Mary says YES!

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

But you just said nobody can force anybody to do anything. So if AI get these prehistoric fantasy novels laughed out of the classroom, they haven't "forced" anything on anybody because that is now seemingly impossible.
So, any advance on "forced" and "fact" as words which can be removed from the dictionary?

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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

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.

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!

OEJ please address this. Is it acceptable that the only alternative to a non religious education, is no formal education at all? Or drastic measures like selling property, moving away from family and jobs to move within a commutable distance to an ET? Or one parent leaving employment so that a commute of several hours a day can be made to an ET? You don't consider that parents in these situations are 'forced' to put up with using religious schools? Would it not be fairer to have schools that suit everyone, all religions and no religion?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

And religious organizations that inbed themselves into government operations are popular?

Well, I can't think of a government which isn't predominantly composed of religious members, can you? And they're elected by popular vote. So they don't seem all that unpopular.

Cabaal wrote: »

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?

I'd certainly remember that the Irish government reflected the viewpoints of the time, and by times those viewpoints were overwhelmingly religious. You can't really blame them for representing the people they were elected to represent though.

Cabaal wrote: »

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

Hell, there are still people with catholic viewpoints today; just look at how many prefer catholic ethos schools. I don't think you can fault them for wanting their views to be a part of their society, since I suspect you too want your views to be part of it.

Cabaal wrote: »

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 can only imagine the even handed way you presented it too. Still, that's quite a movement you've got going. How long do you think it will take before the Grow In Love programme bows to your pressure and withdraws the textbooks?

Cabaal wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't worry too much; I'd say your average primary school could probably present it in a much less disgusting way.

Cabaal wrote: »

So nothing loves a trier then?

Sure try and find out

Kiwi in IE

And by the way OEJ, people are 'forced' by law to have their children educated, so if I flatly refused to do so because I find religious schools unacceptable, I would be arrested and my child would be made a ward of the state and educated in a state funded school, which would in all probability, be religious since 96% of them are.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But you just said nobody can force anybody to do anything. So if AI get these prehistoric fantasy novels laughed out of the classroom, they haven't "forced" anything on anybody because that is now seemingly impossible.
So, any advance on "forced" and "fact" as words which can be removed from the dictionary?

Perhaps Dan you could look up the meaning of a strawman for yourself, because I said no such thing, and I certainly never mentioned anything about anyone holding a gun to your head.

I asked you was there a cleric standing behind parents, poking them with a stick in the back to force them to enrol their children in religious ethos schools?

If there wasn't, then the parents very much had a choice, so there's not much point in telling their children not to do something when their reason for not doing something themselves is because they are too afraid not to do it, not because they are forced to do it.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps Dan you could look up the meaning of a strawman for yourself, because I said no such thing, and I certainly never mentioned anything about anyone holding a gun to your head.

I asked you was there a cleric standing behind parents, poking them with a stick in the back to force them to enrol their children in religious ethos schools?

If there wasn't, then the parents very much had a choice, so there's not much point in telling their children not to do something when their reason for not doing something themselves is because they are too afraid not to do it, not because they are forced to do it.

That is just ridiculous nonsense! If there was an ET within a drivable distance and a cleric poking me with a stick, that would be a much better alternative to what we are currently faced with. I would have the cleric arrested for assault and harassment and proceed to enrol my child in the ET. However as it happens there is no ET, and so we are forced to use a religious school.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

OEJ please address this. Is it acceptable that the only alternative to a non religious education, is no formal education at all?

No, it isn't acceptable, but that is not the case that it actually is the only alternative. There are many alternatives to education in a school with a religious ethos.

Or drastic measures like selling property, moving away from family and jobs to move within a commutable distance to an ET? Or one parent leaving employment so that a commute of several hours a day can be made to an ET? You don't consider that parents in these situations are 'forced' to put up with using religious schools?

Seriously? Kiwi in IE pointing out the fact that people often have to make choices and face upheaval at times in their life which they may be afraid to face, but they do it because they have faith that the outcome will be worth the risk...

Would it not be fairer to have schools that suit everyone, all religions and no religion?

Of course it would, and I'm all for secular education and choice for parents in education (as I pointed out earlier in the thread, I've registered my interest in a new ET secondary school option being made available in my area, even though I may never avail of it, but the choice is there for other parents), but what I absolutely will not stand for, is anyone, of any religious persuasion or none, using fearmongering, insinuations, intentionally twisting things out of context, and any other sort of underhanded behaviour, to promote their own agenda.

Seriously, there's no point in asking anyone else to be fair to you, if you're not prepared to be fair to them, and even show them what it means to be fair if you think they don't know what it means to be fair to people and to treat them with the same dignity and respect that you would like for yourself.

Mr. CooL ICE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it isn't acceptable, but that is not the case that it actually is the only alternative. There are many alternatives to education in a school with a religious ethos.

