Mary says YES!

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it isn't?

It's imparted as faith, through indoctrination, but to claim religion is taught as fact in Irish schools is either genuinely misunderstanding the concept of faith formation, or a deliberately misleading statement that is purported as fact.

More waffle. In faith schools how is religious doctrine taught in a different manner to other subjects, apart from facilitating those who wish to opt out of indoctrination?

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

More waffle. In faith schools how is religious doctrine taught in a different manner to other subjects, apart from facilitating those who wish to opt out of indoctrination?

Because it's imparted as education relating to a system of beliefs, not at all equivalent to the same way in which history for example is imparted as fact (although history may not be the best example given that it too is open to questionable interpretation), we'll say science then. Religion is not taught in the same way as science or geography in Irish schools.

Creationism in the US is a prime example of religion taught as fact in an education system.

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's imparted as education relating to a system of beliefs, not at all equivalent to the same way in which history for example is imparted as fact (although history may not be the best example given that it too is open to questionable interpretation), we'll say science then. Religion is not taught in the same way as science or geography in Irish schools.

Creationism in the US is a prime example of religion taught as fact in an education system.

Not sure what your experience of being taught religion in school, but I went to a convent and taught by nuns for the religious bit.

Now, you tell me. Do you think they taught it as fact or as something to be considered as a possibility. :pac:

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's imparted as education relating to a system of beliefs, not at all equivalent to the same way in which history for example is imparted as fact (although history may not be the best example given that it too is open to questionable interpretation), we'll say science then. Religion is not taught in the same way as science or geography in Irish schools.

Creationism in the US is a prime example of religion taught as fact in an education system.

Is Mary Saying YES imparted as a fact? What about preparation for sacraments like confession and penance? Is that presented as fact?

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not sure what your experience of being taught religion in school, but I went to a convent and taught by nuns for the religious bit.

Now, you tell me. Do you think they taught it as fact or as something to be considered as a possibility. :pac:

I'm willing to acknowledge that individual teachers will impart religious beliefs as though they are facts, but that's not how it is supposed to be taught.

(my own mother was also one of my teachers in primary school, attended a CBS for secondary school, religious education imparted by a lay teacher who went off the script altogether where we had philosophical discussions about abortion, euthanasia, etc. Fantastic teacher, taught fcukall about religion though!)

lazygal wrote: »

Is Mary Saying YES imparted as a fact?

It's not supposed to be, but like I said above, some individual teachers may impart it as though it is fact, and they can do that with any part of the religious education curriculum. They can even go off the script and introduce anything they like and impart it as fact too.

What about preparation for sacraments like confession and penance? Is that presented as fact?

It's not meant to be, but again - individual mileage may vary in that regard, depends upon the teacher.

mattP

Honestly I believe in the Catholic version of events (more or less), but the church itself disgusts me.
Its so corrupt. Certain things were covered up, people went to great lengths to conceal them. People high up in the church, people who if had any connection to The Man Upstairs surely wouldn't have done so. I wont pretend to understand where the collection money goes after it plinks into the wicker basket, but im yet to see a priest driving anything older than an '08.
My other begrudgement (and actually related to the post!:p) is the RCC's position in schools. We had to go to mass, we had to go to confession, we had to learn all the hymns, etc.
Children should not be indoctrinated. I was baptised at four months - I dont really think I knew what I was getting into when I agreed(?) to the process.

Avatar MIA

mattP wrote: »

Children should not be indoctrinated. I was baptised at four months - I dont really think I knew what I was getting into when I agreed(?) to the process.

From a legal point of view you cannot enter a contract until 18 years. Of course you were signed up to something you did not have any knowledge of.

However, with that said. Anyone posting in this thread is hereby signed up to the Church of Avatar MIA.

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

From a legal point of view you cannot enter a contract until 18 years. Of course you were signed up to something you did not have any knowledge of.

However, with that said. Anyone posting in this thread is hereby signed up to the Church of Avatar MIA.

Pineapple free pizza instead of crackers and I'm in!

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pineapple free pizza instead of crackers and I'm in!

