What to tell kids when they ask?

Shrap

Help!!!! wrote: »

Or one that hates people of faith, who expects their children to follow their father/mother??

The only thing I taught my children to believe, is that their beliefs will be thoroughly questioned in my house. If they turn up to me telling me that the Spaghetti monster/Pineapple god is their go-to deity of choice, I will want to know why. I will want to see proof. I will want to see logical thinking. I will also never turn them away if they believe something that I find profoundly ridiculous, but so far, so good and I haven't had much to argue with them about.

I don't think atheism means what you think it means, tbh.

Edit: and ditto on what Looksee just said. There is nothing about faith that makes it hateful, nor is there anyone I hate for their beliefs alone. Their actions, yes. And I hate some beliefs. But I don't hate people of faith. You're doing us wrong mate.

TheQuietFella

looksee wrote: »

I am not quite following that, but I would point out that there is no connection between Santa and Christianity (apart from the very tenuous St Nicholas link, which most children would not be aware of).

But there is a connection between Christianity and Santa!

I don't think there are too many other faiths that have absorbed him into

their religious practices and customs as we have?

He now is more important than Christ, like the Cadbury's egg at Easter!

How many Christmas cards are sent with an image of Santa?

There are probably more images of Santa on display then that of Christ over

the festive season through various forms of advertising!

My 'Kellogg's Cornflakes Box' even has an image of a bearded man on

it and it isn't Jesus Christ!

Tasden

Shrap wrote: »

The only thing I taught my children to believe, is that their beliefs will be thoroughly questioned in my house. If they turn up to me telling me that the Spaghetti monster/Pineapple god is their go-to deity of choice, I will want to know why. I will want to see proof. I will want to see logical thinking. I will also never turn them away if they believe something that I find profoundly ridiculous, but so far, so good and I haven't had much to argue with them about.

I don't think atheism means what you think it means, tbh.

Is a belief not just that though? A belief. There is no proof so it seems a little unfair imo to expect proof from them. Their reasoning/logic/whatever else, sure, but proof?

Shrap

Tasden wrote: »

Is a belief not just that though? A belief. There is no proof so it seems a little unfair imo to expect proof from them. Their reasoning/logic/whatever else, sure, but proof?

The basis for my atheism is that there is no reason to have faith in something that isn't provable. I have told my kids that this is my logic. Occasionally we agree to differ, and I say that I would have trouble getting past that and agreeing with a belief without evidence.

And no. I believe gravity exists, because there is evidence of gravity. Not all beliefs require faith. It's having faith in the absence of evidence that I have difficulty with, not that I would deny anyone their right to believe whatever the fcuk they like. But in my house, this will be questioned. Fair enough?

looksee

Maybe it's my imagination, or should I just go and get some sleep, but this discussion seems to have turned into a series of somewhat garbled circular arguments.

Shrap

looksee wrote: »

Maybe it's my imagination, or should I just go and get some sleep, but this discussion seems to have turned into a series of somewhat garbled circular arguments.

I guess that's what happens on a discussion forum when an intrinsically wrong notion pops up, ie. that an atheist is

one that hates people of faith, who expects their children to follow their father/mother

It's an instant derailer.

Tasden

Shrap wrote: »

The basis for my atheism is that there is no reason to have faith in something that isn't provable. I have told my kids that this is my logic. Occasionally we agree to differ, and I say that I would have trouble getting past that and agreeing with a belief without evidence.

And no. I believe gravity exists, because there is evidence of gravity. Not all beliefs require faith. It's having faith in the absence of evidence that I have difficulty with, not that I would deny anyone their right to believe whatever the fcuk they like. But in my house, this will be questioned. Fair enough?

Well yeah, I would question why my child would believe and would debate/argue points etc. but if she did believe (which she currently does) I wouldn't expect proof, when I know there is none, hence my own lack of belief.

Shrap

Tasden wrote: »

Well yeah, I would question why my child would believe and would debate/argue points etc. but if she did believe (which she currently does) I wouldn't expect proof, when I know there is none, hence my own lack of belief.

Well, I see what you're saying. I suppose the difference between what I meant and what you took me up to mean is that I require proof in order to believe in something and they know that is the case, not that I require them to give me proof for what they believe in. I may have worded it wrong in the first place

Still, like I said, they have accepted this as a logical way to think on things so thus far we've had little disagreement!

