Why do parents accept education for their kids "as is"?

Mooooo

Zynks wrote: »

Of course, I do. But I want to be able to tell my kids that I tried to stop the attempts of indoctrination and get them to do more sport or philosophy.

It just isn't OK to expose kids to forced religion (I wasn't allowed to reply "the child hasn't decided yet" to the registration's question "child's religion") and have it funded with tax money, is it?

Most schools have common sense, if a parent does not want a child partaking in prayers or whatever another task is given to them for the few minutes it's done. Talk to the teacher or principle and as what they can do.

Zynks

the_syco wrote: »

Do you mark on the census if you're part of the church, or not?

As I'd say 90% of Irish people say they are part of the church, the government asks the church for guidance for stuff such as education, etc. Also, said schools are usually owned by the church since many years ago.

I marked None. Admittedly, I was very tempted to say that I am Pastafarian, but didn't want to 'spoil my vote'.

I read somewhere that the construction of the buildings for the schools was funded by the state. The lands were owned by the church - probably acquired in exchange for the redemption of the soul of wealthy people on their death.

goz83

Zynks wrote: »

The reason the church has such a majority of schools is far more complex than what you suggest. It is an organisation that specialises in using guilt and shame for manipulating people and has done that for a very long time. Then it ostracises the ones that dare say they don't 'belong' with their state given 90% share of the schools through demands of affiliation. Added to that there are the many who feel they 'belong' and despise the ones who don't.

Yes, it is hard to break out and it does require people to do something about it, because it won't go away on its own. But don't assume that I am not doing something about it.

Is this your way of saying that your children are baptised?

Was this the status quo? Was this to get them into the school and throw a party as one earlier suggested?

The very parents you are calling lazy and complaining about seem to be doing exactly what you have done....only they didn't write a boards thread about it.

jimmycrackcorm

I'm always amused by the outrage of parents giving out about teaching religion when the same people happily spin the lie about a make believe Santa for years.

I send my kids to a catholic school. I actually wanted to send them to an educate together for the sole reason that it was closer but it was over subscribed. However I don't have a problem with Catholic schools because I think the fundamental tenets they teach are still valuable, such as the ten commandments, sensible stuff like don't steal, kill etc.

As a typical Irish indoctrinated lapsed catholic, I think there are a sizeable proportion who identify our Irishness with growing up with our indoctrination knowing that the outcome has been that ended up with a critical thought process about religion and what it means. I suspect that is why there is a total lack of due,and for people who send their kids to a catholic school to campaign for it to change. I wonder sometimes if someone who as a child was brought up atheist could latterly in life be attracted to religion compared to saying that they've been there, done that and not interested.

I recently went to a parent teacher meeting at my kids secondary school and had an opportunity to sit down with the religion teacher and ask what exactly what it is they did. The teacher explained that the school was a catholic ethos, but as people aren't typically religious that they don't actually teach prayers. Instead they teach the why of religion, the moral reasoning that it is supposed to be based on and the rationale why belief exists. Throughout the remaining secondary years they will explore other religions, their history and the impact on the world.

TBH, I left the PT meeting glad that I ended up with my kids in a school with religion as a subject because I know that I wouldn't have bothered with doing it as an extra curricular educate together subject. My kids will be educated in a subject that causes significant conflicts in the world.

mitresize5

Dunno if anyone say the first episode of the rubberbandits new series.

They were discussing globalisation and one of them got very riled up and started talking about a revolution to over turn it.

The second fella joined in and started talking about taking inspiration from the heros of 1916, taking to the streets and invigorating the masses.

The first fella says 'nah I was talking about posting on Facebook' ... they went for ice cream then.

Just saying like ...

Absolam

Zynks wrote: »

I marked None. Admittedly, I was very tempted to say that I am Pastafarian, but didn't want to 'spoil my vote'.

How would saying what you actually are (if Pastafarian is what you are) 'spoil your vote'? Isn't the point of the question to ascertain what peoples' non/religious belief is?

Zynks wrote: »

I read somewhere that the construction of the buildings for the schools was funded by the state. The lands were owned by the church - probably acquired in exchange for the redemption of the soul of wealthy people on their death.