Can you give some examples of what these alternatives are?

Kiwi in IE

Right so you think that rather than the state providing education that is acceptable for everybody, whether religious or not and no matter which religion, that parents who are non Catholic should have to sell their properties, change jobs, move away from family and life long friends, and that this is acceptable because reasons, that aren't really reasons?

And you think that because people choose not to take drastic measures and change every single thing about their lives in order to gain access to an acceptable school, that they are not being forced? Their choice is religious school or severe social, financial and emotional disadvantage or no education, but that OK because OEJ and other Catholics are not disadvantaged and don't have to choose between their beliefs and every other part of their lives. Who cares right? Catholics are the majority! And you are harping on somewhere in that long, drawn out fart of a post, at some stage after my eyes had glazed over, about fairness?

I'll tell you what OEJ, we are forced to use religious schools and so you had better get used to us complaining, campaigning and constantly drawing attention to the ridiculousness and inappropriateness of what our children are being taught in religion class. We pay as much tax as any catholic family and I expect to be provided with public services that cater fairly to every citizen, not just them!

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I asked you was there a cleric standing behind parents, poking them with a stick in the back to force them to enrol their children in religious ethos schools?

Ah, so that's "forcing" but holding a gun to someone's head as I said isn't "forcing". Yeah... sure.
Other posters here are right, it is utterly pointless debating anything with you as you'll just take some fantasyland definition of any word or phrase that doesn't work for you and proceed from there.
Religion is great. As long as you take great to mean "crap".

Dan_Solo

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?

You're still ignoring this of course OEJ. I suppose "child safety" or "adult" or "sanity" needs redefining in order to defend your original statement?

pauldla

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, so that's "forcing" but holding a gun to someone's head as I said isn't "forcing". Yeah... sure.
Other posters here are right, it is utterly pointless debating anything with you as you'll just take some fantasyland definition of any word or phrase that doesn't work for you and proceed from there.
Religion is great. As long as you take great to mean "crap".

Dictionary.com lists 36 uses for 'force', including 17 as a verb.

Tasden

pauldla wrote: »

Dictionary.com lists 36 uses for 'force', including 17 as a verb.

Tbh this thread reads enough like a dictionary itself with all the words being defined and redefined- fact/truth/literal :pac:

Kiwi in IE

Tasden wrote: »

Tbh this thread reads enough like a dictionary itself with all the words being defined and redefined- fact/truth/literal :pac:

And 'force'. Apparently the correct and only definition of 'force' is when a cleric pokes a person in the back with a stick to make them do something.

Christy42

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it isn't acceptable, but that is not the case that it actually is the only alternative. There are many alternatives to education in a school with a religious ethos.

Literally the only alternative is home schooling or have them go to school in a different country. You are not allowed have a school without a religious ethos in this country.

iguana

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

It's not about the child reading the story and thinking 'hmm, I should let an abuser abuse me.' It's about slowly ingraining on a child the idea that they should just say yes to adults even if they are scared of what the adult wants. When a toddler doesn't want to kiss his/her granny goodbye and the granny makes a fuss trying to guilt the child into the kiss, there is nothing remotely sexual about that. But child psychologists who have worked in the field of child abuse still impress upon parents to never let a relative make a child feel bad for exercising their own bodily integrity in this way. Teaching a child that it's ok to say no to someone else doing something to your body for their pleasure, even if it's an innocent kiss goodbye for granny, and that their parents/teacher/etc will stand up for their right in this matter, is essential to ensuring that children have the confidence to say no to an abuser and/or the confidence that their parents and/or teachers will listen to them and protect them if they are abused.

Dan_Solo

iguana wrote: »

It's not about the child reading the story and thinking 'hmm, I should let an abuser abuse me.' It's about slowly ingraining on a child the idea that they should just say yes to adults even if they are scared of what the adult wants. When a toddler doesn't want to kiss his/her granny goodbye and the granny makes a fuss trying to guilt the child into the kiss, there is nothing remotely sexual about that. But child psychologists who have worked in the field of child abuse still impress upon parents to never let a relative make a child feel bad for exercising their own bodily integrity in this way. Teaching a child that it's ok to say no to someone else doing something to your body for their pleasure, even if it's an innocent kiss goodbye for granny, and that their parents/teacher/etc will stand up for their right in this matter, is essential to ensuring that children have the confidence to say no to an abuser and/or the confidence that their parents and/or teachers will listen to them and protect them if they are abused.

I see OEJ is still consulting his evasive pedantry dictionary on this one. Or hoping it goes away. Whatever.
Whether a child understands why trusting strangers is a bad thing or not is irrelevant. We adults know it is a bad thing and therefore children should not be told it isn't.

Kiwi in IE

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I see OEJ is still consulting his evasive pedantry dictionary on this one. Or hoping it goes away. Whatever.
Whether a child understands why trusting strangers is a bad thing or not is irrelevant. We adults know it is a bad thing and therefore children should not be told it isn't.

