What to tell kids when they ask?

The Bishop Basher

eviltwin wrote: »

When your vulnerable?

OK Gotcha and agreed.

RainyDay

lazygal wrote: »

Really? This is discrimination? :rolleyes::eek::D

Yes, there is plenty of discrimination against non-Catholics in Catholic schools - some recent examples;

- We're going to Mass tomorrow. If you don't go to Mass, don't come in until 10am (huge impact on working parents)
- We're having our school concert next week. It is entirely based around the Nativity story, so if you're not Catholic (or prepared to pretend to be Catholic), you don't get to take part in this major celebratory event on the school calendar.
- We're holding a reception in the school after the Communion/Confirmation mass for those to took part in the sacrament. If you're not Catholic, or prepared to pretend to be Catholic, you won't get an invite, so your child and family can not share in the celebration of this event with their peers.

Swanner wrote: »

You're incorrect.

She didn't get from me or her mother. She may have had some influence from other family members and school but not enough for it to be a major factor.

We noticed early on that she loved asking probing questions about the nature of things. Same way all kids ask questions but she just always seemed to gravitate towards some kind of spirituality. Obviously age appropriate. We responded and gave her all the facts we had to give her. Again age appropriate.

At risk of being slightly pedantic, if you were talking to her about religion and faith, you weren't giving her facts - because there are no facts when it comes to religion. But seriously, she didn't lick it off the stones - she got it from her parents or those around her. She didn't just come up with it herself.

looksee

Huntergonzo, I will not copy your last post as I hope it will be removed. It is crude and ignorant and while I describe myself as an atheist it does not mean I identify with your language or ideas.

Huntergonzo

looksee wrote: »

Huntergonzo, I will not copy your last post as I hope it will be removed. It is crude and ignorant and while I describe myself as an atheist it does not mean I identify with your language or ideas.

Haha, jokin' obviously lad, it was very purposely crude and ignorant and why take it so seriously anyway, happy new year.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, there is plenty of discrimination against non-Catholics in Catholic schools - some recent examples;

- We're going to Mass tomorrow. If you don't go to Mass, don't come in until 10am (huge impact on working parents)
- We're having our school concert next week. It is entirely based around the Nativity story, so if you're not Catholic (or prepared to pretend to be Catholic), you don't get to take part in this major celebratory event on the school calendar.
- We're holding a reception in the school after the Communion/Confirmation mass for those to took part in the sacrament. If you're not Catholic, or prepared to pretend to be Catholic, you won't get an invite, so your child and family can not share in the celebration of this event with their peers..

But you've enrolled your child in a Roman Catholic school. I'm really struggling to understand what your expectations were ?

If I sent my children to a Roman Catholic school I would expect all of the above. So I didn't send them to one ??

RainyDay wrote: »

At risk of being slightly pedantic, if you were talking to her about religion and faith, you weren't giving her facts - because there are no facts when it comes to religion. But seriously, she didn't lick it off the stones - she got it from her parents or those around her. She didn't just come up with it herself.

I can think of countless facts about religion.

Maybe our definitions of religion differ ?

And I think our definitions of faith differ too.

Faith is a belief in something other. It doesn't have to be in the Christian God or the Hindu God or any other God. It just has to be in something other. She was a normal kid who just happened to have an interest in spiritual stuff in the same way other kids might get into dinosaurs. From that a belief emerged, a faith. That's all it was.

So you can keep telling me I influenced her and I can keep telling you I didn't all day long. It really doesn't matter and unless you remember her childhood differently and can give an alternative account, I've no desire to convince you on this. It was what it was and as the one who witnessed it, I'm happy with what I've written. .

robindch

Huntergonzo wrote: »

[...] very purposely crude and ignorant [...]

Two crude posts deleted - I'm putting this one down to cheap booze and the night that's in it.

Happy new year!

Cabaal

Mary63 wrote: »

If my child was in a muslim school then no I wouldn't have a problem with prayers to Allah,I would have informed myself as to what he would be learning prior to starting in the muslim school.I certainly wouldn't be telling the teacher or principal how to do their job,I can only imagine the response I would get objecting to muslim teaching in a muslim school.

That's great to hear,
Let's hope you are as accepting of being seen as lower and less important then all men as perfectly ok too... Sure that's no big deal. Also what is with your disrespectful clothes?

Huntergonzo

robindch wrote: »

Two crude posts deleted - I'm putting this one down to cheap booze and the night that's in it.

Happy new year!

Haha right on, sorry about that.

I'm happy with the ones that are left though, I honestly tried serious debate but I got static back so I just thought I'd have a bit of fun with them.

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

But you've enrolled your child in a Roman Catholic school. I'm really struggling to understand what your expectations were ?

If I sent my children to a Roman Catholic school I would expect all of the above. So I didn't send them to one ??

OK, so here's my expectations from a public service funded from taxpayers money;

1) School runs in school hours. If most kids are going to Mass, one teacher stays behind with the non-Catholic kids. Is that too much to ask?

2) The school concert is designed to be inclusive. Add one or two non-religious songs to the start or end of the show so that everybody can take part. Is that too much to ask?

3) The school celebration for Communion and Confirmation is inclusive. Everybody in the class is invited along with their parents to share in the celebration. Is that too much to ask?

So on these particular issues of discrimination, I'm not looking for constitutional change or changes to the patronage model. Just a slightly different way of thinking - an inclusive approach - is that really too much to ask?

Swanner wrote: »

So you can keep telling me I influenced her and I can keep telling you I didn't all day long. It really doesn't matter and unless you remember her childhood differently and can give an alternative account, I've no desire to convince you on this. It was what it was and as the one who witnessed it, I'm happy with what I've written. .

I've never seen a toddler take an interest in anything that they don't get from their parents (or possibly other significant adult like a child minder), because that is simply their world. They don't have other influences. It is literally incredible to suggest that a child developed a faith on their own.

We're all born atheist, and faith is taught or otherwise imparted by adults. That's why the churches put huge emphasis on teaching faith. It doesn't come naturally.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

OK, so here's my expectations from a public service funded from taxpayers money;

Schools with a religious ethos are not providing a public service, they are a private organisation and can discriminate against parents who are not members of their organisation. The State has literally outsourced the education of children to private organisations, it would still have had to pay for the services they provide, and would have had to fund each child's education anyway.

