Mary says YES!

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

The fact that Mary still claims she's a virgin only adds to him being cuckolded and being a bit dim.

Tut tut. Libelling a woman's virtue like that, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Tut tut. Libelling a woman's virtue like that, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Going straight to libel? Hello Iona! Is it you David? Or Ben? :P

Pherekydes

pauldla wrote: »

No, but he was told about it afterwards, according to Matthew.

Does anyone ever wonder how Matthew found out about it?

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Going straight to libel? Hello Iona! Is it you David? Or Ben? :P

If you were only RTE I'm sure Mary could look forward to a comfortable settlement.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Faith formation as part of religious education remember, as distinct from imparting religious beliefs as fact.

Tiresome word-lawyering you've been indulging in for pages and pages.
'Faith formation' (I detest the term) in primary schools is absolutely NOT anything to do with objective discussion, it is presenting religious beliefs as facts not to be questioned.

A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected.

That is precisely how religion was taught in school to me - not to be questioned unless you fancied a belt.

Are six-year-olds (and it actually starts in junior infants - or in one of my children's case, ECCE :mad: ) in RC schools in Ireland taught about competing god claims, about atheism, agnosticism and secularism and then permitted to discuss the question and make up their own minds?

No, they are presented with one version of one god story and expected to believe it. They are taught it as fact as much as they are taught that rain falls from clouds. Substitute the word 'truth' if you insist but it really makes no difference whatsoever.

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Tiresome word-lawyering you've been indulging in for pages and pages.
'Faith formation' (I detest the term) in primary schools is absolutely NOT anything to do with objective discussion, it is presenting religious beliefs as facts not to be questioned.

Totally. It seems a truth becomes a fact (or vice versa) for exactly as long as you need it to be to make a supposed point about the innocence of the RCC.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

If you were only RTE I'm sure Mary could look forward to a comfortable settlement.

She already has someone else paying for her and her son. Greedy bitch.

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

Can he be said to have been cuckolded at all if Mary remained a virgin?

Indeed, talk about having your cake and eating it! But that's always the way, one rule for the higher-ups and another for the rest of us.

Fleawuss

The flood of pedantry and side stepping continues. Cut to the chase: why on earth does any state continue to indulge a group who send out messages like this, no doubt an accurate reflection of their beliefs with their official recognition, which are so clearly at odds with the message that the state has realised children need to hear. The thread is useful for ventilating the problem and showing that the RCC is really an archaic relic which sits very uncomfortably with the best of modern Ireland. And the time is close when its anachronistic grip on primary education will have to be set aside.

frostyjacks

What are ye all proposing here? A book-burning? That's the direction you're heading in - deciding when and where people can learn about their culture and religion.

One eyed Jack

frostyjacks wrote: »

What are ye all proposing here? A book-burning? That's the direction you're heading in - deciding when and where people can learn about their culture and religion.

The strangest thing for me here is that the same people complaining about the risk of six year olds not understanding the story, are the same people that often proudly proclaim how they knew from an early age that "the whole religion thing is a crock"...

Yet they wouldn't give today's six year olds the same credit. Is the suggestion there that six year olds today aren't as intelligent as they were when they were six? Does it not defeat the purpose of their plans for a secular Ireland if they "save" all the "stupid" children, who become the next generation of leaders?

Someone hasn't thought this through very well...

Mark Tapley

There is a bit of a smell of bullshìt from the jacks.

One eyed Jack

Mark Tapley wrote: »

There is a bit of a smell of bullshìt from the jacks.

Touché

I have to give you credit for that one, at least that made me laugh out loud :pac:

Have you ever thought of writing articles for Atheist Ireland? They could do with more writers with a razor sharp wit like that

Hotblack Desiato

frostyjacks wrote: »

What are ye all proposing here? A book-burning? That's the direction you're heading in - deciding when and where people can learn about their culture and religion.

If you want a little religious fiefdom with no state oversight then fire away but don't take any state funding and don't call it a school.

