Mary says YES!

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Hahaha that is hilariously close to what Dan said here;

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?

bajer101

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

At last. Hallelujah! So, to get back to the topic at hand, this book is teaching children that it is ok to say yes to strangers asking them to accept something that they may be uncomfortable with? This is being taught as "fact".

I have no problem with you believing that the annunciation is "fact", but the whole point of this thread is that it is a bad idea to present this belief in the format that this this book presents.

Can you not accept that if you want to teach this story to kids that there may be a better way of doing it than by saying it is good idea for kids to just accept as "Gospel" that it is ok because some dude just said so? Can you not see the problem here? If I were to creep into your kid's bedroom tonight and told them that I was an angel and that they were blessed and that they should just accept what was going to happen to them, would you have a problem with that?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Hahaha that is hilariously close to what Dan said here;

But then surely the fact that it is imparted as knowledge implies that it isn't false? That they are actually the beliefs of the Roman Catholic faith?

La Fenetre

The differences between the words faith / belief and fact seem to be going over a lot of peoples heads here.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But then surely the fact that it is imparted as knowledge implies that it isn't false? That they are actually the beliefs of the Roman Catholic faith?

Right then, so the intention of the 'Grow in Love' programme is that at the start of every lesson the teacher discusses with the children that these are beliefs which are particular to the Roman Catholic Church, explains what a belief is as opposed to a fact, and then goes on to give details of the beliefs of other religions for balance? Or is the intention to make the child believe in Catholicism?

One eyed Jack

bajer101 wrote: »

At last. Hallelujah! So, to get back to the topic at hand, this book is teaching children that it is ok to say yes to strangers asking them to accept something that they may be uncomfortable with? This is being taught as "fact".

I have no problem with you believing that the annunciation is "fact", but the whole point of this thread is that it is a bad idea to present this belief in the format that this this book presents.

Can you not accept that if you want to teach this story to kids that there may be a better way of doing it than by saying it is good idea for kids to just accept as "Gospel" that it is ok because some dude just said so?

bajer if I thought that's what this book was doing, then of course I would strenuously object to any attempt to pass beliefs off as fact, and that's why I asked other posters for evidence for their belief that religious beliefs were being passed off as fact. No evidence beyond anecdotes appears to be forthcoming to support their belief.

I would also strenuously object to any implication that suggests what you're claiming it suggests if I thought that's what was happening here, but I simply don't see it happening.

Can you not see the problem here? If I were to creep into your kid's bedroom tonight and told them that I was an angel and that they were blessed and that they should just accept what was going to happen to them, would you have a problem with that?

I would, because I know you're not an angel. I would also object to anyone claiming they were Santa Claus doing the same thing. I would suggest the outcome wouldn't bode well for anyone entering my child's bedroom in such a fashion.

My child isn't stupid, and adults blowing this story out of all proportion is more embarrassing, personally speaking, than their claims that a child would read the story in the way they have done, let alone take it as seriously as they have done. I have to wonder do these people give children any credit at all that they aren't so stupid as some adults think they are?

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

The differences between the words faith / belief and fact seem to be going over a lot of peoples heads here.

Most of us in here know that there is nothing factual about Catholic beliefs or faith, but the intention of the Grow in Love programme is to indoctrinate these beliefs into children. And you know as well as I do that this is done by presenting what are merely beliefs, as factual knowledge.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Right then, so the intention of the 'Grow in Love' programme is that at the start of every lesson the teacher discusses with the children that these are beliefs which are particular to the Roman Catholic Church, explains what a belief is as opposed to a fact, and then goes on to give details of the beliefs of other religions for balance? Or is the intention to make the child believe in Catholicism?

Kiwi the intention, or the aims of the curriculum are right there in black and white on the website you linked to earlier -

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’.

La Fenetre

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kiwi the intention, or the aims of the curriculum are right there in black and white on the website you linked to earlier -

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’.

You'll have to change that to Catholic fact, the wording is all wrong according to some !

frostyjacks

It's a disgrace that Catholic beliefs are being taught to Catholic children during RE class in Catholic-run schools in a Catholic country. I had no idea this was going on in this day and age. Next you're going to tell me they're being taught maths during maths class.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kiwi the intention, or the aims of the curriculum are right there in black and white on the website you linked to earlier - "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’."