No backsies now, you're already in

_Whimsical_

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't say fat, but its like the face of a child on a woman's body. Also, just noticed some other imagery there relating to the "deflowering" of a virgin. A bee in the room is landing on a flower. The girl is reclining on virginal white bedsheets. The flower is a lily, imagery associated with Mary, and also with the transition from chastity and virginity to motherhood and fertility. Its all about giving in to this trusted authority figure, in a sexual way. Its about saying yes, despite the fears and misgivings.

That is a really shocking read into a children's cartoon picture. I don't know where to start. You are literally seeing things that aren't there, the sheets aren't white, they're a light blue/grey, she isn't "reclining" she is sitting. Bees and flowers may be classical symbols of fertilisation but not of "deflowering of a virgin". No sex takes place in the story of the conception of Jesus at all. That you see sexual imagery here is really quite disturbing but you've made it perfectly clear it's not a matter of interpretation of the picture but one of your own rather peculiar bias brought to bear on the image.

expectationlost

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it isn't?

It's imparted as faith, through indoctrination, but to claim religion is taught as fact in Irish schools is either genuinely misunderstanding the concept of faith formation, or a deliberately misleading statement that is purported as fact.

forget fact, is it thought as truth?

Kiwi in IE

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

Is atheist or moral indoctrination ok ?

_Whimsical_

I think this is a really sad take on a simple issue. Most of us were brought up hearing that story every Christmas, playing it out in nativity plays in school, yet I don't think any of us could say we were left confused on the issue of sexual consent at the end of it. In fact is there anyone who as a child thought watching a nativity play that there was anything sexual or strange going on?

Mary did say yes, but she was given a choice, she was asked not forced, not enticed with riches and she ultimately chooses her own fate in the story. She gives informed consent. In our lives we face lots of difficult decisions and circumstances that initially scare us that we embrace because we decide they're for our longterm betterment or the betterment of others, that's also a lesson that can be taken from this story. Looking at this picture and notion of Mary's yes as a sexual consent issue is bizarre in my eyes though.

frostyjacks

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Is atheist or moral indoctrination ok ?

Can you explain? Atheist indoctrination? What is that? Counteracting the bollocks that they've been told in their RCC primary school? If they had been told nothing at all about religion, their natural state would be atheist, the same as all of us. How is that indoctrination exactly?

anothernight

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

You'll find that a lot of traditional fairytales are told in a very different manner to the original stories, precisely to avoid giving children the wrong message.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can you explain? Atheist indoctrination? What is that? Counteracting the bollocks that they've been told in their RCC primary school? If they had been told nothing at all about religion, their natural state would be atheist, the same as all of us. How is that indoctrination exactly?

What bollocks would atheists in atheist/agnostic schools be learning ?

So what's the "learning about atheism curriculum for schools" by atheism ireland ?

What about moral indoctrination then, is that ok ?

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

Ah frosty, I read my kid Enid Blyton books every night about things such as 'the land of goodies'. I don't tell him that these stories are factual though, and when he asks me about pixies, brownies, fairies and wizards, I tell him that they are make believe, pretend creatures. Do they do the same in religious indoctrination class in RCC primary schools? Tell children that they are simply beliefs, rather than fact, and make believe fairy stories? If so, there would'nt be much need for this forum at all!

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

What bollocks would atheists in atheist/agnostic schools be learning ?

So what's the "learning about atheism curriculum for schools" by atheism ireland ?

What about moral indoctrination then, is that ok ?

Not sure what you're on about! I'm not sure that anyone, even Atheist Ireland, is proposing 'Atheist Schools'. Look up how secular schools work as state schools in almost every other developed, first world country!

One eyed Jack

expectationlost wrote: »

forget fact

Is that meant to be ironic?

is it thought as truth?

Yes it is, but before you rush to judgement, it'd be very unfair of me not to point out to you that even people's interpretation of 'truth' has become a very individualist ideology in recent times, particularly among people who like to talk about their 'truth', or rather what appears to be true for them, but that 'truth' having no basis in reality.