1) School runs in school hours. If most kids are going to Mass, one teacher stays behind with the non-Catholic kids. Is that too much to ask?

Had you spoken to the Principal or other parents in the school about it? Given that I know some schools are struggling and cannot spare teachers to supervise a small number of students, I can see how it would indeed be too much to ask of the school, but would it be too much to ask of parents? It doesn't appear unreasonable IMO to ask that a parent bring their child to school an hour later.

2) The school concert is designed to be inclusive. Add one or two non-religious songs to the start or end of the show so that everybody can take part. Is that too much to ask?

You said it was the Nativity? How is that designed to be inclusive? If you're not religious, then why would you be put out that your child isn't included in what is in essence a religious themed event?

3) The school celebration for Communion and Confirmation is inclusive. Everybody in the class is invited along with their parents to share in the celebration. Is that too much to ask?

It is? That's honestly the first I've ever heard that a school celebration of Communion and Confirmation is supposed to be inclusive, or is that just your own opinion? I can guarantee you that if a general invitation was sent out to all parents in the school to celebrate Communion and Confirmation, you'd have parents complaining because they were invited to a Communion or Confirmation and they're under pressure to go now and all the rest of it.

So on these particular issues of discrimination, I'm not looking for constitutional change or changes to the patronage model. Just a slightly different way of thinking - an inclusive approach - is that really too much to ask?

Nothing is ever too much to ask, but in order for anything to happen, you have to ask first - did you ask? Did you approach the Principal, parents?

I've never seen a toddler take an interest in anything that they don't get from their parents (or possibly other significant adult like a child minder), because that is simply their world. They don't have other influences. It is literally incredible to suggest that a child developed a faith on their own.

Nonsense. Children's world's are only limited by their imagination. They have plenty of other influences in the world around them and that's why you have so many posters here who want to protect their children from the influence of religion and religious indoctrination. Had you no books to read as a child? Nothing to fuel your imagination? It's not unusual at all that children will express what sounds like faith, or what sounds like beliefs, because they're still making sense of the world around them.

We're all born atheist, and faith is taught or otherwise imparted by adults. That's why the churches put huge emphasis on teaching faith. It doesn't come naturally.

From the moment we're born, we're asking questions and looking to make sense of the world around us. Therefore it's both silly and pointless to identify new-born babies as atheist as much as they are theist. They are non-religious. Secondly, the desire to make sense of the world around us absolutely comes naturally, and religion is one of the ways in which we make sense of the world.

The Church Hierarchy puts huge emphasis on faith, because they'd be out of a job otherwise :pac:

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

But you've enrolled your child in a Roman Catholic school. I'm really struggling to understand what your expectations were ?

If I sent my children to a Roman Catholic school I would expect all of the above. So I didn't send them to one ?? ...

All your posts are from the point of view of someone who wants their child to attend a CoI school, which is easy at primary level and slightly less easy at secondary.
You have no empathy or consideration for those who see CoI as no better than RC.

What if the positions of CoI and Islam were reversed in this country? Your options of getting access to a CoI school would be severely limited (only 2 schools in existence)
You would know exactly what to expect in both the RC school and the Islamic school. Which would you choose, and why?
Is knowing what to expect going to make you satisfied that the choice available is a fair choice?

xband

Outsourced means paying a contractor to provide a service for you and to your specifications.

The problem here is that the outsourcers have become more powerful than the client and they've been dictating policy. The whole relationship is upside down.

The outsourced service isn't even in line with the client (the state/people)'s needs.

The state needs to grow up and grow a pair!!

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Schools with a religious ethos are not providing a public service, they are a private organisation and can discriminate against parents who are not members of their organisation. The State has literally outsourced the education of children to private organisations, it would still have had to pay for the services they provide, and would have had to fund each child's education anyway.

Grand so, if they're not providing a public service, they can say goodbye to public funding.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Had you spoken to the Principal or other parents in the school about it? Given that I know some schools are struggling and cannot spare teachers to supervise a small number of students, I can see how it would indeed be too much to ask of the school, but would it be too much to ask of parents? It doesn't appear unreasonable IMO to ask that a parent bring their child to school an hour later.

Yes, spoke to the Principal and got the distinct impression that it was more a 'couldn't be arsed to help the heathens' than any resource issue.

IMO it is very unreasonable to expect parents to change work shifts or arrange child-minding to accommodate a faith-based event.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You said it was the Nativity? How is that designed to be inclusive? If you're not religious, then why would you be put out that your child isn't included in what is in essence a religious themed event?

It is? That's honestly the first I've ever heard that a school celebration of Communion and Confirmation is supposed to be inclusive, or is that just your own opinion? I can guarantee you that if a general invitation was sent out to all parents in the school to celebrate Communion and Confirmation, you'd have parents complaining because they were invited to a Communion or Confirmation and they're under pressure to go now and all the rest of it.

I was answering the question from the other poster about how it should work. The school concert should be inclusive. The celebration should be inclusive. Everything the school does should be inclusive - all pupils are equal, and should be welcomed equally.

Why would I be put out about a child not participating in the religious-themed concert? It IS the school concert. It's not like there is a choice of religious and non-religious. It is the only school concert. It's the only chance for parents to see their kids performing on a stage. Why would it be so difficult to include ALL students?

And your 'guarantee' about parents complaining about an invitation? COme on, you're clutching at straws here. I worked hard to influence the parents association a few years back to ensure that the invite went to all students and parents. No-one griped about getting the invitation. Some non-religious students/families came to the presentation. Some didn't. It wasn't hard. But without someone like me pushing the issue, they've slipped back to the old exclusive habits of excluding some students and families from a school event.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nothing is ever too much to ask, but in order for anything to happen, you have to ask first - did you ask? Did you approach the Principal, parents?

Yes, I worked on all three issues with the Principal and Parents Association. I made progress on one out of the three, but that progress is being lost.

