Mary says YES!

One eyed Jack

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

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

Well there are these alternatives -

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

It's incorrect to state though that you are not allowed to have a school without a religious ethos in this country. There's nothing stopping you setting up a school, but you will not qualify for funding from the State unless certain conditions are met first.

Private citizens have come together to set up schools in this country that have received no funding from the state, literally everything bought for the school comes out of their own pockets and their own fundraising efforts, so it can be done, but only if the will is there to put your children's education before your own convenience.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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!

I made you a deal earlier on in the thread Dan, any movement on that, or do you think good communication only goes one way?

Mr. CooL ICE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well there are these alternatives -

1) Leave the country
2) Set up your own school
3) Homeschool

It's a bit of a stretch calling any of these alternatives considering you either need either luck, or a bucket load of resources that most parents don't have.

frostyjacks

Christmas is round the corner...parents encouraging their children to be good for a strange looking man who comes into their house in the dead of night...outrageous! Life would be as dull as ditchwater if the thought police on here had their way.

One eyed Jack

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

1) Leave the country
2) Set up your own school
3) Homeschool

It's a bit of a stretch calling any of these alternatives considering you either need either luck, or a bucket load of resources that most parents don't have.

Rectifying the current situation would require a bucket load of resources that the State simply doesn't have.

When pubic schools as they are, are struggling to get funding from the State, you'd need a bottomless pit of cash to completely overhaul the current setup to appease a small minority, which would require squeezing even more tax from tax payers pockets that as you point out, they simply don't have.

There are currently much bigger priorities to be dealt with in the Irish education system than trying to introduce a secular curriculum in schools with a religious ethos.

I'm reminded of the war parents caused about two years ago in one particular school because the parents felt their children were unprepared for confirmation. One parent I spoke to mentioned that she wasn't religious herself, but that she still wanted her daughter to make her confirmation.

I think the word swampgas used earlier was fairly appropriate - bizarre!

But that is by no means an isolated incident. You talk to enough parents and you'll find out very quickly where their priorities lie, and that's just parents. Those adults with no children who have chosen to have no children, have their own priorities too, and do you think they'll be too interested in their tax contributions being increased to pay for other people's lifestyle choices?

The problem is a hell of a lot more significant than just a couple of parents who feel that they are being forced to have their children educated in schools with a religious ethos, and the example Atheist Ireland has used to highlight this issue in this instance was, IMO, a bad call, and is unlikely to endear to many people to their cause.

bajer101

frostyjacks wrote: »

Christmas is round the corner...parents encouraging their children to be good for a strange looking man who comes into their house in the dead of night...outrageous! Life would be as dull as ditchwater if the thought police on here had their way.

Parents are exactly the people who are supposed to tell their kids who they can and can't trust. If a strange man came into the home uninvited and told the kids they had to trust him, regardless of whether they had misgivings or not, that would be a huge problem. Can you really not see why it is a bad idea to be teaching kids this?

One eyed Jack

bajer101 wrote: »

Parents are exactly the people who are supposed to tell their kids who they can and can't trust. If a strange man came into the home uninvited and told the kids they had to trust him, regardless of whether they had misgivings or not, that would be a huge problem. Can you really not see why it is a bad idea to be teaching kids this?

But nobody has actually told any children they actually have to do that!

That story applies specifically to Mary, it does not suggest anywhere, to any child what you claim it suggests. So far all we've had, are adults, complaining that children might read it the way that they, as an adult are reading into it.

Any adult that actually reads it the way the author of that article on the "teach don't preach" site has suggested, I would suggest that they are experiencing reading comprehension difficulties.

But then what do I know, I was diagnosed as being severely dyslexic when I was 7, and experts recommended to my mother that I might fare better in a special school as I would never properly be able to read and write. My mother insisted upon me remaining in a mainstream school and educating me herself.

Yeah, that turned out well... :pac:

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That story applies specifically to Mary, it does not suggest anywhere, to any child what you claim it suggests. So far all we've had, are adults, complaining that children might read it the way that they, as an adult are reading into it.