The state has a duty to ensure that schools, publicly funded or private, meet the required standards of curriculum and child protection.

The problem I have with this text is not that it seems creepy to an adult eye, or that an adult can read rather a lot of subtext into it.

My problem with it is that it undermines the Stay Safe message taught in schools.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The strangest thing for me here is that the same people complaining about the risk of six year olds not understanding the story, are the same people that often proudly proclaim how they knew from an early age that "the whole religion thing is a crock"...

Did I know it to be false at age six - no.
Did I think there was something rather funny-peculiar about it - yes.
Did I have any enthusiasm for it - no.
Would I have avoided it if offered a choice - probably.
Do I think that young children should be protected from indoctrination at school - absolutely.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you want a little religious fiefdom with no state oversight then fire away but don't take any state funding and don't call it a school.

The state has a duty to ensure that schools, publicly funded or private, meet the required standards of curriculum and child protection.

The problem I have with this text is not that it seems creepy to an adult eye, or that an adult can read rather a lot of subtext into it.

My problem with it is that it undermines the Stay Safe message taught in schools.

Did I know it to be false at age six - no.
Did I think there was something rather funny-peculiar about it - yes.
Did I have any enthusiasm for it - no.
Would I have avoided it if offered a choice - probably.
Do I think that young children should be protected from indoctrination at school - absolutely.

All of this, but especially the bit in bold.

Dan_Solo

frostyjacks wrote: »

What are ye all proposing here? A book-burning? That's the direction you're heading in - deciding when and where people can learn about their culture and religion.

How this this word get into your sentence? You meant "a" presumably? How can it be "their" religion if it has to be taught to them?

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The strangest thing for me here is that the same people complaining about the risk of six year olds not understanding the story, are the same people that often proudly proclaim how they knew from an early age that "the whole religion thing is a crock"...

What's even stranger is that you haven't quoted this thing that people apparently "often" say from anywhere here on boards. Almost as if you're just making stuff up and hoping nobody will notice?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you want a little religious fiefdom with no state oversight then fire away but don't take any state funding and don't call it a school.

The state has a duty to ensure that schools, publicly funded or private, meet the required standards of curriculum and child protection.

The problem I have with this text is not that it seems creepy to an adult eye, or that an adult can read rather a lot of subtext into it.

My problem with it is that it undermines the Stay Safe message taught in schools.

It really doesn't. For your earlier objections to word lawyering, that's exactly what the writer of that article in the OP has done to present a completely different meaning to the story, one that doesn't exist unless you are indeed an adult looking to construct sexual impropriety from an innocent lesson tailored to a six year old child's understanding.

Did I know it to be false at age six - no.
Did I think there was something rather funny-peculiar about it - yes.
Did I have any enthusiasm for it - no.
Would I have avoided it if offered a choice - probably.

Those are all good points in their own right, and every reason to campaign for secular education in Ireland, and they could form the basis for aims I could certainly get behind.

Do I think that young children should be protected from indoctrination at school - absolutely.

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

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

The last thing they need is a site calling itself "teach, don't preach", preaching to them that they are endangering their own children, when those parents do not feel they are endangering their children. The organisation behind the site, Atheist Ireland, are using fear and scaremongering to promote their own ideology. How is that message any different from the message they claim to be counteracting?

It isn't, and IMO it's the wrong way to go about teaching people what a secular Ireland means, because it's sending a very confusing message to adults who do not understand what secular education in a secular society actually means.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It really doesn't. For your earlier objections to word lawyering, that's exactly what the writer of that article in the OP has done to present a completely different meaning to the story, one that doesn't exist unless you are indeed an adult looking to construct sexual impropriety from an innocent lesson tailored to a six year old child's understanding.

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

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What's even stranger is that you haven't quoted this thing that people apparently "often" say from anywhere here on boards. Almost as if you're just making stuff up and hoping nobody will notice?

I'll make you a deal?