But really, why should I have to ask? Schools should be inclusive for all their students as a fundamental principle of equality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nonsense. Children's world's are only limited by their imagination. They have plenty of other influences in the world around them and that's why you have so many posters here who want to protect their children from the influence of religion and religious indoctrination. Had you no books to read as a child? Nothing to fuel your imagination? It's not unusual at all that children will express what sounds like faith, or what sounds like beliefs, because they're still making sense of the world around them.

From the moment we're born, we're asking questions and looking to make sense of the world around us. Therefore it's both silly and pointless to identify new-born babies as atheist as much as they are theist. They are non-religious. Secondly, the desire to make sense of the world around us absolutely comes naturally, and religion is one of the ways in which we make sense of the world.

Toddlers don't have 'desire to make sense of the world around them'. They have desire to eat, sleep and have cuddles.

You can call it atheist or non-religious, it doesn't really matter to me. Babies don't have religion. They learn it from their parents. If they are reading books, the parents bought the books. If they are watching TV, the parents are choosing the channels.

otpmb

RainyDay wrote: »

OK, so here's my expectations from a public service funded from taxpayers money;

1) School runs in school hours. If most kids are going to Mass, one teacher stays behind with the non-Catholic kids. Is that too much to ask?

2) The school concert is designed to be inclusive. Add one or two non-religious songs to the start or end of the show so that everybody can take part. Is that too much to ask?

3) The school celebration for Communion and Confirmation is inclusive. Everybody in the class is invited along with their parents to share in the celebration. Is that too much to ask?

So on these particular issues of discrimination, I'm not looking for constitutional change or changes to the patronage model. Just a slightly different way of thinking - an inclusive approach - is that really too much to ask.

All of those things happened in my primary school and still happen today. It was a small R.C school, with maybe 5 non-catholics, when I attended. So definitely possible RainyDay

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

, I can see how it would indeed be too much to ask of the school, but would it be too much to ask of parents? It doesn't appear unreasonable IMO to ask that a parent bring their child to school an hour later.

Are you for real? Try calling your boss and telling them that you'll be an hour late for work because you have to bring your child to school later, or that you'll be leaving early for a few months because you have to pick them up because the rest of the class is doing communion, and that no, you won't be able to stay later or come in earlier to make up the work because the school is starting and ending at the same time. You'll soon be up on performance review and/or looking for a new job.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Are you for real? Try calling your boss and telling them that you'll be an hour late for work because you have to bring your child to school later, or that you'll be leaving early for a few months because you have to pick them up because the rest of the class is doing communion, and that no, you won't be able to stay later or come in earlier to make up the work because the school is starting and ending at the same time. You'll soon be up on performance review and/or looking for a new job.

If that's the way they treat you wherever you work, then I would suggest looking for a new job anyway, because I've never experienced anything like that.

Any time I had work late or wasn't able to drop my child off to school, I made alternative arrangements with other parents. It's not the logistics nightmare you think it is in all honesty. That's why I asked RainyDay did they have a chat with the other parents.

It seems a very individual experience tbh and there are obviously a whole set of circumstances at play there, possibly a personality clash with the Principal, it's impossible to say really.

RainyDay

otpmb wrote: »

All of those things happened in my primary school and still happen today. It was a small R.C school, with maybe 5 non-catholics, when I attended. So definitely possible RainyDay

Absolutely - very possible, very feasible - no funding issues, minor resource issues - just a different way of thinking really.

But it should be the default way of thinking.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

Toddlers don't have 'desire to make sense of the world around them'. They have desire to eat, sleep and have cuddles.

RainyDay wrote: »

I've never seen a toddler take an interest in anything that they don't get from their parents (or possibly other significant adult like a child minder), because that is simply their world. They don't have other influences. It is literally incredible to suggest that a child developed a faith on their own.

We're all born atheist, and faith is taught or otherwise imparted by adults. That's why the churches put huge emphasis on teaching faith. It doesn't come naturally.

I suspect you're using a very narrow definition of faith and of a few other words too. Faith doesn't have to be a belief in the God that tends to be portrayed in Christianity. A child can look at nature and see God. And I use God in it's broadest terms.

I have absolutely no problem accepting that a child can develop a faith. I've seen it...

And a growing body of research backs it up..

"n the last few years, there has been an emerging body of research exploring children's grasp of certain universal religious ideas. Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief -- belief in divine agents, and belief in mind-body dualism -- come naturally to young children."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh088551.html

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

All your posts are from the point of view of someone who wants their child to attend a CoI school, which is easy at primary level and slightly less easy at secondary.
You have no empathy or consideration for those who see CoI as no better than RC.

What if the positions of CoI and Islam were reversed in this country? Your options of getting access to a CoI school would be severely limited (only 2 schools in existence)
You would know exactly what to expect in both the RC school and the Islamic school. Which would you choose, and why?
Is knowing what to expect going to make you satisfied that the choice available is a fair choice?

I agree with you that the current system is unfair. But I don't agree that we should switch to another unfair system just to keep atheists or any other minority happy.

We also have to accept the reality that life isn't always fair. Someone somewhere will always feel hard done by.

We have differing opinions on how this should be resolved and that's OK. I'm happy you have an opposing view because we get to challenge each other and that usually makes for a better and fairer solution.

But no matter what you do, it will never be 100% fair for all. We have to accept that and work on that basis. Anything else is just unrealistic.

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

I suspect you're using a very narrow definition of faith and of a few other words too. Faith doesn't have to be a belief in the God that tends to be portrayed in Christianity. A child can look at nature and see God. And I use God in it's broadest terms.

I have absolutely no problem accepting that a child can develop a faith. I've seen it...

And a growing body of research backs it up..

"n the last few years, there has been an emerging body of research exploring children's grasp of certain universal religious ideas. Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief -- belief in divine agents, and belief in mind-body dualism -- come naturally to young children."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh088551.html

A child has no concept of God unless they are told about it. It's not like a dog or a chair or a cat. They can't see a god, so they have no concept unless they are told.

The evidence in that paper is, by their own admission, scanty at best

But the evidence here is still, admittedly, scanty.