All while telling the children that this should in no way be taken as fact, right? Because if that's the case then RE sure has changed since I was in school.

What else are they not supposed to take as actually true? After all if 'Jesus is the son of God and was born of a virgin' isn't to be taken as true true then surely the statement that 'Paris is the capital of France' or 'Two plus two equals four' are also up for debate.

Dan_Solo

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a disgrace that Catholic beliefs are being taught to NOMINALLY Catholic children during RE class in Catholic-run STATE schools in a HISTORICALLY Catholic SECULAR country.

Much more accurate now. You're welcome.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

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.

I can honestly say I've never experienced this, or anything like this, nor have I ever witnessed it, in or outside an educational institution, primary, secondary or third level. In fact, quite a bit of what I've read in this thread of other people's experiences with religious education, I'd even go so far as to say, in this forum, I haven't experienced it nor witnessed it at all.

I have experienced and witnessed plenty of adults issue the "shut up and stop asking questions" directive alright, but I've never assigned it to any particular ideology. I just figured it was because they were behaving like an asshole and simply couldn't, or didn't want to, answer a question as they were either too lazy, too stupid, or perceived it as an attack on their assumed authority.

bajer101

One eyed Jack wrote: »

bajer if I thought that's what this book was doing, then of course I would strenuously object to any attempt to pass beliefs off as fact, and that's why I asked other posters for evidence for their belief that religious beliefs were being passed off as fact. No evidence beyond anecdotes appears to be forthcoming to support their belief.

I would also strenuously object to any implication that suggests what you're claiming it suggests if I thought that's what was happening here, but I simply don't see it happening.





I would, because I know you're not an angel. I would also object to anyone claiming they were Santa Claus doing the same thing. I would suggest the outcome wouldn't bode well for anyone entering my child's bedroom in such a fashion.

My child isn't stupid, and adults blowing this story out of all proportion is more embarrassing, personally speaking, than their claims that a child would read the story in the way they have done, let alone take it as seriously as they have done. I have to wonder do these people give children any credit at all that they aren't so stupid as some adults think they are?

I knew I shouldn't have bothered. You just don't get it. I know I am wasting my time, but as clever as you think you think your kids are, they are genetically programmed to believe as fact what adults tell them is fact. "Don't eat those berries, etc." The kids that didn't believe as fact what the adults told them died out very quickly. Genetics 101.

It's just a bad idea to teach this story to kids in this format as it could lead to them trusting people when they shouldn't. You either get it or you don't. After the debate that has taken place on this thread it is quite obvious that you will get it.

As a last desperate throw of the dice would you allow your nine year old daughter to be married to Mohammed just because he said it was his God's will? Of course not. Because you just didn't happen to be raised with that flavour of nonsense.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kiwi the intention, or the aims of the curriculum are right there in black and white on the website you linked to earlier -

So they are;


Evangelisation, Mission and Justice Perspective

‘Evangelisation takes place in obedience to the missionary mandate of Jesus. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). In these verses we see how the risen Christ sent his followers to preach the Gospel in every time and place, so that faith in him might spread to every corner of the earth.’ (EG 19)
As part of its essential mission of evangelisation, the Church is involved in Religious Education in schools. (SGN 38-40)

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

I think someone said earlier that Catholic schools don't 'evangelise'!

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

All while telling the children that this should in no way be taken as fact, right? Because if that's the case then RE sure has changed since I was in school.

What else are they not supposed to take as actually true? After all if 'Jesus is the son of God and was born of a virgin' isn't to be taken as true true then surely the statement that 'Paris is the capital of France' or 'Two plus two equals four' are also up for debate.

I'm certainly not aware any directive which states that teachers are under any obligation to do so?

So no, I don't think that much has changed at least, even if the curriculum has.

Perhaps it's because I was always a very curious child that if I was told the capital of France is Paris, I would have to independently verify it for myself before I would accept that this was a reasonable statement to make based upon what evidence I could gather that would inform my knowledge to be able to state conclusively as a fact that the capital of France is indeed Paris.

My child seems to have inherited the same thirst for knowledge, only where I had the Encyclopaedia Britannica, my child now has the Internet.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So they are;

...


I think someone said earlier that Catholic schools don't 'evangelise'!

I'm fairly certain nobody made that claim, and I've been following this thread fairly closely. I could be mistaken though, should be easy enough to clear up if anyone is on the desktop site and can use the search function?