I'll produce my evidence using the search function on this site, when you produce your evidence for your claims that children are being taught religious beliefs as fact in Irish religious ethos primary schools, in the same way as creationist beliefs are actually taught as fact in public schools in the US.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll make you a deal?

I'll produce my evidence using the search function on this site, when you produce your evidence for your claims that children are being taught religious beliefs as fact in Irish religious ethos primary schools, in the same way as creationist beliefs are actually taught as fact in public schools in the US.

LOL!! Come back with those goalposts!

Tasden

Taking sexual abuse out of the equation and focusing purely on the message of the story- mary was scared, uncertain and didn't really understand what was going on. God told her to trust him, so despite her uncertainty this is what she did, she trusted this random stranger angel because he said he was there on behalf of god (lets not forget the whole "even if a stranger says they know your mam it doesn't always mean they should be trusted" lesson most of us also give our kids) and so mary did something that she didn't feel comfortable or certain about. But we should thank and praise mary for this? How is that not confusing for children? Nothing sexual about it. But still COMPLETELY at odds with what we are constantly drilling into our children about stranger danger/not doing anything we're uncomfortable with/standing up for yourself when feeling uncomfortable with a situation (any kind, not just abuse) etc.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

LOL!! Come back with those goalposts!

volchista I'll be perfectly honest with you - I have very little interest in entertaining your claims of moving goalposts when you make insinuations that I have some ulterior motives for being dishonest with regard to child safety.

I would tend to view anyone who would be so desperate as to make those kind of insinuations as an ignorant scumbag. I'm not saying you're an ignorant scumbag, but as you say yourself - sometimes these things need saying.

frostyjacks

The stranger danger argument would only work if it was a stranger that appeared to Mary. It wasn't; it was God. Even a six year old would point that out. They're not as stupid as people here seem to think.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The stranger danger argument would only work if it was a stranger that appeared to Mary. It wasn't; it was God. Even a six year old would point that out. They're not as stupid as people here seem to think.

I thought it was an angel?

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll make you a deal?

I'll produce my evidence using the search function on this site, when you produce your evidence for your claims that children are being taught religious beliefs as fact in Irish religious ethos primary schools, in the same way as creationist beliefs are actually taught as fact in public schools in the US.

As a matter of interest, could you list the other subjects that are not taught as facts? You know, maybe English and Maths are taught as things that may or may not exist, but sure, learn them anyway and see what happens?

Dan_Solo

lazygal wrote: »

I thought it was an angel?

They know jack sh1t about their bible anyway... back to high infants for you two!

The Randy Riverbeast

lazygal wrote: »

I thought it was an angel?

Well a servant of God then, we all know how you can trust them.

La Fenetre

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As a matter of interest, could you list the other subjects that are not taught as facts?

The very probable existence of alien life out there for one. No scientific evidence for or against it yet either.

Dan_Solo

La Fenetre wrote: »

The very probable existence of alien life out there for one. No scientific evidence for or against it yet either.

That's a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum?
Wanna read the question again...

Fleawuss

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you want a little religious fiefdom with no state oversight then fire away but don't take any state funding and don't call it a school.

The state has a duty to ensure that schools, publicly funded or private, meet the required standards of curriculum and child protection.

The problem I have with this text is not that it seems creepy to an adult eye, or that an adult can read rather a lot of subtext into it.

My problem with it is that it undermines the Stay Safe message taught in schools.




Did I know it to be false at age six - no.
Did I think there was something rather funny-peculiar about it - yes.
Did I have any enthusiasm for it - no.
Would I have avoided it if offered a choice - probably.
Do I think that young children should be protected from indoctrination at school - absolutely.

Undermining the stay safe programme. Nail on the head. Mixed messages from opposed visions of women and authority. Crucially the problem is revealed here to be fundamental; the RCC is rooted in cultural norms from 3000 to 2000 years ago. Angels telling virgins that god the spirit wants to make them pregnant with God the son is a story for the credulous. It has nothing of value to say today.

La Fenetre

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum?
Wanna read the question again...