So for the billionth time of asking, you are claiming children shouldn't be taught things that are good for them unless they know why. "It's OK to trust strangers because you don't know what abduction and rape are yet."
Weird attitude TBH.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I made you a deal earlier on in the thread Dan, any movement on that, or do you think good communication only goes one way?

Good communication is redefining every second word that doesn't suit your agenda beyond any known commonly accepted meaning?
If by "good communication" you mean "lots of words almost randomly strewn together with bizarre, hitherto unheard of, definitions for most of them" then yes, I agree.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Good communication is redefining every second word that doesn't suit your agenda beyond any known commonly accepted meaning?
If by "good communication" you mean "lots of words almost randomly strewn together with bizarre, hitherto unheard of, definitions for most of them" then yes, I agree.

How about you address the first part of my post you quoted Dan?

I won't say for the billionth time asking, because that would be an exaggeration, but I've asked you a good few times now, and in fairness I've answered many of your claims in between (except the gun question, because you brought up the gun, and then claimed I was posting strawmen!), so I'll just ask you one more time to produce evidence to support your claim that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

produce evidence to support your claim that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools.

THEY ARE PRESENTED TO CHILDREN AS FACTS, RIGHT NOW JUST AS THEY WERE WHEN I WAS A KID.
That's enough evidence for anybody who hasn't a personal definition of "fact".
Now, any chance you'd show us the nuance where these iron age storybooks offer children the possibility that the book contents are just a load of brainwashing fairytale hokum? Because then you might have a case.
(but of course you don't)
I also notice you've managed to reference my "billionth time" without actually answering the question. I suppose you're playing for time hoping everybody will forget you proposed not teaching children anything for their own safety when they don't fully understand why? Remember that? Hello Jack. Calling Jack.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

THEY ARE PRESENTED TO CHILDREN AS FACTS, RIGHT NOW JUST AS THEY WERE WHEN I WAS A KID.
That's enough evidence for anybody who hasn't a personal definition of "fact".

No Dan, that's a belief, one for which you have yet to present any evidence, before it can be established as a fact.

You know using anecdotal evidence is poor logic and reason, or at least you should, as the plural of anecdote is not data.


Once you've done that much, rest assured I will address this goalposts moving effort -

Now, any chance you'd show us the nuance where these iron age storybooks offer children the possibility that the book contents are just a load of brainwashing faiytale hokum? Because then you might have a case.
(but of course you don't)

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Dan, that's a belief, one for which you have yet to present any evidence, before it can be established as a fact.

You know using anecdotal evidence is poor logic and reason, or at least you should, as the plural of anecdote is not data.


Once you've done that much, rest assured I will address this goalposts moving effort -

I'm looking at the image online of the book right now. No mention of "this might be made up" or "maybe Allah is the real god" or anything like that. Just stuff on a page presented as FACTS. So I am going on precisely the evidence of my own eyes: stuff presented as FACTS.
Now, maybe you have the rest of the book handy. Could you scan the disclaimer page that says "* contents may actually be total caveman level hallucinations"?
"belief" is the new word now I see, add to the word grinder with "truth" and "facts" huh. Is a belief more facty or truthy there Jack? Only you can tell us (your personal definition)!

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm looking at the image online of the book right now. No mention of "this might be made up" or "maybe Allah is the real god" or anything like that. Just stuff on a page presented as FACTS. So I am going on precisely the evidence of my own eyes: stuff presented as FACTS.
Now, maybe you have the rest of the book handy. Could you scan the disclaimer page that says "* contents may actually be total caveman level hallucinations"?
"belief" is the new word now I see, add to the word grinder with "truth" and "facts" huh. Is a belief more facty or truthy there Jack? Only you can tell us (your personal definition)!

It might interest you to read up on a concept called the narrative paradigm, rather than expect me to entertain your continued appeals to logic and reason fallacious arguments.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It might interest you to read up on a concept called the narrative paradigm, rather than expect me to entertain your continued appeals to logic and reason fallacious arguments.

It might interest you to go read a dictionary.
Over and out.

PS: I hope the irony is not missed that you have actually claimed it's incredulous to expect you to entertain appeals to logic and reason. How appropriate.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Dan, that's a belief, one for which you have yet to present any evidence, before it can be established as a fact.