TheQuietFella

looksee wrote: »

I am not quite following that, but I would point out that there is no connection between Santa and Christianity (apart from the very tenuous St Nicholas link, which most children would not be aware of).

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I don't follow your logic, but I'll indulge you.

Santa is as much a "lie" as showing a kid a magic trick or the classic "got your nose" gag. There is no malice - all 100% harmless & temporary fantasy. Whereas religion is malicious & evil, for all of the reasons I listed on the previous page.

'You'll indulge me' Well aren't I blessed!

Religion is like all things in life, it isn't perfect and too many crooks

oops... cooks have spoiled the broth but I believe in Jesus Christ.

Religion is not malice or evil! There is quite an amount of good in this world

being done by many a faith and to tar them all with one sweep of a brush

is just not right.

Tasden

Shrap wrote: »

Well, I see what you're saying. I suppose the difference between what I meant and what you took me up to mean is that I require proof in order to believe in something and they know that is the case, not that I require them to give me proof for what they believe in. I may have worded it wrong in the first place

Still, like I said, they have accepted this as a logical way to think on things so thus far we've had little disagreement!

Oh right! That's grand so, just thought it was unfair to expect it of the kids like

TheQuietFella

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I hate religion & the pushers of it. A good person is a good person regardless - I hate the cult itself & what it teaches & what it stands for.

What then does it teach and what does it stand for?

Shrap

TheQuietFella wrote: »

There is quite an amount of good in this world

being done by many people of faith and to tar them all with one sweep of a brush.

I've added in words here, because I agree with you for the most part, but with the essential difference that I don't see that it is a "religion" that does good things, I see "people, religious or otherwise" doing good things. Name a religion that in and of itself (its organisation) does good things?

Shrap

Tasden wrote: »

Oh right! That's grand so, just thought it was unfair to expect it of the kids like

Like you said....can't expect proof when none has ever been provided, by anyone! Let alone a child!

TheQuietFella

Shrap wrote: »

I've added in words here, because I agree with you for the most part, but with the essential difference that I don't see that it is a "religion" that does good things, I see "people, religious or otherwise" doing good things. Name a religion that in and of itself (its organisation) does good things?

I'm not in any position to name any religious groups that do good because I

too have my doubts over the majority of them but people are part of a

religion they choose. That's an integral part of who they are!

It's like parentage, you try to set an example to your children in doing the

correct thing in life and religion is no different. We try to do the right thing

but it doesn't always work out that way!

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Jack - I can't say I disagree with you for the most part - you make valid points & argue well & respectfully (more respectfully than I do). But I didn't want to get into this long-winded circular discussion - my original post asked a simple question, which was answered. However, I have no choice of schools in my area or even surrounding areas - so saying "but your sent your kid to a catholic school" is pointless, when the logistics of everyday life like having to work and travel & pay bills & a mortgage dictate how far you can practically travel to a school drop-off & pickup, and still get into a job on time. It's a silly argument - if I had the choice of many non-denominational schools in my area, then your point might hold water - but I don't.

My point was that rather than with your dying breath you'll protect your child from that organisation, realistically you'll only go as far as is convenient for you, to protect your child from that organisation.

Like I said - I get it, and I'm not going to pass judgement on you for it, but actions - they tend to speak louder than words, and so if you're claiming that with your dying breath you'll protect your child from the organisation, well, does it not strike you as hypocritical at all that you have enrolled your child in a school where they are absorbing by osmosis the very ethos of that organisation?

Something very much "Do as I say, not as I do" about that, when you're calling other parents out for what you see as their hypocrisy?

I did what I could by politely opting her out of religion class, and the school obliged - the problem is with the system IMO, and hypocrites who go to mass just as much as me (i.e. nil) not opting their kids out and also marking themselves as RC on census forms.

I agree with you that the way the system is currently set up is the fundamental cause of the problem. I don't agree with you that other parents should have to do the same as you have chosen to do for your child. With all due respect, when you're calling other parents hypocrites, that's one bloody great beam you've got in your own eye there. They're not doing anything different than you're doing really, and you're not any better than they are.

And as far as my "rhetoric" on the RC church on the previous page, feel free to correct where Im wrong in any instance. It's not a discussion I'm necessarily looking for, but I only stated facts.