.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

A child has no concept of God unless they are told about it. It's not like a dog or a chair or a cat. They can't see a god, so they have no concept unless they are told.

The evidence in that paper is, by their own admission, scanty at best

.

"Children have no concept of imaginary friends"...


Righto

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

A child has no concept of God unless they are told about it. It's not like a dog or a chair or a cat. They can't see a god, so they have no concept unless they are told.

The evidence in that paper is, by their own admission, scanty at best

That's one brazen out of context quote.

If you've actually read the article it'll have given you food for thought if nothing more.

"We see, then, multiple studies converging on a single conclusion: the innate predisposition of the human mind to believe that there is some kind of an intelligent creator God. Perhaps as we get older we may override this programming, but our fundamental constitution appears oriented to religious belief.

If you're an evolutionary atheist, don't you find this just a bit peculiar? Darwinian explanations abound, of course, but they have the tinny, desperate sound of inadequate rationalizations."

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

If you're an evolutionary atheist, don't you find this just a bit peculiar? Darwinian explanations abound, of course, but they have the tinny, desperate sound of inadequate rationalizations."

What's an evolutionary atheist? Are there atheists who believe in intelligent design?

Akrasia

Humans are fundamentally agency seeking. If we hear a bang, we immediately think that some'one' (human or animal) caused the bang and only later consider that it might have been the wind or a loose screw on a shelf.

It's a survival mechanism. Presuming danger from predators or people out to do you harm is better for survival than presuming benign causes for unusual events in your surroundings

The fact that it's innate or that it's natural doesn't mean we should pander to it in education.

It's innate and natural for a bigger kid to take the toys from a smaller child. We educate our children in the benefits of cooperation and sharing of resources and we use reinforcement to alter the behaviours that are anti-social and try to get kids to play nicer with one another.

Human civilisation has reached a point where there is a chance that we will either harness the full power of our environment and reach a whole new level of technological and social beings, or we could destroy ourselves in a myriad of parochial disagreements on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

What's an evolutionary atheist? Are there atheists who believe in intelligent design?

You would be best asking one.

The Bishop Basher

Akrasia wrote: »

The fact that it's innate or that it's natural doesn't mean we should pander to it in education.

I agree with most of what you say but not so sure about this...

We probably shouldn't pander to anything but surely education should always be cognizant of the innate and the natural when dealing with young minds.

Tasden

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that's the way they treat you wherever you work, then I would suggest looking for a new job anyway, because I've never experienced anything like that.

Any time I had work late or wasn't able to drop my child off to school, I made alternative arrangements with other parents. It's not the logistics nightmare you think it is in all honesty. That's why I asked RainyDay did they have a chat with the other parents.

It seems a very individual experience tbh and there are obviously a whole set of circumstances at play there, possibly a personality clash with the Principal, it's impossible to say really.

People can't just decide to up and leave a job.

Not everybody knows other parents at the school. I literally drop and run, I don't hang around at the school gates to chat with parents and get to know them. Well, now I don't even go to the school, I drop to the creche and run.
The only reason I even have other parents' phone numbers is for arranging birthday parties etc. I could never ring them up and ask them to mind my child for me. Anyway, most of those I would know on a first name basis are working parents themselves and their kids attend a creche before and after school. Some people may be involved in the school and know other parents and have time to go and meet people etc but many parents don't and wouldn't be able to make those kind of arrangements when needed. And they shouldn't have to tbh.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

You would be best asking one.

You used the term 'evolutionary atheist'. What's your definition?

One eyed Jack

Tasden wrote: »

People can't just decide to up and leave a job.

Not everybody knows other parents at the school. I literally drop and run, I don't hang around at the school gates to chat with parents and get to know them. Well, now I don't even go to the school, I drop to the creche and run.
The only reason I even have other parents' phone numbers is for arranging birthday parties etc. I could never ring them up and ask them to mind my child for me. Anyway, most of those I would know on a first name basis are working parents themselves and their kids attend a creche before and after school. Some people may be involved in the school and know other parents and have time to go and meet people etc but many parents don't and wouldn't be able to make those kind of arrangements when needed. And they shouldn't have to tbh.

I can appreciate all that, but all I was saying is that if I was threatened with being put on a performance review for notifying my boss in advance that I was going to need an hour in the morning or I was going to need time off in the future for upcoming events, I'd be looking at a change of employment. That's just me though, and I wouldn't be suggesting anyone else should do the same thing, because as you quite rightly pointed out - all our circumstances will be different and it's a question of priorities. I said from the very beginning almost of the thread that parents make sacrifices and trade-offs for their children every day.

You do bring up an interesting point though in that we can have all these discussions in this forum about how to introduce a secular education system in national and secondary schools, and campaigns for children to be able to go to their local school because it's in their community and how important community is and all the rest of it... but in order for that to actually happen, parents need to start talking to each other and working together to promote community within their schools in their community.

Otherwise things will just continue as they are and there won't be any change - we all want change, and I see it in many schools and from talking to other parents they want change too, but very few parents either have the time nor the inclination to actually work towards the change they want to see. They have enough on their plate already and I can't blame them for that, that's fine. But nothing changes then unless people actually do something to change it.

Tasden

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You do bring up an interesting point though in that we can have all these discussions in this forum about how to introduce a secular education system in national and secondary schools, and campaigns for children to be able to go to their local school because it's in their community and how important community is and all the rest of it... but in order for that to actually happen, parents need to start talking to each other and working together to promote community within their schools in their community.

Otherwise things will just continue as they are and there won't be any change - we all want change, and I see it in many schools and from talking to other parents they want change too, but very few parents either have the time nor the inclination to actually work towards the change they want to see. They have enough on their plate already and I can't blame them for that, that's fine. But nothing changes then unless people actually do something to change it.