Often reminds me of the guy from Mythbusters -

"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own"

Referring of course to his own individualistic perspective which is based upon his perception of reality.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

You could say the same about anything a child is exposed to though Kiwi, that it potentially increases a child's vulnerability. I haven't seen my child all day because he was gone playing with friends early this morning, then called me earlier and asked could he go to a birthday party, then called me tonight to ask could he stay over with one of his mates. He came home, packed an overnight bag and off he went. I won't see him till morning when he comes home and we head off for mass while my wife will either have a lie-in or head to the gym.

What's required really is to balance giving the child freedom and independence, with the risk of increasing their vulnerability once they're out of your sight. I would sooner give the child freedom and independence and a sense of responsibility for himself and for other people, than hole him up and never let him out of my sight because I constantly fear for his safety - the child would then suffer because of my paranoia.

That'd be no way for me to live, and more importantly - that would be no way for my child to live, because he would learn nothing, and when I'm gone, he wouldn't be able to cope on his own.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Not sure what your on about! I'm not sure that anyone, even Atheist Ireland, is proposing 'Atheist Schools'. Look up how secular schools work as state schools in almost every other developed, first world country!

Atheist.ie didn't call it a secular curriculum, they call it a learning atheism curriculum.

True Secularism does not favour unbelief over belief, it takes no particular side.

You didn't answer the question about moral indoctrination, is that ok or not ?

_Whimsical_

anothernight wrote: »

You'll find that a lot of traditional fairytales are told in a very different manner to the original stories, precisely to avoid giving children the wrong message.

What is the wrong message though? As you're considering it as a fairytale we may as well leave out the validity argument.

It is a story in which Mary is told she has been chosen for this role, she says yes to it, she is not enticed with promises or "groomed" as an earlier poster claimed. She can say no. I think it's important that it's highlighted that she says yes and chose this fate herself.

School going age children are aware that we are all frightened to do something important at times. None of us would teach our children that they must never do anything that they're afraid of or uncomfortable with. Lots of stories centre around a child overcoming a fear and realising it was a positive move. We don't worry those ideas leave children open to abusers. I think as a kid this story was taught to me as reinforcement of the idea that sometimes life requires you to take a step into the unknown and say yes to something that scares you if you believe it's the right thing to do. At no point would I have ever confused that message with "it's right to do what a stranger who appears in the night says even if it makes me uncomfortable". Teaching our children they must obey a teacher, guard, a friends parent on a playdate is not tantamount to telling them they should allow someone abuse them. Children can decipher those messages if they're taught about their right to bodily integrity. In this story Mary exercises her right to bodily integrity with her yes.

ABC101

kylith wrote: »

Which in itself is nonsense since it was Joseph that was a descendent of David, not Mary. And since Joseph is not Jesus' father then Jesus can't be of the line of David.

Joseph was the adoptive father of Jesus.

Matthew's Gospel starts off with the Roots of Jesus.

Among the Jews....this adoption was sufficient for Jesus to be considered, like Joesph, son of David.

As all Israel knew that the Saviour would be a descendent of David, for Jesus to be the Messiah of the Jews...he had to be a descendent of David.

georgieporgy

kylith wrote: »

Which in itself is nonsense since it was Joseph that was a descendent of David, not Mary. And since Joseph is not Jesus' father then Jesus can't be of the line of David.

Joseph and Mary were both descended from the house of David.

pauldla

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

Are we equating a Gospel story with madey-uppy fairytales? It would seem we have more in common than I thought.

Little Red Riding Hood: a seemingly innocuous errand quickly turns a confrontation with a ruthless predator. The child, giving voice to her fears, reveals the danger and immediately seeks help from a grown-up, who proceeds to lay into that Wolf with an axe. Personally I would like to have seen the predator fed feet-first into a John Deere tractor gearbox running at high speed (to borrow a memorable phrase from Bock the Robber), but otherwise it is a quite edifying tale.