I learned that a national school many many years ago, including a bit of astronomy too I might add. Great days.

Fleawuss

frostyjacks wrote: »

The stranger danger argument would only work if it was a stranger that appeared to Mary. It wasn't; it was God. Even a six year old would point that out. They're not as stupid as people here seem to think.

How on earth would Mary the Jewish virgin recognize God? Had she met him before? Given that Jews weren't supposed to even pronounce the name of Yahweh how would she recognize him? With the eyes of faith of course.

Such is the logic of the religious mindset.

Anyway it was an aggelos she met. Not God. He came along later.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As a matter of interest, could you list the other subjects that are not taught as facts? You know, maybe English and Maths are taught as things that may or may not exist, but sure, learn them anyway and see what happens?

Are languages taught as facts now? Perhaps the idea that it is, is why good communication skills appear to be a difficult concept for many adults. I know many children who are multilingual, I can't say the same for many Irish adults who struggle with their own native tongue.

Math does not exist, it is also a conceptual and cognitive process, and children are expected to be able to come up with answers for themselves using arithmetic and logic.

There are numerous subjects are not taught as fact in Irish schools. The most apparent subject that is taught as fact is history which, ironically enough, has always tended towards only giving one side of the story. Quite apt really that you should ask with the 1916 Rising currently a hot topic being discussed in Irish schools up and down the country. Depending upon whom you ask, the leaders of the Rising were either martyrs, or terrorists.

I really think in the greater scheme of Irish education, especially now that Irish schools are becoming more and more multicultural, there are bigger issues than the text of a story and trying to impart that story to children of parents who identify as Roman Catholic, but whose first language is not English.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum?
Wanna read the question again...

Yes Dan, science is a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum -


http://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Social-Environmental-and-Scientific-Education/Science


It has been for the last 16 years, since 1999.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes Dan, science is a subject on the Irish primary school curriculum -


http://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Social-Environmental-and-Scientific-Education/Science


It has been for the last 16 years, since 1999.

Click... looking for some mention of likelihood of alien life... nope... didn't think so Jack.
Wanna try again?

Fleawuss

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Click... looking for some mention of likelihood of alien life... nope... didn't think so Jack.
Wanna try again?

Of course the child the Virgin Mary had could be classed as half alien. I wonder could we test some communion bread for alien dna? That would be a real story!

La Fenetre

Technically, anything not of this earth is extra terrestrial, so yes the Angels and God already are.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Click... looking for some mention of likelihood of alien life... nope... didn't think so Jack.
Wanna try again?

Not particularly, seeing as you appear to be unable to process any information that isn't literal.

I do wonder though, you're prepared to accept anecdotal evidence that suits you, such as anecdotes that suit your belief that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools, and yet, when presented with anecdotal evidence which contradicts your beliefs about what is taught in other subjects that you don't seem to have been aware were even on the curriculum, you reject that evidence out of hand because it doesn't suit you -

La Fenetre wrote: »

I learned that a national school many many years ago, including a bit of astronomy too I might add. Great days.

Dan you've often mocked people who identify as religious for their apparently experiencing cognitive dissonance. You appear to be oblivious to your own cognitive dissonance in this instance. I guess like so many people who are oblivious to so much - what you don't see, doesn't appear to trouble you.

You've also often mocked people who identify as religious for being of apparently lesser intelligence than those people who do not identify as religious. If being comfortable with ignoring evidence you appear to be wilfully blind to (in order to resolve the discomfort of cognitive dissonance), is a sign of higher intelligence, I think we're going to have to come up with new standards by which we quantify and measure intelligence.

You appear to have rendered the current standards meaningless.

Fleawuss

La Fenetre wrote: »

Technically, anything not of this earth is extra terrestrial, so yes the Angels and God already are.

Bring along one for testing then.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not particularly, seeing as you appear to be unable to process any information that isn't literal.