In an ideal world, yeah we would all know each other well enough to form a strong sense of community but unfotunately, and I can only speak for myself, life gets in the way of that no matter how much you may want to. I have no option but to drop my child to creche and collect her from there after work. I have no opportunity to talk to other parents from the school anymore.
Its not a case of laziness or not wanting change enough to go out and make it happen, earning money to raise the child obviously takes priority.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can appreciate all that, but all I was saying is that if I was threatened with being put on a performance review for notifying my boss in advance that I was going to need an hour in the morning or I was going to need time off in the future for upcoming events, I'd be looking at a change of employment. That's just me though, and I wouldn't be suggesting anyone else should do the same thing, because as you quite rightly pointed out - all our circumstances will be different and it's a question of priorities. I said from the very beginning almost of the thread that parents make sacrifices and trade-offs for their children every day.

Well, the same as everyone else I can only speak for my own circumstances but if I was to start an hour later in the mornings then I couldn't start my work until an hour later, so clients aren't going to get their reports until an hour later than they expect them and which they have structured into their day, so they're likely to complain to my boss because me being an hour late starting work has set everyone back an hour. Not to mention the fact that I now have 8 hours' work to do and 7 hours to do it in. And if I have to leave 2 hours early every Wednesday for months on end then I have 6 hours to do 8 hours' work, and if I don't get it done before I go the next day I have 8 hours to do 10 hours' work and a bunch of clients who are angry because they were expecting their reports Wednesday afternoon and didn't get them.

Maybe I'm an unusual case, I don't know, all I know is that if I were to have to change my work hours because the school, which is publicly funded, refuses to facilitate supervision of my child while they look after the interests of a private group it doesn't just put me out, it puts out my boss, my clients, and the co-workers who would have to cover for me and thus take time away from their work. And all because a private organisation, the RCC, has a monopoly on schools. And because some parents want to have their child have a day out and a new frock for communion and confirmation but don't want to pay for it and can't be arsed to do it in their own time.

Again I say, if they can make time to bring their child to karate or oboe lessons bun not for religion classes then religion obviously isn't that important to them.

And again your suggestions boil down to: non-Catholics should move house, quit their jobs, or just accept that we're second class citizens and shut up and let our children be indoctrinated into a belief system which we do not subscribe to.

Akrasia

Swanner wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say but not so sure about this...

We probably shouldn't pander to anything but surely education should always be cognizant of the innate and the natural when dealing with young minds.

Yeah, be cognizant, but not pandering. We are cognizant of bullying but don't pander to it (I hppe)

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

You used the term 'evolutionary atheist'. What's your definition?

Firstly, not my words. It was a quote from the article. I just pasted the last few lines.

WRT to a definition, I'm assuming you read the article so you have the context. I'm also assuming you're familiar with creationism and intelligent design and that you know what "evolutionary" and "atheist" mean within that context. So I kind of have to assume you understand the definition because it's a literal translation and therefore self explanatory.

All of this makes me understandably suspicious of your request.

Maybe if you can highlight the bit you're unsure of I can help you with that.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Well, the same as everyone else I can only speak for my own circumstances but...

Maybe I'm an unusual case, I don't know...

No you're not an unusual case, your circumstances are representative of most parents who have to juggle their personal and professional lives and try and prioritise one thing over another and keep everything on an even keel.

And all because a private organisation, the RCC, has a monopoly on schools. And because some parents want to have their child have a day out and a new frock for communion and confirmation but don't want to pay for it and can't be arsed to do it in their own time.

Because those parents have different priorities to you, their priorities shouldn't matter?

At least while we're only speaking for ourselves here - it's a good thing you said some parents, because you probably know parents I don't.

Nope, I can't say I've ever known any parents who send their children to religious ethos schools so they can have two days out in eight years.

Again I say, if they can make time to bring their child to karate or oboe lessons bun not for religion classes then religion obviously isn't that important to them.

Well now you're speaking for other people, as you don't know what their priorities are, let alone what is or isn't important to them. I can only speak for myself though, so I'm just going to say you're wrong, and leave it at that.

And again your suggestions boil down to: non-Catholics should move house, quit their jobs, or just accept that we're second class citizens and shut up and let our children be indoctrinated into a belief system which we do not subscribe to.

Not even once, ever, have I ever suggested anything so utterly... stupid. In fact I've only ever suggested the opposite - don't be afraid to speak up for yourself!

Oh, and that "second class citizens" mantra, much as I would encourage anyone to speak up for themselves, that kind of lack of perspective really gets on my tits tbh. It has no meaning being used by someone who is certainly not IMO, a second class citizen.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

Firstly, not my words. It was a quote from the article. I just pasted the last few lines.

WRT to a definition, I'm assuming you read the article so you have the context. I'm also assuming you're familiar with creationism and intelligent design and that you know what "evolutionary" and "atheist" mean within that context. So I kind of have to assume you understand the definition because it's a literal translation and therefore self explanatory.

All of this makes me understandably suspicious of your request.

Maybe if you can highlight the bit you're unsure of I can help you with that.

The article on the ID website? I glossed over it. Brain starts to go foggy reading that sh1te.

I'm assuming, for the sake of discussion, that atheist has the meaning 'does not believe in god or gods', so evolutionary atheist would be somewhat tautological, would it not?

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that's the way they treat you wherever you work, then I would suggest looking for a new job anyway, because I've never experienced anything like that.

Ever worked in retail? Or healthcare? Or hospitality? There are lots of jobs where 'I'll be an hour late' is not an option.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It seems a very individual experience tbh and there are obviously a whole set of circumstances at play there, possibly a personality clash with the Principal, it's impossible to say really.

Nice touch of victim-blaming there, but it avoids the nub of the issue. There should be no question of 'personality clash' because parents should not have to go there with the Principal in order to get an inclusive approach to school activities.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Children have no concept of imaginary friends"...


Righto

Are we equating a god with imaginary friends now?

Swanner wrote: »

That's one brazen out of context quote.

If you've actually read the article it'll have given you food for thought if nothing more.

"We see, then, multiple studies converging on a single conclusion: the innate predisposition of the human mind to believe that there is some kind of an intelligent creator God. Perhaps as we get older we may override this programming, but our fundamental constitution appears oriented to religious belief.

If you're an evolutionary atheist, don't you find this just a bit peculiar? Darwinian explanations abound, of course, but they have the tinny, desperate sound of inadequate rationalizations."