Hansel and Gretel: Unable to outsmart their domestic tormentor, Hansel and Gretel are delivered by their unwitting father to an even worse fate. They realise too late that the sweetmeats offered by an authority figure betray her true, sinister intent, but they are able to use their own resources to outsmart her and free themselves from danger.

The Annunciation, for kids: If you have fear of an authority figure, just say yes to them. That's what God wants you to do.

I'd take a Hansel or a Gretel over this Mary any day of the week. She doesn't come across as the brightest of sparks in the Gospel.

Incidentally, is it Hitchens who wonders why fear seems to be the default reaction to encounters with the Divine in the Gospels? Its a good question.

georgieporgy wrote: »

Joseph and Mary were both descended from the house of David.

David having lived about 1000 years BCE, its highly likely that a significant proportion of the local population were descended from him, just as you and I are descended from Brian Boru. Thankfully, we don't have to return to Clare every time there is a census in Ireland.

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

You didn't answer the question about moral indoctrination, is that ok or not ?

What is this moral indoctrination you're on about exactly?
Who's morals exactly....society's?

I'd take society's morals over the catholic church's morals any day of the week, after all the catholic church for example still see's gay people as unnatural...society as we have seen is overwhelmingly accepting of gay and lesbian couples.

If you're somehow suggesting that atheism has a set of morals then it appears you are pretty confused....the only common thing within atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods, thats it.

There is no rules or dogma or anything else like that, you don't have to join a club or believe in some fantastic out of control story like a 12 year old being made pregnant without having sex by some all powerful god.

La Fenetre

Cabaal wrote: »

after all the catholic church for example still see's gay people as unnatural...

It doesn't, but if you repeat a lie often enough and all that . . .

Cabaal wrote: »

What is this moral indoctrination you're on about exactly?
Who's morals exactly....society's?

I'd take society's morals over the catholic church's morals any day of the week, after all the catholic church for example still see's gay people as unnatural...society as we have seen is overwhelmingly accepting of gay and lesbian couples.

If you're somehow suggesting that atheism has a set of morals then it appears you are pretty confused....the only common thing within atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods, thats it.

There is no rules or dogma or anything else like that, you don't have to join a club or believe in some fantastic out of control story like a 12 year old being made pregnant without having sex by some all powerful god.

I said nothing about atheism having any morals, but if it is nothing other than a lack of belief what is this from atheist.ie :

"Please donate to our education fund to produce our "learning about atheism curriculum" for schools. About our education about atheism course"

And if "secular" schools are not allowed to teach religion why would they be teaching about atheism ?

and what on earth is society's morals ? and is moral indoctrination ok or not ?

The Randy Riverbeast

La Fenetre wrote: »

It doesn't, but if you repeat a lie often enough and all that . . .



I said nothing about atheism having any morals, but if it is nothing other than a lack of belief what is this from atheist.ie :

"Please donate to our education fund to produce our "learning about atheism curriculum" for schools. About our education about atheism course"

And if "secular" schools are not allowed to teach religion why would they be teaching about atheism ?

and what on earth is society's morals ? and is moral indoctrination ok or not ?

Isn't their curriculum more about teaching that atheists aren't sacrificing children to the blood God and murdering people all of the time rather than yelling at kids that there is no god?

There is a difference between teaching about a religion or belief and teaching that a religion or belief is a fact and everyone else is wrong.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

What is the wrong message though? As you're considering it as a fairytale we may as well leave out the validity argument.

Are you really claiming the story of the annunciation is told as a fairly tale to children in infants' class?

Because that's what we're discussing here - how it's taught to small children.[/QUOTE]

looksee

What Atheist Ireland says/ advertises/ demands is as relevant to me as an atheist as a statement by the Orange Order is to the Pope (or vice versa). Because a small group goes off and tries to regiment or formalise atheism (how can simple non-belief be formalised?), it does not follow that they are the authority.

Individuals who refuse to consent to being controlled by a very specific belief system to which they do not subscribe will eventually remove the external effects of that belief system from secular society. It will be put back into the 'where two or three are gathered' sincere and modest form of private worship where it started.