Truth be told Kenny, I'm long past entertaining that sort of empty rhetoric. I hear it almost all day, almost every day, and it goes over my head because I understand that it's coming from a place of utter frustration and exasperation. I'm not going to judge anyone for understandably frustrated utterances. I'll let them get it out of their system, and once that's done, we can get on with the business of working on a way to provide education for the children of parents who do not identify as Roman Catholic.

ABC101

I was going to enter into the discussion with hopefully something to offer.

My siblings are not religious, majority of my classmates were not religious, people in my class opted out of Religious education and a few other points.

I have asked people who are parents and have long ceased practicing religious devotion yet send their children to a school with a religious ethos why they would do that. Their answer was interesting.

So I thought I would have something to offer the discussion.

But then I came across Kenny's post which contains his opinion of "the Church"..and I thought it was unfair, very hurtful and offensive.

Once I saw that post...I thought there is no point in offering anything at all to the discussion.

Kenny Bania

ABC101 wrote: »

But then I came across Kenny's post which contains his opinion of "the Church"..and I thought it was unfair, very hurtful and offensive.

Once I saw that post...I thought there is no point in offering anything at all to the discussion.

Sorry I annoyed you with my facts. I'm open to correction on any of my statements. I've bullet pointed them for you:

• cult
• riddled with systematic abuse
• hides & moves around paedophiles
• abuses unmarried mothers
• buries babies in mass graves
• hates gays
• hates women
• endorses slavery
• denies contraception
• preaches against materialism whilst wearing Versace shoes & living in a palace full of gold
• lies about the origin of our species
• fundamentally full of dumb ideas like virgins being able to have babies & people rising from the dead

frostyjacks

If she chooses to believe in God, then that's her choice. Parents shouldn't be forcing their ideology upon their own children; we live in a free society the last time I checked.

clear thinking

frostyjacks wrote: »

If she chooses to believe in God, then that's her choice. Parents shouldn't be forcing their ideology upon their own children; we live in a free society the last time I checked.

Yet if she chooses to be gay the church will have a problem with that!

Kenny Bania

frostyjacks wrote: »

Parents shouldn't be forcing their ideology upon their own children; we live in a free society the last time I checked.

Try telling that to every single parent with a baptised child.

ABC101

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Sorry I annoyed you with my facts. I'm open to correction on any of my statements. I've bullet pointed them for you:

• cult
• riddled with systematic abuse
• hides & moves around paedophiles
• abuses unmarried mothers
• buries babies in mass graves
• hates gays
• hates women
• endorses slavery
• denies contraception
• preaches against materialism whilst wearing Versace shoes & living in a palace full of gold
• lies about the origin of our species
• fundamentally full of dumb ideas like virgins being able to have babies & people rising from the dead

Kenny....the point I'm trying to make is.....

If you really feel that strongly about the Church / believers etc....then attempting to have a discussion with you about belief / other perspectives of belief is not possible.

I'm sorry to say it Kenny but from my perspective .....You're too far gone man, you're just too far gone.

Kenny Bania

It's not a case of "feeling that strongly" - I stated facts. And for the 3rd time - correct me where I'm wrong.

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Sorry I annoyed you with my facts. I'm open to correction on any of my statements. I've bullet pointed them for you:

• cult
• riddled with systematic abuse
• hides & moves around paedophiles
• abuses unmarried mothers
• buries babies in mass graves
• hates gays
• hates women
• endorses slavery
• denies contraception
• preaches against materialism whilst wearing Versace shoes & living in a palace full of gold
• lies about the origin of our species
• fundamentally full of dumb ideas like virgins being able to have babies & people rising from the dead

Kenny you started the thread because you wanted to know what to tell your child when they ask about religion. I'd suggest you print off the above list and hand it to them. Then you can explain to your child why you still chose to enrol them in a school where they are exposed to such nonsense...

Because I sure as hell can't find any logical explanation for your actions if you claim the Church is that bad that with your dying breath you would protect your child from it, yet by your actions, you're placing them at the very front and centre of it!!

clear thinking

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Try telling that to every single parent with a baptised child.

Are you including the proselytizing baptisms that parents have to impose on their kids just to get a place in a state funded school?

Kenny Bania

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kenny you started the thread because you wanted to know what to tell your child when they ask about religion. I'd suggest you print off the above list and hand it to them. Then you can explain to your child why you still chose to enrol them in a school where they are exposed to such nonsense...