The quote is taken from the conclusion, but you're right, it is a little out of context. The previous sentence gives a bit more context as to the strength and nature of the conclusions;

"The developmental research above suggests that this is not the case, since children seem to have some beliefs that are not present, or at least not as strong, in the adults surrounding them. "

Hardly conclusive, and one single research paper is not exactly a sound basis for fundamental policy.

kylith wrote: »

And again your suggestions boil down to: non-Catholics should move house, quit their jobs, or just accept that we're second class citizens and shut up and let our children be indoctrinated into a belief system which we do not subscribe to.

You're right - great summary, and fairly scary.

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

The article on the ID website? I glossed over it. Brain starts to go foggy reading that sh1te.

I'm assuming, for the sake of discussion, that atheist has the meaning 'does not believe in god or gods', so evolutionary atheist would be somewhat tautological, would it not?

OK. You had no context so I understand the request.

You'd really have to ask the author but I would assume they use that phrase to distinguish between evolutionary atheists and atheists who support intelligent design.

I suppose it could be considered tautological on the basis that the vast majority of atheists support evolution but in context it makes more sense.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

You'd really have to ask the author but I would assume they use that phrase to distinguish between evolutionary atheists and atheists who support intelligent design.

Atheists who support ID?

OK. Carry on.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

Ever worked in retail? Or healthcare? Or hospitality? There are lots of jobs where 'I'll be an hour late' is not an option.

Nope, I can't say I've ever worked in a career where "I'll be an hour late" was ever not an option. I've always spoken up for myself though, so telling my employer in advance that I needed time off or to rearrange my hours, was never an issue.

Nice touch of victim-blaming there, but it avoids the nub of the issue. There should be no question of 'personality clash' because parents should not have to go there with the Principal in order to get an inclusive approach to school activities.

Interesting the way you read that. It wasn't 'victim-blaming' at all. The way I read your post was that the Principal sounds like a difficult person to deal with, but difficult and all as they may be, the Principal of any school sure as hell isn't a mind reader, and so if you want to be included - speak up for yourself, and don't let yourself be spoken down to. You're a parent with a child in the school so you have a vested interest in the running of the school. The way you make it sound though is that you've resigned yourself to playing the role of a victim. I'm not sure that's ever a very useful strategy tbh.

Are we equating a god with imaginary friends now?

Nope, we're demonstrating that children aren't normally constrained by logic and reason in processing new concepts. Sometimes they'll even come out with some amazing and outlandish theories. It's called 'using their imagination'.

You're right - great summary, and fairly scary.

It wasn't a great summary. It was a poor attempt to put words in my mouth in an attempt to play the role of a victim. I've never said anyone should do anything apart from not being afraid to speak up for themselves.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

The quote is taken from the conclusion, but you're right, it is a little out of context. The previous sentence gives a bit more context as to the strength and nature of the conclusions;

"It is obvious that some religious beliefs are entirely learned... Some might argue that all religious beliefs are, including dualism and creationism.

The developmental research above suggests that this is not the case, since children seem to have some beliefs that are not present, or at least not as strong, in the adults surrounding them. "

I've fixed your post to give the full context....

RainyDay wrote: »

Hardly conclusive, and one single research paper is not exactly a sound basis for fundamental policy.

I agree that one research paper is not a sound basis for fundamental policy but there are numerous other studies linked both in the article and the research paper. Had you bothered reading through the "sh1te! you would have seen them..

"Indeed, I wrote earlier about how humans seem to be hard-wired for religious belief, and was reminded by an e-mail correspondent about how many other studies there are that show children have a predisposition to believe in God. What follows is a short literature review of scholarship that arrives at the same conclusion: young children seem wired to be "intuitive theists."

So yes, one research paper on it's own is easily dismissed but not so easy with a growing body of research finding in support of the theory.

With respect, if your position continues to be a complete denial of the research presented then we're done. By all means challenge it but denying it is not a reasonable position.

Seems to be a growing trend these days..

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

Atheists who support ID?

OK. Carry on.

What's the problem ?

Gallagher1

Swanner wrote: »

What's the problem ?

Atheism and ID are essentially mutually exclusive.

BoatMad

just going back to the OP, my own experience as an atheist , kids not baptised etc, but they went to a religious ethos school ( not RCC) for both primary and secondary , in fact one of them won a all ireland bible reading competition !!!,

I never tried to unlearn them of anything, nor asked them to opt out of any school religious activities ( hymn singing etc)

Kids take their cue from you , not school , if they see as a family you have no interest in religion , they will , in general equally have no interest in it. Even if they develop an interest, you can put your views to them in an age appropriate way, they may listen or they may not.

once they reach the age of majority, its all up to them anyway

The Bishop Basher

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Atheism and ID are essentially mutually exclusive.

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID. Please feel free to research and educate yourself a little before responding so we can debate documented theory and facts as opposed to your own narrowly held views of atheism.

This isn't the first time on this thread that i've noticed some atheists using very narrow definitions of theological terms. The irony is that they appear to be adopting very "christian like" definitions of words like "faith" and "God".

Rainyday has difficulty understanding how a child can develop a faith. And I would agree that if we're defining faith as a belief in the Christian God as we tend to know it then yes it's likely that child would require some element of religious instruction to guide them in that direction.

In other word, we have to teach them the man made stuff.

But if you step away from any particular religious dogma and apply these terms as most informed and educated people do when engaged in a general theological discussion, you'll find that they become much broader.

No child is born Christian, Jewish or Muslim. They would have to be indoctrinated into that particular belief system and I think most would agree on that.

But they certainly can have a faith in their own "God" and just because that God may not be the narrowly defined religious "God" as some atheists seem to understand it, doesn't make it any less of a faith or any less valid. And all any child needs to achieve this is an ability for observation of the world around them and some independent thought.

There's plenty of evidence to support this and that body of evidence continues to grow.

I suppose it's understandable that this would be the case.... Take the OP's child as an example... If you censor all religious teaching out of a child's life and indoctrinate them only with atheistic views, they'll likely struggle in discussions such as this. They will lack experience and perspective. Indeed, any religious knowledge they do have will have been picked up piecemeal from their environment, and will be potentially inaccurate. misunderstood, or out of context. Interestingly though it's also likely to reflect the mainstream religion that surrounds them. In this case, Christianity.