The search function on the touch site is pants.

One eyed Jack

bajer101 wrote: »

I knew I shouldn't have bothered. You just don't get it. I know I am wasting my time, but as clever as you think you think your kids are, they are genetically programmed to believe as fact what adults tell them is fact. "Don't eat those berries, etc." The kids that didn't believe as fact what the adults told them died out very quickly. Genetics 101.

I would sincerely hope you have never tried to pass the above off as fact.

It's just a bad idea to teach this story to kids in this format as it could lead to them trusting people when they shouldn't. You either get it or you don't. After the debate that has taken place on this thread it is quite obvious that you will get it.

You're entitled to your opinion. How seriously I take it though, is another matter entirely. I think it would require a ferocious amount of 'stranger danger' paranoia on my part to form the conclusion other people seem to have arrived at upon reading that story, or at least upon reading too much into that story, and coming to a terrible conclusion informed by their own paranoia.

As a last desperate throw of the dice would you allow your nine year old daughter to be married to Mohammed just because he said it was his God's will? Of course not. Because you just didn't happen to be raised with that flavour of nonsense.

Amen for that, eh?

bajer101

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I qwould sincerely hope you have never tried to pass the above off as fact.

Ok, let's focus on this one point and we will debate it properly. You are responding to my point about parents telling children about how they should not eat certain berries. Let's go. I'll explain to you how this works. I will focus on just this one point and explain it ad nauseum. Agreed?

Hotblack Desiato

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.

You well know what these so-called "choices" are.

Without wishing to state the obvious, but what do those parents expect from a religious ethos school,

What I expect from a state funded service is that it is delivered fairly in a non-sectarian non-discriminatory fashion and respects the constitutional rights of those availing of it.

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,

NO THEY ARE NOT. Religious schools discriminate on the basis of religion. 'End of the list' is not 'equally accommodating.' Unwanted indoctrination is not equally accommodating either.

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!

Nobody wants their child to be 'the other' but this (effectively a form of bullying by the school authorities) is just another of the unpalatable realities that non-religious and minority religion parents have to put up with.
Indoctrination or segregation - neither is acceptable, but there is no other choice, so it's one or the other.

The only way to prevent this and ensure all children are treated fairly is to not have religious instruction during the normal school day.

One eyed Jack

bajer101 wrote: »

Ok, let's focus on this one point and we will debate it properly. You are responding to my point about parents telling children about how they should not eat certain berries. Let's go. I'll explain to you how this works. I will focus on just this one point and explain it ad nauseum. Agreed?

It wasn't so much the example you used, it was the idea that human beings are "genetically programmed" to believe as fact what adults tell them is fact, and that the children who didn't believe as fact what adults told them died out very quickly?

bajer101 wrote: »

I know I am wasting my time, but as clever as you think you think your kids are, they are genetically programmed to believe as fact what adults tell them is fact. "Don't eat those berries, etc." The kids that didn't believe as fact what the adults told them died out very quickly. Genetics 101.

I have never heard of genetic programming in human beings before now. I mean, I've heard of genetic memory, but genetic programming?

And the idea that if children do not listen to adults, they die?

Does that mean that children who do not possess this authoritarian gene (can we call it that?) are the children who grow into adulthood?

Seems like quite a useful genetic trait in that sense I suppose, from an evolutionary point of view, but it also suggests that human beings are predisposed to obey authority figures?

I can see issues there already tbh, but I'm probably reading you wrong. You don't have to answer those questions btw, but I am interested in learning more about this concept of genetic programming in human beings, if you wouldn't mind?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You well know what these so-called "choices" are.

I certainly do, but it appears other posters here were not aware of these other options.

What I expect from a state funded service is that it is delivered fairly in a non-sectarian non-discriminatory fashion and respects the constitutional rights of those availing of it.

I understand what you mean, and I fully support that idea, but that's not answering the question I asked though.

NO THEY ARE NOT. Religious schools discriminate on the basis of religion. 'End of the list' is not 'equally accommodating.' Unwanted indoctrination is not equally accommodating either.

I haven't experienced this discrimination with regards to enrollment at least, which is the context in which I was making that point. I would have thought the requirement that there was already a child in the school seems to be a more discriminatory barrier to over-subscribed schools.