Because I sure as hell can't find any logical explanation for your actions if you claim the Church is that bad that with your dying breath you would protect your child from it, yet by your actions, you're placing them at the front and centre of it!!

Front and centre? They've never been to a church and they don't take part in religion classes. And I'm actively (as per this thread) curbing any small mentions of it that get through via osmosis in class. So how is that "front & centre"? They don't even know what a priest is. I think you have a different definition of "front & centre" than everyone else.

ABC101

Kenny Bania wrote: »

It's not a case of "feeling that strongly" - I stated facts. And for the 3rd time - correct me where I'm wrong.

Kenny you used the word 'hate' in another post above.

Is that not a strong feeling you hold?

One eyed Jack

clear thinking wrote: »

Yet if she chooses to be gay the church will have a problem with that!

Ehh...

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Front and centre? They've never been to a church and they don't take part in religion classes. And I'm actively (as per this thread) curbing any small mentions of it that get through via osmosis in class. So how is that "front & centre"? They don't even know what a priest is. I think you have a different definition of "front & centre" than everyone else.

You've enrolled your child in a school with a religious ethos! It doesn't get much more front and centre than that!

This is the whole point parents who do not wish to have their children educated in schools with a religious ethos are making, is that they're having to place their children in schools with a religious ethos, exposing them to that list you bulleted earlier.

ABC101

Right I'm off to bed.

Wish everybody here all the best, including Kenny and his daughter.

I might be back tomorrow?

haveringchick

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Front and centre? They've never been to a church and they don't take part in religion classes. And I'm actively (as per this thread) curbing any small mentions of it that get through via osmosis in class. So how is that "front & centre"? They don't even know what a priest is. I think you have a different definition of "front & centre" than everyone else.

I have no words
You've sent your child to be cared for daily in an institution you insist is riddled with paedophiles

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kenny you started the thread because you wanted to know what to tell your child when they ask about religion. I'd suggest you print off the above list and hand it to them. Then you can explain to your child why you still chose to enrol them in a school where they are exposed to such nonsense...

Because I sure as hell can't find any logical explanation for your actions if you claim the Church is that bad that with your dying breath you would protect your child from it, yet by your actions, you're placing them at the very front and centre of it!!

haveringchick wrote: »

I have no words
You've sent your child to be cared for daily in an institution you insist is riddled with paedophiles

Kenny has probably done so because, as has been said ad nausuem, there is no other choice. The RCC controls more than 90% of schools in this country. For many people the options are 1) send child to religious-run school and try to undo 'holy god' stuff at home 2) sell house and move to catchment area of non-religious school, possibly miles and miles away from where they work, hope they get in even though such schools are generally oversubscribed, spend entire life commuting 3) quit job to homeschool child, lose house because no money to pay mortgage because quit job, starve in ditch.

Now can we PLEASE stop asking why non-Catholics send their kids to catholic schools.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Now can we PLEASE stop asking why non-Catholics send their kids to catholic schools.

Unfortunately, it's a staple of the religious view of this issue:

1. An atheist finds that the only school that's convenient or will accept his/her kid(s) is controlled by the RCC
2. A religious person points out that this is hypocrisy.
3. The atheist points out that there's no choice because almost all of the schools are controlled by the RCC
4. Rinse and repeat from (2)

Thinking back about this issue as it's been discussed here at least, I think almost every religious person appears to believe that if you've selected a school controlled by a religious organization, then you should be happy to have your kid(s) indoctrinated into that religion. And while I think a few have probably accepted that the other way around would be intolerable for them, the discussion doesn't go beyond "well, why don't you build some schools then?"

It's as good a demonstration as any that religions make people less altruistic.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Kenny has probably done so because, as has been said ad nausuem, there is no other choice. The RCC controls more than 90% of schools in this country. For many people the options are 1) send child to religious-run school and try to undo 'holy god' stuff at home 2) sell house and move to catchment area of non-religious school, possibly miles and miles away from where they work, hope they get in even though such schools are generally oversubscribed, spend entire life commuting 3) quit job to homeschool child, lose house because no money to pay mortgage because quit job, starve in ditch.

Now can we PLEASE stop asking why non-Catholics send their kids to catholic schools.