You know using anecdotal evidence is poor logic and reason, or at least you should, as the plural of anecdote is not data.


Once you've done that much, rest assured I will address this goalposts moving effort -

Here you are OEJ. Have a read through this website, it provides plenty of evidence that Catholic doctrine is taught to primary school children as fact.

http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/religious-education/re-curriculum-for-ireland.html

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It might interest you to go read a dictionary.
Over and out.

PS: I hope the irony is not missed that you have actually claimed it's incredulous to expect you to entertain appeals to logic and reason. How appropriate.

That right there is an example of irony.

Yours is not an example of irony as you're apparently the person who uses logic, reason, and rational thinking, and yet throughout this thread, you have demonstrated none of these forms of critical thinking, and failed to present any evidence to support your claim.

I never made any claim to demonstrate any ability to do so, and I was under no obligation to do so. Ironic, isn't it?

I have to resign myself then to the fact that in this instance, you simply do not have a point in relation to either your claims that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish schools, nor do you have a point in relation to six year old children's cognitive abilities and how they may misinterpret and therefore misunderstand the story in the same way as some adults appear to have done.

Kiwi in IE

The aims and goals of 'Grow in Love' Level 1 are described here;

http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/media/wysiwyg/RE_Curriculum_Level_1_web_1.pdf

Here are a few choice extracts:

Keep in mind that this particular extract is meant for junior infants. Did someone say earlier that creation is not taught in Irish schools? Or maybe that was another thread. Well yup, it is, and they get it in there in junior infants.


Strand Units

Children at this level should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the following knowledge and concepts:

Mystery of God

• Names of the three Divine persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit. Respect for these names in our speech and the use of these names in prayer (CCC 198-202, 222-27, 232-40, 253, 258-60, 261, 316, 320, 422-23, 731, 733-37).
• Christians are baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (CCC 232).
• Christians bless themselves in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
• God is our loving Father and Creator (Gn 1:26-7).
• God is good (Ps 116:1).
• God knows us and loves us (Ps 139).
• God is my friend.
• God loves us like a mother loves her child (CCC 239; Is 66:13; Ps 131:2).
• God cares for us, especially when we are sick sad, lonely, angry or disappointed.
• God is always with us (Ps 63:8).
• God gave us the gift of Jesus (Gal 4:4-5; Lk 1:55, 68; CCC 422).
• God loves and cares for every family.
• God chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus (Lk 1:26-38).
• God created us to share life with him in heaven, our true home (CCC 355-84; 1691-98).


Mystery of Jesus Christ

• Jesus is called ‘Christ’ (CCC 436, 453).
• Jesus is the Son of God (Mk 1:1; Mt 16:16-17; 27-54; Jn 20:31; CCC 422, 441-46, 454).
• Jesus is the Good Shepherd (Ps 23:1).
• Jesus is our friend (Jn 15:14).
• Jesus loves us.
• Jesus tells us about God his Father.
• Jesus is the Light of the World (Jn 8:12).
• Jesus was born on Christmas day.
• Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth (Lk 2:4; 2:39-40; CCC 422, 531).
• Jesus was born in a humble stable, into a poor family (CCC 525).
• Jesus loves and welcomes little children (Mk 10:13-16).
• Jesus helped the sick (Lk 17:11-19).
• Jesus loved and cared for the poor (Jn 6:1-13).
• Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples on Holy Thursday (Lk 22:14-23; Mk 14:17-
25).
• Jesus died on the cross for us on Good Friday (Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; CCC 624).
• Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday (Mk 16:6; Lk 24:5; CCC 638).
• Jesus appeared to his disciples after he had risen from the dead (Jn 21:1-14).
• Jesus ascended into heaven (Mk 16:19; Lk 24:51; CCC 659-64, 670, 673, 665-67).


Creation

• God created everything there is: the earth, people, stars, animals, birds, plants and trees (Gn 1; LG 2; CCC 212, 290, 325; CSRE 1b).
• God created man and woman as the crown of his creation (CCC 343).
• God has given each person a guardian angel to watch over and protect him/her (CCC 328-36,
350-52)
• God cares for all creation (Wis 8:1; CCC 303).
• God’s creation is good (Gn 1:31; CCC 299, 339; CSRE 1b).