On a slightly different tangent, there is ongoing bleating (though admittedly not as extreme as it used to be, a sense of self-confidence is emerging) about 800 years of domination while completely ignoring the fact that it was a Pope who first authorised the invasion of Ireland, (and an Irish chieftain who invited the invading army in). Now, a large swathe of the population is happy to have much of Irish society dictated and directed by a foreign power, a wealthy, fantasist, egotistical, sexist power that has caused considerable damage and shown itself many times to be acting only in its own imperial interests.

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

It doesn't, but if you repeat a lie often enough and all that . . .

Yeah, it must be a massive media conspiracy
:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108349.stm

In a strongly-worded 12-page document signed by the Pope's chief theological adviser, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Church brands homosexual unions as immoral, unnatural and harmful.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the Vatican document says.

To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral
Vatican document "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

Yep, you're right. The Vatican have never ever ever suggested that being gay or having sex is unnatural
:rolleyes:

While you might like to rewrite the history of the catholic church by claiming they never said or did certain things, I'm afraid you can't get away with it.

and as we know Ratzinger went on to be pope so we can be damn sure about his views on gay people as pope,


[EDIT]
Oh look what Pope said....

http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-gay-marriage-pope-benedict-xvi-says-same-sex-marriage-unnatural-threat-justice-peace-942132

Pope Benedict XVI said in his World Day Of Peace 2013 address last week that gay marriage is a threat to “justice and peace” in the world. The 85-year-old religious leader even said that same-sex marriage is "unnatural” as any support of same-sex union offends the natural laws of faith and justice.

This was not the first time when Pope Benedict XVI has opposed gay marriage. His stance on same-sex marriage has largely been constant. Earlier, in September, the Pope said that gay people are not fully developed humans as they disobey Catholic law.

He was also quoted in the past saying that same-sex marriages are "insidious and dangerous" and a "threat to humanity."

Stop trying to re-write what the Vatican has said about gay people, its utterly pathetic.

I said nothing about atheism having any morals, but if it is nothing other than a lack of belief what is this from atheist.ie :

"Please donate to our education fund to produce our "learning about atheism curriculum" for schools. About our education about atheism course"

And if "secular" schools are not allowed to teach religion why would they be teaching about atheism ?

You're specifically talking about Atheist Ireland you know?

Just because somebody is an Atheist doesn't mean they subscribe to all viewpoints of Atheist Ireland...you really need to ask Atheist Ireland this question....perhaps you should drop them an e-mail?

Once again, I need to remind you that the only common thing among Atheists is a none belief in god or gods. There is nothing more that any atheist must agree with any other atheist. You seem to have a hard time understanding this, atheism isn't a religion you know.

As for an atheist class, in my view if it were able to happen then it would be a normal class that begins like this.

" Hey Kids, there's no such thing as god. Now stop worrying about sky fairy's and Jesus etc and enjoy your life and go out and play"

La Fenetre

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah, it must be a massive media conspiracy
:rolleyes:

Yep, you're right. The Vatican have never ever ever suggested that being gay or having sex is unnatural
:rolleyes:

While you might like to rewrite the history of the catholic church by claiming they never said or did certain things, I'm afraid you can't get away with it.

and as we know Ratzinger went on to be pope so we can be damn sure about his views on gay people as pope.

Just one snag, no where does your link say your previous red herring claim that the church "sees gay people as unnatural", but sure if you move the goalposts to cover it, no one might notice right ?

Cabaal wrote: »

You're specifically talking about Atheist Ireland you know?

Just because somebody is an Atheist doesn't mean they subscribe to all viewpoints of Atheist Ireland...you really need to ask Atheist Ireland this question....perhaps you should drop them an e-mail?

Once again, I need to remind you that the only common thing among Atheists is a none belief in god or gods. There is nothing more that any atheist must agree with any other atheist. You seem to have a hard time understanding this, atheism isn't a religion you know.

The contradicts the point and agenda's of atheist ireland, do they represent atheists or not ?, if they don't who or what are they representing exactly ?

Cabaal wrote: »

As for an atheist class, in my view if it were able to happen then it would be a normal class that begins like this.