Sure, I have no problem with that as I said, I understand it completely. What I don't understand is why some non-Catholics hold other people responsible for their lifestyle choices, up to and including the point where they will appropriate the suffering of other people throughout history to further their own agenda, calling for tolerance and understanding for themselves, while showing none to other people who don't think the same way they do.

You're right, it is tiresome to have to listen to that empty rhetoric all the time as if I'm supposed to feel guilty or responsible for crimes perpetrated by other people.

I'm all for a bit of self-flagellation, but even I have my limits as to how much crap I'll take from other people who can't see past the end of their own noses IME.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure, I have no problem with that as I said, I understand it completely. What I don't understand is why some non-Catholics hold other people responsible for their lifestyle choices, up to and including the point where they will appropriate the suffering of other people throughout history to further their own agenda, calling for tolerance and understanding for themselves, while showing none to other people who don't think the same way they do.

You're right, it is tiresome to have to listen to that empty rhetoric all the time as if I'm supposed to feel guilty or responsible for crimes perpetrated by other people.

I'm all for a bit of self-flagellation, but even I have my limits as to how much crap I'll take from other people who can't see past the end of their own noses IME.

I am not sure what is being said here. Are you saying that non-Catholics make a life style choice not to be Catholic, then blame the Catholics for the issues that arise in terms of schooling etc? Or am I misreading you?

What does the

they will appropriate the suffering of other people throughout history to further their own agenda

bit mean?

And

crap I'll take from other people who can't see past the end of their own noses IME.

Who can't see past the end of their own noses?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

I am not sure what is being said here. Are you saying that non-Catholics make a life style choice not to be Catholic, then blame the Catholics for the issues that arise in terms of schooling etc? Or am I misreading you?

I should probably have been clearer alright. The lifestyle choices I'm referring to are people's choice to have children in the first place, in a country where they are more than aware of the education system in Ireland, yet every year it's the same thing - "I've had to put my child in a religious ethos school and I don't like it!". Well it's not like they had four years to prepare for that eventuality.

Even at that, to then decry the fact that other parents are "hypocrites" because they enrol their children in a school with a religious ethos the same as the OP has done, you really have to wonder why the OP would show no understanding for those parents who may be in the same situation!

Passing judgement upon other people isn't how a person takes responsibility for their own actions.

What does the bit mean?

This kind of craic -

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Sorry I annoyed you with my facts. I'm open to correction on any of my statements. I've bullet pointed them for you:

• cult
• riddled with systematic abuse
• hides & moves around paedophiles
• abuses unmarried mothers
• buries babies in mass graves
• hates gays
• hates women
• endorses slavery
• denies contraception
• preaches against materialism whilst wearing Versace shoes & living in a palace full of gold
• lies about the origin of our species
• fundamentally full of dumb ideas like virgins being able to have babies & people rising from the dead

Somehow I doubt Kenny has ever experienced much of what's been listed above, but he'll use the suffering of other people to make his point about his reasons for objecting to the existence of schools that have a Catholic ethos, while at the same time placing his children in an environment which fosters the ethos he so vehemently opposes.

And Who can't see past the end of their own noses?

People who expect tolerance amd understanding for themselves, yet show none to other people who don't think the same way they do. How they expect to be taken seriously is anyone's guess really.

Would you be likely or inclined to take someone seriously if they gave you the impression that they feel they are under no obligation to take you seriously?

Help!!!!

looksee wrote: »

Once more, with feeling.

Atheists do not, as a general rule, hate people of faith, or indeed anyone. They may hate the organisations that administer/supervise the faith, they may feel strongly about some of the people who do the administering and supervising, but they do not hate the church goers. It is quite possible to believe people are mistaken without hating them.

Sorry I did not mean all atheists hate people of faith, the post was directed at the OP. I tried to show the OP that how they are pushing their beliefs on the child is the same as the church has done for years. The tone of the posts by the OP calling people hypocrites because they don't go to church etc show there is a level of hate towards people of faith. You do not need to go to church to be a christian

looksee

Help!!!! wrote: »

Sorry I did not mean all atheists hate people of faith, the post was directed at the OP. I tried to show the OP that how they are pushing their beliefs on the child is the same as the church has done for years. The tone of the posts by the OP calling people hypocrites because they don't go to church etc show there is a level of hate towards people of faith. You do not need to go to church to be a christian

I don't necessarily agree with all the op's arguments but regarding the above highlighted quote - can you not see that the op is not so much pushing beliefs as trying to cancel out unwanted beliefs?