Mystery of the Church

• God is in every home and family (GDC 133).
• Jesus, Mary and Joseph are the Holy Family of Nazareth (CCC 437, 532-34, 564, 583, 1655).
• The Catholic Church as the family of God (CCC 747, 759, 777-78, 959, 1655, 2233).
• Mary is the Mother of Jesus, God’s Mother and Our Mother (Lk 1:26-38; Gal 4:26-8; Jn 19:26-
7; CCC 495, 508-10, 723, 744, 963, 967-71, 973-75; LG 53).
• The Saints: God’s special friends who are part of the family of the Church in heaven (CCC 828,
956-57, 960-62, 1195, 2013, 2030, 2683, 2692). St Patrick, St Brigid, St Columba (Colum cille).
• The way of life of the parish involves caring, sharing, and praying together (CCC 2179; CSRE
2a).
• The Church is a special place where God’s people gather to pray.
• Our family helps us become friends of Jesus.
• The priest/teacher helps us to become friends of Jesus (LG 10).
Eternal Life
• God wants all people to be happy with him forever in heaven (1 Jn 3:2; 1 Cor 13:12; CCC 1023).
• When we die we go home to God (CCC 1020).

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Here you are OEJ. Have a read through this website, it provides plenty of evidence that Catholic doctrine is taught to primary school children as fact.

http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/religious-education/re-curriculum-for-ireland.html

Kiwi I don't mean to be awkward, but perhaps you could point out which part of that site provides plenty of evidence to support your claim?

It isn't immediately apparent to me upon reading this at least, and I understand I may be missing what you claim to be the existence of plenty of evidence to support your claims, so if you'd be so kind as to point to one or two specific examples:

The Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland (2015) was approved by the Irish Episcopal Conference and granted the Decree of Recognitio by the Holy See in 2015. It is the curriculum from which Grow in Love, the new Religious Education series for Catholic primary schools, is written.

The aim of the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum is: ‘To help children mature in relation to their spiritual, moral and religious lives, through their encounter with, exploration and celebration of the Catholic faith’.

The content of this curriculum is divided into four interrelated strands: Christian Faith; Word of God; Liturgy and Prayer; and Christian Morality. Together, these four strands outline the knowledge and understanding, skills and processes that make up the learning to be achieved at each level of the curriculum. The curriculum also outlines skills of religious literacy which should be developed in students from preschool right up to Sixth class/P7. These are divided into five categories: understanding, communicating, participating, developing spiritual literacy and developing inter-religious literacy.

Conscious of the needs of teachers working with children with moderate, severe and profound general learning disabilities, the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum also includes Guidelines for teachers in Special Schools. The Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland is an important document for every primary school teacher.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kiwi I don't mean to be awkward, but perhaps you could point out which part of that site provides plenty of evidence to support your claim?

It isn't immediately apparent to me upon reading this at least, and I understand I may be missing what you claim to be the existence of plenty of evidence to support your claims, so if you'd be so kind as to point to one or two specific examples:

Where's the info to support your claim exactly?

It's covered the same as any other subject in school, maths, history etc.

The problem is in religion class a kid asks why something is such a way and they are told because of God. Thats not encouraging critical thinking... It's merely the typical shut up and believe and stop asking questions Catholic response.

looksee

And then there is this:

Catholic educators … must have the greatest respect for those students who are not Catholic.
They should be open at all times to authentic dialogue, convinced that in these circumstances the
best testimony that they can give of their own faith is a warm and sincere appreciation for anyone
who is honestly seeking God according to his or her conscience (LCS 42).

No warm and sincere appreciation then of anyone whose conscience does not allow for seeking god?

Having looked through a significant amount of the material on that website it is overwhelmingly obvious that what is being taught is RC doctrine rather than Christian belief. I am even more depressed about primary education in Ireland than I was before.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kiwi I don't mean to be awkward, but perhaps you could point out which part of that site provides plenty of evidence to support your claim?