But this is neither an effective nor balanced education. For a timely example of what a balanced education can look like, see BoatMad's post above.

And so we're potentially left with the worst of all worlds. Atheists with an arrogant belief that their way is the only way yet without the soul searching, knowledge and personal experience they would require in order to intellectually defend that position with a balanced perspective let alone an educated one.

And the ultimate kicker is that both of these are very likely to kill off any potential for further learning or understanding.

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, I can't say I've ever worked in a career where "I'll be an hour late" was ever not an option. I've always spoken up for myself though, so telling my employer in advance that I needed time off or to rearrange my hours, was never an issue.

Interesting the way you read that. It wasn't 'victim-blaming' at all. The way I read your post was that the Principal sounds like a difficult person to deal with, but difficult and all as they may be, the Principal of any school sure as hell isn't a mind reader, and so if you want to be included - speak up for yourself, and don't let yourself be spoken down to. You're a parent with a child in the school so you have a vested interest in the running of the school. The way you make it sound though is that you've resigned yourself to playing the role of a victim. I'm not sure that's ever a very useful strategy tbh.

Interesting how you address victim-blaming with more victim-blaming. It's the employees fault for not 'speaking up'. It's my fault for not 'speaking up' to the Principal.

For the record, I have no difficulty in 'speaking up' in any environment. If anything, I have difficulty in shutting up, not speaking up.

Difficulties with getting to work an hour late are not due to lack of speaking up. They are due to people being in jobs where their presence at a particular time is a fundamental feature of the job. If you're a nurse on a ward, you need to start your shift on time to get the handover. If you're a security guard, you need to start your shift on time to open the building. No amount of 'speaking up' fixes this.

In relation to the examples of discrimination given above, I had 'spoken up' quite a lot on these issues, and did get some progress with one of them, though people have now slipped back into old habits when I moved on.

But your victim-blaming approach misses the central point. Why should parents have to 'speak up' to force a school to work in an inclusive manner? Should it not be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all students in all activities?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, we're demonstrating that children aren't normally constrained by logic and reason in processing new concepts. Sometimes they'll even come out with some amazing and outlandish theories. It's called 'using their imagination'.

Imagination is great. Imagination does not come up with an omniscient and all powerful god, unless you're equating religion with superheros.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't a great summary. It was a poor attempt to put words in my mouth in an attempt to play the role of a victim. I've never said anyone should do anything apart from not being afraid to speak up for themselves.

Even more explicit victim-blaming here, with the blame being put on parents for being afraid to speak up - nice....

Swanner wrote: »

I've fixed your post to give the full context....

I agree that one research paper is not a sound basis for fundamental policy but there are numerous other studies linked both in the article and the research paper. Had you bothered reading through the "sh1te! you would have seen them..

"Indeed, I wrote earlier about how humans seem to be hard-wired for religious belief, and was reminded by an e-mail correspondent about how many other studies there are that show children have a predisposition to believe in God. What follows is a short literature review of scholarship that arrives at the same conclusion: young children seem wired to be "intuitive theists."

So yes, one research paper on it's own is easily dismissed but not so easy with a growing body of research finding in support of the theory.

With respect, if your position continues to be a complete denial of the research presented then we're done. By all means challenge it but denying it is not a reasonable position.

Seems to be a growing trend these days..

I've read the paper, multiple times. The main findings are that;

- because children believe that a dead mouse can continue to feel hunger, and
- because children believe that rocks are pointy to allow animals to scratch themselves,

this is evidence of a belief in God.

Really, it's a long, long way off. Babies and toddlers don't have any concept of a god unless they are told about it. It's just common sense.

Swanner wrote: »

Rainyday has difficulty understanding how a child can develop a faith. And I would agree that if we're defining faith as a belief in the Christian God as we tend to know it then yes it's likely that child would require some element of religious instruction to guide them in that direction.

In other word, we have to teach them the man made stuff.

But if you step away from any particular religious dogma and apply these terms as most informed and educated people do when engaged in a general theological discussion, you'll find that they become much broader.

No child is born Christian, Jewish or Muslim. They would have to be indoctrinated into that particular belief system and I think most would agree on that.

But they certainly can have a faith in their own "God" and just because that God may not be the narrowly defined religious "God" as some atheists seem to understand it, doesn't make it any less of a faith or any less valid. And all any child needs to achieve this is an ability for observation of the world around them and some independent thought.

There's plenty of evidence to support this and that body of evidence continues to grow.

I suppose it's understandable that this would be the case.... Take the OP's child as an example... If you censor all religious teaching out of a child's life and indoctrinate them only with your atheistic views, they'll likely struggle in discussions such as this. They will lack experience and perspective. Indeed, any religious knowledge they do have will have been picked up piecemeal from their environment, will be potentially inaccurate. misunderstood, out of context and very likely to reflect the mainstream religion that surrounds them.

But this is not an effective or balanced education. For a timely example of what a balanced education can look like, see BoatMad's post above. And so we're potentially left with the worst of all worlds. Atheists with an arrogant belief that their way is the only way yet with a complete lack of the soul searching and knowledge they would require in order to intellectually defend that position never mind approach any discussion with an educated, balanced perspective.

And the ultimate kicker is that both of these are very likely to kill off any potential for further learning or understanding.

Please don't patronise me, and please don't patronise atheists in general. I don't have any 'difficulty in understanding'. There is nothing to understand. There is no evidence or indication that children believe in god unless they are taught.

Atheists are no more likely to 'struggle in discussions like this' than others. The only struggle is the search for evidence, which is a fruitless struggle round here.

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

I agree with you that the current system is unfair. But I don't agree that we should switch to another unfair system just to keep atheists or any other minority happy.

We also have to accept the reality that life isn't always fair. Someone somewhere will always feel hard done by.

We have differing opinions on how this should be resolved and that's OK. I'm happy you have an opposing view because we get to challenge each other and that usually makes for a better and fairer solution.

But no matter what you do, it will never be 100% fair for all. We have to accept that and work on that basis. Anything else is just unrealistic.