I am not certain that your use of the words 'evasive', 'strangers' and 'adults' are in the correct context here.

frostyjacks

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I see OEJ is still consulting his evasive pedantry dictionary on this one. Or hoping it goes away. Whatever.
Whether a child understands why trusting strangers is a bad thing or not is irrelevant. We adults know it is a bad thing and therefore children should not be told it isn't.

Where are children being told to trust strangers? You're just making stuff up.

Daith

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where are children being told to trust strangers? You're just making stuff up.

Correct. From looking at it seems to be more

"If someone tells you they're the Lords servant and asks you to do something, even if you're not sure you should say Yes".

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where are children being told to trust strangers? You're just making stuff up.

The message is subtle and subversive!

As for 'making stuff up', you are advocating for young, vulnerable children to be indoctrinated with some rubbish that someone made up a couple of thousand years ago.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The message is subtle and subversive!

There's nothing subtle or subversive about linguistic pedantry, wilful misinterpretation, and wilful ignorance when the motivation is to point score rather than engage in meaningful and productive discussion.

As for 'making stuff up', you are advocating for young, vulnerable children to be indoctrinated with some rubbish that someone made up a couple of thousand years ago.

You're ignoring (either wilfully or mistakenly) one critical factor here - it is those children's parents choice to have their children indoctrinated in their religious beliefs, by teachers who are acting in loco parentis.

Good luck to you campaigning, complaining, and combatting to take that choice away from parents by arousing fear, suspicion and doubt among them. If you think most parents are likely to inconvenience themselves for your children's benefit, for any other children's benefit, above their own benefit, above their children's benefit, I would say that's a belief that's unlikely ever to become a reality.

You're not only going to have a battle on your hands from parents, but you'll have a battle on your hands from the DES, the RCC, politicians, and of course the many, many organisations and individuals who benefit from the Irish education system being run the way it currently is run.

The reality is quite the opposite of this thread, where people seem to be under the impression that paying lip service to an idea brings about change. My own experience would suggest otherwise, but that would merely be anecdotal and unworthy of being presented as evidence.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's nothing subtle or subversive about linguistic pedantry, wilful misinterpretation, and wilful ignorance when the motivation is to point score rather than engage in meaningful and productive discussion.

I honestly got to the end of this sentence and I still have no idea whether it's a boast or is meant to refer to somebody else here.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're ignoring (either wilfully or mistakenly) one critical factor here - it is those children's parents choice to have their children indoctrinated in their religious beliefs, by teachers who are acting in loco parentis.

Yes, the choice was "no education" or "an education with some added fairy tale BS that they'll hopefully ignore or learn to hate like we did".
That sort of "choice".

Fleawuss

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're just making stuff up.

LOL. Irony much.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, the choice was "no education" or "an education with some added fairy tale BS that they'll hopefully ignore or learn to hate like we did".
That sort of "choice".

Dan the point I was making (genuinely I'm not sure any more if you actually are misconstruing my posts on purpose, or if you're doing so unintentionally because you don't understand what I've posted), is that those parents have chosen to enrol their children in schools with a religious ethos, because they want to; not necessarily because they have to.

My wife (who is non-religious) and I, chose to enrol our child in a school with a catholic ethos, even though logistically it is far less convenient than it would have been to enrol him in the local ET school.

ET schools are far from an ideal solution to the current problems within the Irish education system, but most parents are simply concerned with fulfilling the bare necessities of their children's education, and therefore will simply default to the most convenient solution for themselves, and once their children are out of primary education, they are no more concerned with issues at primary education level.

The current system will not change until there is sufficient will to want to change it, and that won't happen until enough people actually support that change, and that would mean inconveniencing themselves.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Dan the point I was making (genuinely I'm not sure any more if you actually are misconstruing my posts on purpose, or if you're doing so unintentionally because you don't understand what I've posted), is that those parents have chosen to enrol their children in schools with a religious ethos, because they want to; not necessarily because they have to.

And you know this because... have a look how many parents and kids go to Catholic mass versus Catholic school and it'll ram home the truth about what happens when you have a real choice about attending fantasy magic rituals.

Mr. CooL ICE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it isn't acceptable, but that is not the case that it actually is the only alternative. There are many alternatives to education in a school with a religious ethos.

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Can you give some examples of what these alternatives are?

OEJ, I know you're getting bombarded with questions, but care to answer this one? It's a relatively simple question

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The current system will not change until there is sufficient will to want to change it, and that won't happen until enough people actually support that change, and that would mean

SABOTAGING THEIR OWN CHILDREN'S EDUCATION.

Dan_Solo

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

OEJ, I know you're getting bombarded with questions, but care to answer this one? It's a relatively simple question

No fair! I'm still waiting to find out why we shouldn't teach children about things which they are too young to know are unsafe! Get in line!