fangled "safe spaces" myself either tbf, but call me old fashioned.

:pac:

Well at least someone laughed, I guess people perceive humour differently, just as they perceive stories differently, concepts that are not so much dependent upon their intelligence quotient, but are more related to their previous knowledge. I guess those people who aren't in on the joke were never going to understand the intended humour.

Unintended humour is always funnier though, I do agree, but that could be just our shared sense of humour. My wife says I'm worse than a small child, perhaps that's why I have so much time for small children, because I share more important things in common with them than I do unimportant things with adults. I've found being able to make people laugh, breaks down all sorts of barriers. Scaremongering, arousing suspicion and fear and doubt, that's very much an adult narrative.

The Bible probably would have made a lot more sense had it been written by children. They tend to see the world very differently to adults.

You claimed that they are not, but are taught as 'truths'. You have not provided any evidence as to why this distinction is significant, if it is a distinction at all.

I have indeed provided evidence as to why this distinction is significant, and if you'd care to read back through the thread, I posted explanations of the significance of the distinction and the difference between a truth, and a fact. People have made all sorts of claims here that to them appear to be true, but when asked to provide evidence for what they claim to be true, they seem to want to dance around and move the goalposts and pretend numerous requests for evidence just didn't happen - "Ignore him, he'll go away eventually".

I guess I can't blame people who don't know me from Adam for thinking that way.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If parents were actually being forced to enrol their children in religious ethos schools

One line in...
So you don't consider the alternative of having no education as "forcing" them to enrol?

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You haven't answered this OEJ. You'll have to invent a new word or phrase to make this contradiction OK? If only adults know how dangerous it is to trust strangers, why should children be taught to trust strangers simply because they don't yet know this?
I mean, it's almost like brainwashing them with religion in advance of them being able to make their own decisions, so you should approve, yes?

I saw no reason to answer the question then Dan, and I see no reason to answer it now, particularly as you appear to have already answered the question for me yourself, and so you will not be satisfied with my answer either way, because you will have some new issue to contend with if my answer isn't what you expect, and I have no wish to cause you any further discomfort or distress, so I'll leave it there.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

One line in...
So you don't consider the alternative of having no education as "forcing" them to enrol?

Interesting twist on my post there. I would suggest for your own benefit that you read what is written and address that, rather than ask questions based on your twisting of what I've written. We could be here all day at that craic, and I don't think either of us has that kind of time, neither of us are here for an eternity, and I gather you don't believe in an afterlife.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Interesting twist on my post there. I would suggest for your own benefit that you read what is written and address that, rather than ask questions based on your twisting of what I've written. We could be here all day at that craic, and I don't think either of us has that kind of time, neither of us are here for an eternity, and I gather you don't believe in an afterlife.

Ah yes, the strawman whine when it's plain for all to see that your "forced to enrol" means EXACTLY this.
Something a bit less transparent next time perhaps?

Huntergonzo

Given the horrific track record of the RCC this is hardly surprising, disgraceful but not surprising, but will the church be allowed to continue their indoctrination in over 90% of our primary schools = of course, and will the majority of Irish people be either indifferent or supportive of their continued patronage = of course.

It's a strange old world we live in folks, you could go mad trying to make sense of it.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Interesting twist on my post there. I would suggest for your own benefit that you read what is written and address that, rather than ask questions based on your twisting of what I've written. We could be here all day at that craic, and I don't think either of us has that kind of time, neither of us are here for an eternity, and I gather you don't believe in an afterlife.

He did read what was written and address that!

The only option that I had for my son, because of the area we live in, was a Religious ethos school. The other option was no education!

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah yes, the strawman whine when it's plain for all to see that your "forced to enrol" means EXACTLY this.
Something a bit less transparent next time perhaps?

Is there a cleric standing behind parents poking them with a stick or something?


Are you going to complain about word lawyering when you claim that forced does not mean anyone is actually being forced to enrol their children in religious ethos schools.

Complaining about the lack of transparency while ignoring the obvious, is your responsibility Dan, not mine.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is there a cleric standing behind parents poking them with a stick or something?


Are you going to complain about word lawyering when you claim that forced does not mean anyone is actually being forced to enrol their children in religious ethos schools.

Complaining about the lack of transparency while ignoring the obvious, is your responsibility Dan, not mine.

Yeah, sure if somebody has a gun to your head an is forcing you to do something you can always get shot in the head. Nobody is "forced" to do anything I suppose now by your mindbending use of the English language.
If they want an education they are forced to go to a religious school. Simple as.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

He did read what was written and address that!

The only option that I had for my son, because of the area we live in, was a Religious ethos school. The other option was no education!

You actually had plenty of options then, but it's not for me, or for anyone else for that matter, to tell you how to live your life, and so you can understand why I would be reluctant to comment upon your circumstances personally.

You have the right to complain, but you don't have the right to have people be forced to take your complaints seriously.

In much the same way - Atheist Ireland have a right to complain about the content of a book on the religious education curriculum for Catholic ethos primary schools, but what they don't have, is a right to have people be forced to take their complaints seriously.

Or as Atheist Ireland would say themselves -

Teach, don't preach.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yeah, sure if somebody has a gun to your head an is forcing you to do something you can always get shot in the head. Nobody is "forced" to do anything I suppose now by your mindbending use of the English language.

Holy strawmans Batman!

If they want an education they are forced to go to a religious school. Simple as.

Clearly, it isn't.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Holy strawmans Batman!

Any chance you'd look up what a strawman is? You sound like a kid with a new toy trying to show it off to everybody when you don't know how it works.