Nobody wants their child to be 'the other' but this (effectively a form of bullying by the school authorities) is just another of the unpalatable realities that non-religious and minority religion parents have to put up with.
Indoctrination or segregation - neither is acceptable, but there is no other choice, so it's one or the other.

We've already discussed the fact that parents have choices. Of course neither is acceptable in our opinion, but try asking that of parents in the wider community and see what responses you get. It's fine to discuss it here on Boards where we're all at least somewhat civil to each other, but the reality of talking to parents offline paints a very different picture from our idealistic perspective.

The only way to prevent this and ensure all children are treated fairly is to not have religious instruction during the normal school day.

And for the majority of parents that want their children to have religious instruction during the normal school day? They don't particularly care about what is or isn't fair on anyone else as long as they're happy. I do agree with you btw that your idea would be a much fairer way to treat all children, but it's the idea of gaining support for that idea is problematic, not just among parents, but among a number of stakeholders with a vested interest in maintaining the current system as it is.

The problem is in overcoming that, and I simply do not think IMO, that what I would see as nit-picking in a children's textbook achieves anything of any signifigance in that regard, let alone that said nit-picking is used to spread FUD among parents. The likelihood that parents would withdraw their children from a religious ethos school on the basis of the claims made in that article is, well IMO it's incredibly unlikely.

anothernight

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't experienced this discrimination with regards to enrollment at least, which is the context in which I was making that point. I would have thought the requirement that there was already a child in the school seems to be a more discriminatory barrier to over-subscribed schools.

It's been a hot topic for ages. This isn't the article I was looking for, but there's so many of them on the same discrimination that this will do: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/catholic-first-school-admissions-policies-may-be-illegal-1.2053401

"School admissions policies run on a “Catholic first” basis may be in breach of both equality legislation and the Constitution, the State’s equality watchdog has been told.

A report commissioned by the Equality Authority – now part of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) – argues that article 44.2.4 of the Constitution puts an onus on Catholic schools to demonstrate exactly why positive discrimination in admissions is necessary to maintain their ethos."

One eyed Jack

anothernight wrote: »

It's been a hot topic for ages. This isn't the article I was looking for, but there's so many of them on the same discrimination that this will do: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/catholic-first-school-admissions-policies-may-be-illegal-1.2053401

"School admissions policies run on a “Catholic first” basis may be in breach of both equality legislation and the Constitution, the State’s equality watchdog has been told.

A report commissioned by the Equality Authority – now part of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) – argues that article 44.2.4 of the Constitution puts an onus on Catholic schools to demonstrate exactly why positive discrimination in admissions is necessary to maintain their ethos."

Oh I know it's been a hot topic for years alright, but in practice, many of the Principals of Catholic ethos schools I have talked to over the years have said that they do not discriminate against children with regards to enrollment on the grounds of religion or none. Now I'm sure that's easily contradictible as I would never just take their word for it, but it doesn't appear to be invoked nearly as often as the other requirement I mentioned.

In fact, in the case mentioned in the article you linked to, it was the past pupil rule that was being challenged in the Supreme Court, and was rejected -

The IHREC said it was awaiting the outcome of a Supreme Court case on alleged discrimination against a Traveller at a Christian Brothers’ school in Clonmel, Co Tipperary before bringing further legal challenges on admissions policies. The Supreme Court is due to deliver its ruling this year on the case, which could have far reaching implications for the Equal Status Act.

And the update to that case -

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal by a boy from the Traveller community who challenged the refusal of his admission to the Christian Brothers High School in Clonmel, Co Tipperary in 2009.

The decision by the five-judge court effectively upholds earlier rulings by the Circuit and High courts in relation to the case taken by Mary Stokes, the mother of John Stokes, who is now 16 and attending another school in Fethard, 14 km away.

Ms Stokes had argued school policy which gave preference to the children of past pupils discriminated indirectly against children from the Traveller community.

Mary Stokes said her son John did not meet the criterion of having a father or brother in the school, as he was the oldest in his family and his father had not attended the school. Following a lottery process, John was not admitted and instead went to another school.

After John was refused a place his mother lodged a complaint under the Equal Status Act over a policy of the school to give priority to those whose fathers were past pupils.

John’s father, a Traveller, was not a past pupil of the school. Ms Stokes argued that because most Travellers of her son’s father’s generation had not attended secondary school at all, such ‘old boys’ or ‘parent rule’ policies discriminated against Travellers.