" Hey Kids, there's no such thing as god.

But that's actually teaching a belief, not an established fact, or can you not see that ?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you really claiming the story of the annunciation is told as a fairly tale to children in infants' class?

Because that's what we're discussing here - how it's taught to small children.

It's certainly not taught as fact, it's taught as part of faith formation. Story time involving reading fairy tales to children is neither taught as fact, nor faith formation.

Should we ban fairy tales because they might cause children to think it's acceptable to break into people's homes and eat their porridge and sleep in their beds?

I would say no, because that would be silly, unreasonable, and unnecessary. Just like I didn't entertain silly, unreasonable, and unnecessary arguments against marriage equality on the basis of idiot claims that it might lead to the potential for a child to be sexually abused.

Can you see at all why I personally would object to anyone using the sexual abuse of children to shore up arguments to further their own particular agenda?

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

Just one snag, no where does that support your previous red herring claim that the church "sees gay people as unnatural", but sure if you move the goalposts to cover it, no one might notice right ?

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:

The contradicts the point and agenda's of atheist Ireland, do they represent atheists or not ?, if they don't who or what are they representing exactly ?

I don't know, ask them.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

La Fenetre

Cabaal wrote: »

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:

You haven't posted anything that says that anywhere.

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't know, ask them.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

If that's true, maybe someone from atheist.ie can enlighten us as to who they actually represent, what the membership requirements are, why they feel atheism is not just a lack of belief in gods. If they don't represent atheists such as yourself, who do they claim to represent ?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's certainly not taught as fact, it's taught as part of faith formation. Story time involving reading fairy tales to children is neither taught as fact, nor faith formation.

Way to go to give a non answer. The question was is it taught as a fairy tale, or is it taught as being true?

Why do you need so desperately to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question?

Should we ban fairy tales because they might cause children to think it's acceptable to break into people's homes and eat their porridge and sleep in their beds?

Are you really claiming that religion classes teach the annunciation to 6 year olds as being made up stories, like the Hans Christian Andersen ones? Who do they tell the children wrote these stories?

Can you see at all why I personally would object to anyone using the sexual abuse of children to shore up arguments to further their own particular agenda?

That's exactly the argument made to dismiss accusations about clerical sex abuse, until it became impossible to ignore them.

Instead of alleging that other people are being untruthful because of their supposed agendas, maybe you need to be a bit more truthful yourself about your own.

You have brought exactly no evidence that there is no risk to giving children the message that it's a good thing to "say yes" to something that they feel afraid about. So perhaps you think a small risk is acceptable in this case (but again, no proof of how small - nor why the need for it at all?).

You've posted quite a few inaccuracies and misleading statements, and no evidence of your claims. So I don't need to speculate on reasons for you to act as you are doing, that's your own problem, I don't have to justify your actions, you do. And you haven't, just cast aspersions on others.

looksee

La Fenetre wrote: »

The contradicts the point and agenda's of atheist ireland, do they represent atheists or not ?, if they don't who or what are they representing exactly ?

It has been said several times in this thread and numerous times in this forum, atheists do not need any sort of organisation. They have only one, single, negative reason for having even a name, not a very sound basis for an organisation.

They do not represent me; they can have all the agendas and points they like, it is nothing to do with me. If they succeed in hijacking and mis-using the word atheist, then I shall find a different word to describe myself. As it is they are a noisy irrelevance.

If a group of people want to get together and organise a secular education system, or any other government service, that is a different matter and could include both religious and atheists and all shades in between.

La Fenetre

looksee wrote: »

It has been said several times in this thread and numerous times in this forum, atheists do not need any sort of organisation.

So why do they have one ? And if there is so many atheists at pains to point out atheist.ie don't represent them, how many atheists do they actually represent ?

Mark Tapley

La Fenetre wrote: »

You haven't posted anything that says that anywhere.





If that's true, maybe someone from atheist.ie can enlighten us as to who they actually represent, what the membership requirements are, why they feel atheism is not just a lack of belief in gods. If they don't represent atheists such as yourself, who do they claim to represent ?