If the child were not being exposed to ideas that the op does not agree with there would be nothing to 'push'. The op could do his form of child rearing and other people could do theirs. Obviously each side believes the other to be wrong, but one side does not get any real choice in the matter.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The lifestyle choices I'm referring to are people's choice to have children in the first place, in a country where they are more than aware of the education system in Ireland, yet every year it's the same thing - "I've had to put my child in a religious ethos school and I don't like it!". Well it's not like they had four years to prepare for that eventuality.

So you are seriously suggesting that, in order to continue the Catholic way of life and education system in this country, people who do not toe the Catholic line should not have families? Really?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

So you are seriously suggesting that, in order to continue the Catholic way of life and education system in this country, people who do not toe the Catholic line should not have families? Really?

I don't know how you managed to deduce that from what I wrote at all in fairness. I made no declarations about continuing any Catholic way of life nor education system in this country. If anything, I've suggested the opposite - that it cannot continue as it currently stands, because Ireland is becoming a more and more multicultural society.

People are going to have families, and those families need to be accommodated, and clearly schools with a Catholic ethos aren't suitable for their needs. The point is that schools with a Catholic ethos aren't going anywhere, and so it is incumbent upon the State to make suitable provisions for those parents who do not want to send their children to schools with a Catholic ethos. One of the issues the State needs to address is not the lack of places in unsuitable schools, but the lack of suitable schools.

That likely won't happen in yours or my lifetime, and it certainly won't happen a few months after enrolment when a parent realises just what their child is being exposed to in a school with a Catholic ethos.

Help!!!!

looksee wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with all the op's arguments but regarding the above highlighted quote - can you not see that the op is not so much pushing beliefs as trying to cancel out unwanted beliefs?

If the child were not being exposed to ideas that the op does not agree with there would be nothing to 'push'. The op could do his form of child rearing and other people could do theirs. Obviously each side believes the other to be wrong, but one side does not get any real choice in the matter.

Look I am not religious, I do not go mass. I will enter a church sometimes to have a moment to myself. Do I think religions have caused problems? Yes I do
The OP calls other parents hypocritical for not taking their children out of religious classes because they are not " practicing " by going to mass. Who says these families don't pray together at home?
We all know the RCC run most of the schools in the country so if people don't like it why not do as they do in other countries & start their own schools? Surely if there are so many non religious people in Ireland it would be easy to come together & start one up in your area? The Muslims seem to be able to do this with ease in countries where there are many of them.
Some people just winge about the religious schools in the country but when they need to educate their children, their first in the queue for enrollment

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I should probably have been clearer alright. The lifestyle choices I'm referring to are people's choice to have children in the first place, in a country where they are more than aware of the education system in Ireland, yet every year it's the same thing - "I've had to put my child in a religious ethos school and I don't like it!"

This has to be one of the meanest and most offensive posts I've ever had the misfortune of seeing in this forum.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know how you managed to deduce that from what I wrote at all in fairness. I made no declarations about continuing any Catholic way of life nor education system in this country. If anything, I've suggested the opposite - that it cannot continue as it currently stands, because Ireland is becoming a more and more multicultural society.

People are going to have families, and those families need to be accommodated, and clearly schools with a Catholic ethos aren't suitable for their needs. The point is that schools with a Catholic ethos aren't going anywhere, and so it is incumbent upon the State to make suitable provisions for those parents who do not want to send their children to schools with a Catholic ethos. One of the issues the State needs to address is not the lack of places in unsuitable schools, but the lack of suitable schools.

That likely won't happen in yours or my lifetime, and it certainly won't happen a few months after enrolment when a parent realises just what their child is being exposed to in a school with a Catholic ethos.

I don't see how this is not a very clear statement:

I should probably have been clearer alright. The lifestyle choices I'm referring to are people's choice to have children in the first place, in a country where they are more than aware of the education system in Ireland, yet every year it's the same thing - "I've had to put my child in a religious ethos school and I don't like it!". Well it's not like they had four years to prepare for that eventuality.

What preparation were they supposed to make, assuming they were irresponsible enough to have children?

MikeSD

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Hi all,

I have a kid in her first year in a catholic primary school. She has been opted out of religion class amicably with the teacher & principal - no issues. She does not do the religion book - she does a colouring book instead. So all agreeable there.