His appeal was upheld by the Equality Tribunal but appealed to the Circuit Court by the school. The school won there and Ms Stokes appealed to the High Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision. She appealed this to the Supreme Court.

In their judgements today the court dismissed the appeal, though for different reasons.

Two of the five said that under Section 28 of the Equal Status Act there could be no appeal beyond the High Court and so the case did not “lie” in their court.

Three accepted that an appeal could be heard but argued insufficient statistical evidence or information had been put before the lower courts to properly analyse whether the admission policy discriminated against Travellers.

They too dismissed the appeal.

Source: Supreme Court rejects challenge to school’s admission policy

bajer101

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't so much the example you used, it was the idea that human beings are "genetically programmed" to believe as fact what adults tell them is fact, and that the children who didn't believe as fact what adults told them died out very quickly?





I have never heard of genetic programming in human beings before now. I mean, I've heard of genetic memory, but genetic programming?

And the idea that if children do not listen to adults, they die?

Does that mean that children who do not possess this authoritarian gene (can we call it that?) are the children who grow into adulthood?

Seems like quite a useful genetic trait in that sense I suppose, from an evolutionary point of view, but it also suggests that human beings are predisposed to obey authority figures?

I can see issues there already tbh, but I'm probably reading you wrong. You don't have to answer those questions btw, but I am interested in learning more about this concept of genetic programming in human beings, if you wouldn't mind?

Great - you are willing to engage on this point. Now let's just distill the language down to something we can agree on. Let's replace the term "genetic programming", with genetic predisposition and let's start again.

One eyed Jack

bajer101 wrote: »

Great - you are willing to engage on this point. Now let's just distill the language down to something we can agree on. Let's replace the term "genetic programming", with genetic predisposition and let's start again.

Fair enough, I'll assume you're talking about this then -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_predisposition

I'm still not seeing how it could relate to this -

bajer101 wrote: »

genetically programmed predisposed to believe as fact what adults tell them is fact. "Don't eat those berries, etc." The kids that didn't believe as fact what the adults told them died out very quickly. Genetics 101.

But go on anyway.

bajer101

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fair enough, I'll assume you're talking about this then -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_predisposition

I'm still not seeing how it could relate to this -



But go on anyway.

Cool. So can I assume that you accept the Darwinian Theory of evolution by natural selection?

One eyed Jack

bajer101 wrote: »

Cool. So can I assume that you accept the Darwinian Theory of evolution by natural selection?

Yes.

If it helps your understanding, I should probably mention that I do not think there is sufficient scientific merit in this stuff though -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

looksee

OEJ has dominated this discussion with 'angels on the head of a pin' stuff for the last 32 pages. Much of his argument is his own version of semantics and theology and really has little to do with the subject at hand.

He is quite entitled to his view that there is nothing to concern parents in the specific primary school story that started this discussion. However all the endless pages of soap-boxing about 'fact' and 'truth' and 'faith' has been a complete distraction to whether the illustration and presentation of the story in question is appropriate in the context of current teaching on child safety, much of which has been motivated and necessitated by the actions of the organisation that is imposing this 'education' on our children.

It absolutely does not matter whether this is being taught as fact or faith, truth or fantasy; what matters is the way it could be used by a sinister adult, or its effect on a vulnerable child. OEJ's entire thesis is based on the single example of the intelligence, astuteness and general brilliance of his own offspring. Sadly all the children of the country cannot be measured by this yardstick, and most require a little more protection at the age of 6.

It also does not really matter whether this is religion or fairy stories. If a story were proposed for the English literature primary curriculum that involved a mysterious being, presented, not only in the story, but also throughout the school day, as the embodiment of everything good and wonderful, and a child was instructed that they should submit to the being in every way, and as a result become pregnant against their instinctive will, and that this was a happy ending, I very much doubt it would get as far as the classrooms. If it did somehow get as far as the classrooms, probably for rather older children with critical faculties maybe as advanced as OEJ's child, it would be hedged around with all kinds of discussions about the moral aspects, and the desirability and likelihood of it happening.

As an aside, however, this discussion has had one other effect, it has led me to read the report on the primary religion curriculum, and if I had any doubt about the wisdom of the Catholic Church having total control of the education of our children, it has removed it.

Tasden

looksee, that post just summed up perfectly what I myself was thinking but wasn't able to put into words! Fair play