I think they want the pope defenestrated.

La Fenetre

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I think they want the pope defenestrated.

I like that word ! Word of the day, thank you !

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:

It's as though you think The Vatican cannot change it's various decrees? More people understand that when the Vatican refers to homosexuality as unnatural, that they are referring to homosexual acts, and not to the person themselves. Of course you could pull up the Ratzinger letter from 50 years ago that refers to homosexuality as disordered, but for it's time, that wasn't just a view held by the Vatican, but by society in general. We know better now though, because we have a better understanding of homosexuality, and so the Vatican has moved it's position.

I don't know, ask them.

I really do wish more people in society would be able to admit something like this, when they aren't sure of something, they should be encouraged to ask people, rather than assume things about people based upon their own prejudices.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

There are many, many people who identify as Roman Catholic, and consider themselves members of the Roman Catholic Church, who fundamentally disagree with many of the rules and dogma of the RCC Hierarchy. In that respect, they are no different to people who identify as atheist who fundamentally disagree with the rules and requirements that Atheist Ireland have in order for someone to become a member of their organisation.

Not for a minute would I ever assume that Atheist Ireland represents the views of all people in Ireland who identify as atheist, but then I would never suggest that the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, represents the views of all people in Ireland who identify as Roman Catholic either.

Like you, I don't presume to know either, so I prefer to ask. I think that shows more respect to individuals as human beings, rather than assuming their position on various social issues based upon my own prejudices and biases.

_Whimsical_

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you really claiming the story of the annunciation is told as a fairly tale to children in infants' class?

Because that's what we're discussing here - how it's taught to small children.

[/QUOTE]

I was responding to a post that discussed it in the context of a fairytale that needed to be adapted to suit younger children.It was clear I was not "claiming" anything,just responding to the particular point made in that initial post.

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

So why do they have one ? And if there is so many atheists at pains to point out atheist.ie don't represent them, how many atheists do they actually represent ?

Cause somebody decided to start one?

If you want numbers etc, again contact atheist Ireland.



If I start a group and call it for example "Catholics Of the Republic Of Ireland", if the group then announces that we believe the pope is actually secretly gay...does that mean all Catholics think the pope is gay?

Should all Catholics have to state that my group doesn't represent them?

Does Lolek Ltd represent your views?
If it doesn't do you tell everyone this?

Fleawuss

Just came across this thread recently. Appalled at the mixed message being presented in schools. Control of education is going to have to be sorted out. Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit so that God the son could be born human to be offered as a sacrifice to God the father to make up for the sins of humanity and so that God the spirit would raise him from the dead and she remained a virgin throughout and after her death her body was assumed into heaven....blah blah blah. How on earth do we tolerate this stuff in schools? On I know, property rights and parents want it. Of course they do.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I was responding to a post that discussed it in the context of a fairytale that needed to be adapted to suit younger children.It was clear I was not "claiming" anything,just responding to the particular point made in that initial post.[/QUOTE]

I don't imagine the poster concerned thinks his/her analogy is 100% identical, do you? He/she was making a point, and you chose one aspect where the fairly tale and the religious story are fundamentally different (ie whether children are expected to actually believe they are "true stories" or not) and made that a major part of your reply. Odd, that.

Do you agree that unlike fairly tales, children of 6 are generally expected to believe the different stories about Jesus that their teachers teach them in school?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Way to go to give a non answer. The question was is it taught as a fairy tale, or is it taught as being true?

I answered that question already only a few posts up in the thread -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes it is, but before you rush to judgement, it'd be very unfair of me not to point out to you that even people's interpretation of 'truth' has become a very individualist ideology in recent times, particularly among people who like to talk about their 'truth', or rather what appears to be true for them, but that 'truth' having no basis in reality.

Often reminds me of the guy from Mythbusters -

"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own"

Referring of course to his own individualistic perspective which is based upon his perception of reality.

Why do you need so desperately to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question?

I don't feel any need to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. If people are going to equate religion with fairy tales as to how they are imparted in the classroom, then I'm only pointing out the fact that they are not at all imparted in the same way with the same intent.