Blithely throwing up your hands and saying "the system is unfair, but we just have to accept our lot in life" is the typical response of somebody who is receiving some advantage from that system.

Obviously, those who are being disadvantaged can only reply to you saying "that is nonsense".

Its not even difficult to imagine what a 100% fair and secular public school system would be like. Its the norm in much bigger and more powerful EU countries such as Germany and France. Finland is of a more comparable size and population density, and their system is often considered to be the best as it does not stream kids in the way that the German system does. It would be a simple matter to copy that template.
And none of these are "Stalinist" countries.
German system..

Part of the reason for the dearth of private or church schools is the German conviction that public education is a vital element that contributes to a well-educated citizenry and a sense of common purpose.

You lament the sense of unfairness, the segregation, the divisiveness, the damage to cohesion and community, the excessive traveling, all resulting from denominational and patronage control of schools. But most amazingly of all, you act as if there was no other choice.

The Bishop Basher

RainyDay wrote: »

I've read the paper, multiple times. The main findings are that;

- because children believe that a dead mouse can continue to feel hunger, and
- because children believe that rocks are pointy to allow animals to scratch themselves,

this is evidence of a belief in God.

Ok. So if that's your summation you clearly either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it. That's ok. It happens. But i'm not going to spend hours helping you figure it out.

Out of interest, did you read any of the numerous other studies multiple times too ? Maybe you could provide a slightly more intelligent and informed summation of them then you've just provided for the research paper.

RainyDay wrote: »

Really, it's a long, long way off. Babies and toddlers don't have any concept of a god unless they are told about it. It's just common sense.

So you say from your narrow atheistic perspective. The research disagrees. As does human experience. You're simply projecting your world view on everyone else. I have zero difficulty accepting that many children, maybe even most, will not develop a faith on their own terms. But neither am I arrogant enough, especially in the face of all the growing evidence and my own personal experience, to categorically state that they won't.

RainyDay wrote: »

Please don't patronise me, and please don't patronise atheists in general. I don't have any 'difficulty in understanding'. There is nothing to understand. There is no evidence or indication that children believe in god unless they are taught.

Yes there is. Plenty of evidence. The fact that you choose to ignore it doesn't make it go away. As for your comment that there's nothing to understand, well that speaks volumes.

If you really have nothing further to understand on this topic I suggest you reach out to the Theology Dept. in TCD. They'll probably pay big bucks for that infallible mind of yours. Or better yet you should let all those researchers know that they can stop whet they're doing as you've got the answers they're looking for. I'm sure they'll be well chuffed.

Meanwhile the rest of us mere mortals will continue to educate ourselves, evolve, learn, discuss and develop our understanding of these issues. That's what open minds do.

RainyDay wrote: »

Atheists are no more likely to 'struggle in discussions like this' than others. The only struggle is the search for evidence, which is a fruitless struggle round here.

Not all atheists obviously. But those that have had no education on or exposure to religion will be at a distinct disadvantage when discussing religion with those that have been educated on all sides of the debate. That you find this patronising is unfortunate for you but it doesn't negate the point or change the reality.

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

Ok. So if that's your summation you clearly either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it. That's ok. It happens. But i'm not going to spend hours helping you figure it out.

Out of interest, did you read any of the numerous other studies multiple times too ? Maybe you could provide a slightly more intelligent and informed summation of them then you've just provided for the research paper.



So you say from your narrow atheistic perspective. The research disagrees. As does human experience. You're simply projecting your world view on everyone else. I have zero difficulty accepting that many children, maybe even most, will not develop a faith on their own terms. But neither am I arrogant enough, especially in the face of all the growing evidence and my own personal experience, to categorically state that they won't.



Yes there is. Plenty of evidence. The fact that you choose to ignore it doesn't make it go away. As for your comment that there's nothing to understand, well that speaks volumes.

If you really have nothing further to understand on this topic I suggest you reach out to the Theology Dept. in TCD. They'll probably pay big bucks for that infallible mind of yours. Or better yet you should let all those researchers know that they can stop whet they're doing as you've got the answers they're looking for. I'm sure they'll be well chuffed.

Meanwhile the rest of us mere mortals will continue to educate ourselves, evolve, learn, discuss and develop our understanding of these issues. That's what open minds do.



Not all atheists obviously. But those that have had no education on or exposure to religion will be at a distinct disadvantage when discussing religion with those that have been educated on all sides of the debate. That you find this patronising is unfortunate for you but it doesn't negate the point or change the reality.

It's sad to see you relying on the age-old tactic of 'You're not clever enough to understand this stuff, so leave it to me'. Many churches got away with this nonsense for years, but not so much these days.

It's not subjective. There is no evidence showing that children develop their own concept of God. It's just not there.

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID. Please feel free to research and educate yourself a little before responding so we can debate documented theory and facts as opposed to your own narrowly held views of atheism.

If an atheist supports ID then they must accept that there is something causing the ID, i.e. a god, which would mean that they are not atheist. Stop trying to redefine words to suit your own agenda.

In your words, educate yourself.

xband

RainyDay wrote: »

Ever worked in retail? Or healthcare? Or hospitality? There are lots of jobs where 'I'll be an hour late' is not an option.



Nice touch of victim-blaming there, but it avoids the nub of the issue. There should be no question of 'personality clash' because parents should not have to go there with the Principal in order to get an inclusive approach to school activities.




Are we equating a god with imaginary friends now?



The quote is taken from the conclusion, but you're right, it is a little out of context. The previous sentence gives a bit more context as to the strength and nature of the conclusions;

"The developmental research above suggests that this is not the case, since children seem to have some beliefs that are not present, or at least not as strong, in the adults surrounding them. "

Hardly conclusive, and one single research paper is not exactly a sound basis for fundamental policy.


You're right - great summary, and fairly scary.

[sarcasm]

Don't worry a certain organisation reckons you should be at home baking cakes and popping out a new baby every nine months.

Sure what would you need to have predictable school hours for? You'd swear you were living in a modern society concerned about ensuring people have equal access to the workplace!

[/sarcasm]