I do wonder though, you're prepared to accept anecdotal evidence that suits you, such as anecdotes that suit your belief that religious beliefs are taught as fact in Irish primary schools, and yet, when presented with anecdotal evidence which contradicts your beliefs about what is taught in other subjects that you don't seem to have been aware were even on the curriculum, you reject that evidence out of hand because it doesn't suit you -





You've often mocked people who identify as religious for their apparently experiencing cognitive dissonance. You appear to be oblivious to your own cognitive dissonance in this instance. I guess like so many people who are oblivious to so much - what you don't see, doesn't appear to trouble you.

You've also often mocked people who identify as religious for being of apparently lesser intelligence than those people who do not identify as religious. If being comfortable with ignoring evidence you appear to be wilfully blind to (in order to resolve the discomfort of cognitive dissonance), is a sign of higher intelligence, I think we're going to have to come up with new standards by which we quantify and measure intelligence.

You appear to have rendered the current standards meaningless.

This is laughably transparent linguistic sleight of hand: fact here, truth over there and ta da you claim I'm contradicting myself somehow.
Utter tripe.
I'm sorry you're so upset you couldn't answer the question. And quite a lack of self awareness issue there with your whining about "standards". Everything is truth now. Apparently facts don't exist at all! How entertaining! Pity it's garbage.

La Fenetre

Fleawuss wrote: »

Bring along one for testing then.

There is no evidence for alien life as of yet, that doesn't mean there is none.

Out of interest, what scientific test would you carry out to prove an angel or God were not just very advanced powerful aliens ?

Fleawuss

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is laughably transparent linguistic sleight of hand: fact here, truth over there and ta da

For people trained in theology or philosophy of religion or apologetics like many older clerics this is an occupational hazard. Religion cannot do other than pull tricks like this. Impressive to the credulous but once people ask "what are they actually talking about in reality" the smoke clears and well, there's nothing there. Cue post about "reality" i.e. The philosophical contortions about the word. Ta da dum.

Fleawuss

La Fenetre wrote: »

There is no evidence for alien life as of yet, that doesn't mean there is none.

Out of interest, what scientific test would you carry out to prove an angel or God were not just very advanced powerful aliens ?

Bring along an angel or God and we'll make a start.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

There is no evidence for alien life as of yet, that doesn't mean there is none.

Out of interest, what scientific test would you carry out to prove an angel or God were not just very advanced powerful aliens ?

That's something along the lines of the Scientology theory isn't it? Which, with hilarious irony, many Christians consider to be a crazy cult.

La Fenetre

Fleawuss wrote: »

Bring along an angel or God and we'll make a start.

No idea then, I see.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

That's something along the lines of the Scientology theory isn't it? Which, with hilarious irony, many Christians consider to be a crazy cult.

Nothing to do with Scientology. Scripture says God is an infinite spirit. There may be billions of types of extraterrestrial life, who knows, physical, non physical/spiritual but only one infinite God.

Fleawuss

La Fenetre wrote: »

No idea then, I see.

You haven't got one then. Just pretending. Surprise.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Nothing to do with Scientology. Scripture says God is an infinite spirit. There may be billions of types of extraterrestrial life, who knows, physical, non physical/spiritual but only one infinite God.

There may well be billions of extra terrestrial species! There also may be some sort of a higher power (god if you like). But there is no proof of the existence of one is there? And even in the extremely unlikely event that there was some higher power discovered and it's existence proven, the chances of it being the same god that is worshiped by any of the worlds organised religions, are less than zero!

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There may well be billions of extra terrestrial species! There also may be some sort of a higher power (god if you like). But there is no proof of the existence of one is there? And even if there was some higher power, the chances of it being the god that is worshiped by any of the worlds organised religions are zero!

You are correct, there is not one cintillea of evidence of alien life . . . yet, but that does not mean it exists, or does not exist. Some have the belief it does, and NASA alone spends billions on finding even a microbe to start with. I wouldn't say it's zero, if Christ was telling the truth. Time will tell I suppose. In the meantime, let's stay chilled and enjoy the universe !