Are you really claiming that religion classes teach the annunciation to 6 year olds as being made up stories, like the Hans Christian Andersen ones? Who do they tell the children wrote these stories?

No, I'm not claiming that, nor have I ever claimed that.

That's exactly the argument made to dismiss accusations about clerical sex abuse, until it became impossible to ignore them.

Way to avoid answering my question.

Instead of alleging that other people are being untruthful because of their supposed agendas, maybe you need to be a bit more truthful yourself about your own.

I'm not sure how much clearer you need me to be here? I would object to anyone using the sexual abuse of children to further their own agenda. If they can't make their arguments without resorting to scaremongering and "won't somebody please think of the children?", then I see no reason to entertain such nonsense.

You have brought exactly no evidence that there is no risk to giving children the message that it's a good thing to "say yes" to something that they feel afraid about. So perhaps you think a small risk is acceptable in this case (but again, no proof of how small - nor why the need for it at all?).

How can I bring evidence of something that I don't believe exists? It's up to you to provide evidence that this story would lead to more children being sexually abused. It's up to you to provide evidence that the risk to children of telling them this story and discussing it with them is so great, that they should not hear this story and they should not be encouraged to discuss it and discuss a time when they felt the same way as Mary did in that situation.

You've posted quite a few inaccuracies and misleading statements, and no evidence of your claims. So I don't need to speculate on reasons for you to act as you are doing, that's your own problem, I don't have to justify your actions, you do. And you haven't, just cast aspersions on others.

Seriously, at first you claimed I identified as atheist, when I have never, ever made any such claim. I didn't ask you for evidence of your claim because I already know that no such evidence exists. I just wasn't going to be a dick about it and attempt to humiliate you by asking you to provide evidence for your claim that I ever claimed I was atheist. I understood why you might have thought I was atheist, given my views on many social issues. If you're going to claim I was casting aspersions on others, well, I'm going to suggest you remove the beam from your own eye first.

I don't have any issue with the story or how it is imparted to children. I understand where you're coming from in relation to telling children to do something when they are afraid, but your linking that to sexual abuse is what I object to as a very manipulative tactic in an attempt to rewrite the intention of the narrative based upon your own subjective interpretation.

It appears to me that where we disagree here is simply based upon our own perception, which is based upon our differing perspectives. Seeing as I don't have a problem with the story, and given that it has been imparted to children for the last 2,000 years, I would suggest that if you want to look for evidence of how it could cause children to be abused, you should look at the motivations of those people who choose to sexually abuse children, rather than trying to ban a story that you claim might lead children to see it as acceptable that they should allow themselves to be sexually abused.

volchitsa

So you don't see a difference between replying yes or no to a factual question, and refusing to speculate about someone else's motives for doing something?

Seriously?

(And no you didn't actually reply, you sort of admitted it was correct, but then added a nonsensical rider about other people's truths which pretty much negated your admission on the first place.)

ABC101

Cabaal wrote: »

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:




I don't know, ask them.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

If I may point out.... it is not that the RC Church sees 'Homosexual' people as unnatural.

AFAIK.... the teaching of the RC Church sees it as a intrinsic disorder, i.e. the sexual orientation of the person.

It is the act of homosexuality which is seen as unnatural.

For the purpose of a honest debate it is important to give recognition to the RC Churchs perspective......and recognise the difference between the person.... and the act.

Anyway we are going OT now!

La Fenetre

ABC101 wrote: »

AFAIK.... the teaching of the RC Church sees it as a intrinsic disorder, i.e. the sexual orientation of the person.

No, again it sees the actual act as disordered, not sexual orientation. It also sees the acts of masturbation and heterosexual sex outside marriage as intrinsically disordered to the common good. But it's only homosexual sex that the media is interested in.

ABC101 wrote: »

For the purpose of a honest debate it is important to give recognition to the RC Churchs perspective......and recognise the difference between the person.... and the act.

Exactly, getting the facts of the situation correct is important, that does not mean you have to agree with their views.