See my next post if you can't be bothered clicking a few links in the website to find the evidence you were so eager to get!

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The aims and goals of 'Grow in Love' Level 1 are described here;

http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/media/wysiwyg/RE_Curriculum_Level_1_web_1.pdf

Here are a few choice extracts:

Keep in mind that this particular extract is meant for junior infants. Did someone say earlier that creation is not taught in Irish schools? Or maybe that was another thread. Well yup, it is, and they get it in there in junior infants.

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that I mentioned that Creationism is taught as fact, in US public schools. The story of Creation is of course taught in Irish schools, as is the story of the Nativity, etc.

These are imparted as the beliefs of the Roman Catholic faith, or indoctrination, or even faith formation if that takes your fancy. At no point is it stated in the religious curriculum for Irish primary Catholic ethos schools, that any of these stories, lessons, etc, are taught as fact.

Kiwi in IE

So OEJ, do you graciously concede defeat in your insistence that Roman Catholic doctrine is not taught to children as fact in 90% of Irish primary schools?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

See my next post if you can't be bothered clicking a few links in the website to find the evidence you were so eager to get!

I clicked on the link you provided, and I'm familiar with the new curriculum, I don't need to go sifting through it to find evidence I know does not exist. The onus is not on me to search for evidence to back up your claims.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that I mentioned that Creationism is taught as fact, in US public schools. The story of Creation is of course taught in Irish schools, as is the story of the Nativity, etc.

These are imparted as the beliefs of the Roman Catholic faith, or indoctrination, or even faith formation if that takes your fancy. At no point is it stated in the religious curriculum for Irish primary Catholic ethos schools, that any of these stories, lessons, etc, are taught as fact.

Are you seriously still going?

'God created everything there is: the earth, people, stars, animals, birds, plants and trees'

bajer101

Anyone here who is trying to debate rationally with the two Jacks are wasting their time. Unfortunately when threads like this appear in A&A it is a case of stating the obvious to people who can already spot the lunacy of such nonsense, while also attracting the type of dissenters who are not interested in engaging in normal, rational debate. Defenders of the faith who visit A&A seem to be of the type who will defend their beliefs regardless.

As mad as it seems, I think that topics like this would perhaps be better debated in the Christianity forum. I know plenty of normal Christian believers who I could have a rational debate with about religious topics - but that sort of debate seems to be impossible in the A&A forum. The "believers" who seem to frequent A&A just appear incapable of having a rational debate.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that the topic of this thread (a child being asked to just say yes) was discussed with believers and even they could see the problem with this. I come from a very religious family and I know that the religious members of my family would have a problem with this.

It is worth bearing in mind when trying to debate with people on an anonymous forum like this that you could very well be debating with the likes of David Quinn or Ronan Mullen and that you will never change some people's opinion, regardless of the amount of "facts" that you throw at them.

Dan_Solo

During this theme of work, the children will engage with the following knowledge and concepts:

So what's the deal here then? This "knowledge" is something people "know" but is in fact possibly false? How else do you present something as "knowledge" and simultaneously supposedly suggest it might not be real at all?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So OEJ, do you graciously concede defeat in your insistence that Roman Catholic doctrine is not taught to children as fact in 90% of Irish primary schools?

I certainly would, and indeed graciously so, when I am presented with evidence that states that Roman Catholic doctrine is taught as fact in 90% of Irish primary schools.

That would be like suggesting that knowledge of the beliefs of any religion being imparted to children is teaching those children the beliefs of those particular religions as fact. Faith formation should not be mistakenly confused with imparting beliefs as facts.

I'm not particularly interested in yours or anyone else who made that claim conceding defeat tbh, a mere acknowledgement that you may have been mistaken would do.

After all, it's easy make a mistake, but I have no interest in lording it over anyone for doing so. That's just arrogant IMO and it breeds resentment rather than fostering understanding.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So what's the deal here then? This "knowledge" is something people "know" but is in fact possibly false? How else do you present something as "knowledge" and simultaneously supposedly suggest it might not be real at all?

Dan I genuinely don't understand what you're asking me there, nor do I understand the point you're trying to make.