However, she is obviously picking up some things through osmosis. I'm not worried about her being indoctrinated, as it's simply not a part of her life or her world outside of overhearing a few things in school - but when she makes (what she considers) throwaway comments to me like "god made all of us" - what exactly should I respond with?
I don't want to get technical, and say we're all star dust, etc - but I do want to correct her as much as appropriate. At the same time, I don't want her shouting out in class that "my daddy says there is no god", etc.

Suggestions? It's a delicate balance. I want to correct any misconceptions she may pick up, but also don't want her correcting other people in the classroom environment.

Thanks in advance.

If you feel so strongly about all this, why did you send your children to a Catholic school?
They're likely going to feel like outsiders in this school as they're treated differently to all the other pupils.

Help!!!!

looksee wrote: »

I don't see how this is not a very clear statement:



What preparation were they supposed to make, assuming they were irresponsible enough to have children?

Well not act all surprised that theres religion classes being taught in a religious run school would be a start

looksee

MikeSD wrote: »

If you feel so strongly about all this, why did you send your children to a Catholic school?
They're likely going to feel like outsiders in this school as they're treated differently to all the other pupils.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Well not act all surprised that theres religion classes being taught in a religious run school would be a start

To save us going round in any more circles, do you think you could catch up on the discussion before asking any more questions?

MikeSD

looksee wrote: »

To save us going round in any more circles, do you think you could catch up on the discussion before asking any more questions?

I'd rather not spend ages reading pages of a thread.

Help!!!!

looksee wrote: »

To save us going round in any more circles, do you think you could catch up on the discussion before asking any more questions?

Maybe you should take your own advise & read the post that my response was for

Tell them the truth. That you don't believe in God (Or that God). That there's nothing wrong in believing in different Gods. Like there's nothing wrong with being vegetarian. Keep it light until the Confirmation fun starts!

I firmly believe that all religion should be taken out of schools. Let the Parents be their Religious Instruction teachers and free up the time for other subjects. It's amazing how much time is given over to Religion, especially in Communion or Confirmation classes. A whole new language could be learned in that time.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

What preparation were they supposed to make, assuming they were irresponsible enough to have children?

That's not an assumption I made? If you want to suggest that people are irresponsible for having children, then you take responsibility for that assumption, rather than trying to put it on me.

It's hardly controversial to suggest that if people choose to have children, then their children are their responsibility, and their children's welfare is their responsibility, and if they have four years to prepare for sending their children to school, what they do in that time to prepare for that day is also their responsibility.

I will absolutely go out of my way to help people who I see trying to help themselves, but why should I be willing to give that same amount of effort to someone who I don't believe is doing anything to help themselves, only complaining about "the unfairness of it all", because now they're personally affected by an issue and they expect everyone else to drop what they're doing and change what they're doing, to suit that person who refers to them as insane, and their children are massive dorks, and they're all hypocrites anyway.

Like I asked earlier - would you be willing to go out of your way for a person that thought that little of you?

Only so many times a person can turn the other cheek before they say "now you're just taking the piss, and there are people more needy than you whom I could be helping rather than wasting my time here!".

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not an assumption I made? If you want to suggest that people are irresponsible for having children, then you take responsibility for that assumption, rather than trying to put it on me.

It's hardly controversial to suggest that if people choose to have children, then their children are their responsibility, and their children's welfare is their responsibility, and if they have four years to prepare for sending their children to school, what they do in that time to prepare for that day is also their responsibility.

I will absolutely go out of my way to help people who I see trying to help themselves, but why should I be willing to give that same amount of effort to someone who I don't believe is doing anything to help themselves, only complaining about "the unfairness of it all", because now they're personally affected by an issue and they expect everyone else to drop what they're doing and change what they're doing, to suit that person who refers to them as insane, and their children are massive dorks, and they're all hypocrites anyway.

Like I asked earlier - would you be willing to go out of your way for a person that thought that little of you?

Only so many times a person can turn the other cheek before they say "now you're just taking the piss, and there are people more needy than you whom I could be helping rather than wasting my time here!".

I don't even...are we on the same thread?

The lifestyle choices I'm referring to are people's choice to have children in the first place, in a country where they are more than aware of the education system in Ireland,

What are you saying here if not that people should not have children in a country where they do not agree with the education system? And therefore to have children would be irresponsible.