That's a rather curmudgeonly presumption there, but that aside, it's true that the schools in Ireland were founded/built/maintained with a range of varying ownership structures. Since the State's obligation is to provide for education rather than provide education, it's sound fiscal policy to allow other interested parties to fund the actual provision of education to the greatest possible degree; it takes a financial burden away from the State, as well as providing options for parents availing of their right to send their children to schools not established by the State, or particular types of school designated by the State.

andala

bubblypop wrote: »

I believe the reason the church has such a majority of schools, is because of adults who, baptise their kids, then send them to Catholic schools & then allow them to participate in religion in school.
If enough parents pulled out of religion or rather, pulled their kids out of religion, then schools wouldn't be long changing.

But maybe these parents baptise their children because they fear they wouldn't get a place in their local school otherwise? If you don't go with the flow you risk your child being assigned to the worst school in a random area, which would benefit neither them nor yourself. Considering 90% of schools here are Catholic, the chances of being treated like a second-category human being are quite big.

Theoretically The State grants all children the right to free primary education and the right to be treated equally. However, those of us who did not baptise our children, know first hand how equal their kids are, especially if the nearest ET school is 80km away. My kid did not get in the school of our first choice but it all turned out for the best as he was lucky enough to get to a lovely school that actually doesn't make him listen to the fairy tales of ancient Semitic tribes. While the class is doing religion, the non-Catholics are doing English and nobody is weird about it. I do not recall a single instance when he'd feel left out. He does participate in Nativity play and loves it, just treats it as a drama activity. He loves his school, I cannot praise it enough. They don't brainwash him and he does not ridicule those who do religion.

Still, I do realise things would be very different had he not been so lucky to get a place there. This year all schools in our town were oversubscibed and I don't think I'd stand a chance to get him a place. It is unbelievable that in 21st century, in a country that is so open minded that it allows homosexual people to marry, children are discriminated against on the basis of their parents' choice of religion.

byhookorbycrook

ET are not the sole provider of multi-d at primary. Gaelscoils under the Foras are also multi-d.

nozzferrahhtoo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm always amused by the outrage of parents giving out about teaching religion when the same people happily spin the lie about a make believe Santa for years.

I do not do the Santa thing with my kids at all so I can not be accused of this alleged contradiction or dissonance. However to play devils avocado for those that do, there are stark differences between the two things you compare.

The largest of these is the fact that no one intends the santa indoctrination to last a life time or to be disseminated to others. At some point the parents intend to "come clean" and either tell the child it was all a ploy/game.....or admit it was all a plot/game when the child asks. This is not so with religion.

Another difference is that Santa is not used to get bums on seats in the clubhouses of whatever particular hobby the god is used to promote, to get money and donations from them, or excercise any kind of social long term control.

Another is that Santa is not used to contradict known science or other fact. And another difference is that Santa is something done in the home under the purview of the parents and their control, rather than something done or perpetuated in the school.

And finally, since this IS the parenting forum so a chunk of my reply should be about parenting..... if done right, the innocuous Santa law could be used as a parental tool for inoculation against other unsubstantiated nonsense memes.

One can merely come clean on the Santa myth and leave it at that, or one could use it to explore with the child why they were fooled, what were the fallacies that they fell for, how to identify those fallacies in the future and avoid them. And so on.

Just like we treat biological infection with injections of more innocuous forms of the infection, we can use things like, and including, the Santa Myth as innocuous memetic injections that allow a beneficial increase in immunity to bad and false ideas and thinking.

I could go on with more differences but suffice at this point to say that the differences are numerous and large enough that your amusement is not really all that warranted. Not that I would want to divest you of the pleasure of amusement, be the source of it real or, in this case, imagined.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't have a problem with Catholic schools because I think the fundamental tenets they teach are still valuable, such as the ten commandments, sensible stuff like don't steal, kill etc.

It is of course hard to argue with that.... as most of us do want that kind of thing taught or trained into our children. However certainly two points of concern as a parent come up when you mention it.

The first would be whether we need to teach those kind of beneficial ideas through lies. Morality attained through immorality seems something of a contradiction. Further if and when children grow to realize that the foundation of that education was unsubstantiated nonsense / lies..... do we then risk that they will throw the sought after baby out with the putrid bath water?

The second would be that when teaching those kinds of morals would it not be better our children learn those morals as an end in themselves. To "be good for goodness sake" as it were? Rather than teaching them that morality is predicated on them being watched by a "benign dictator" the whole time and that the point of being moral is to please that entity, rather than simply because it is the right thing to do?

So even if we grant, and I find it problematic to do so but lets, that the heart is in the right place doing what we do..... the question still remains if we are right to do so or if there are more effective and less damaging ways to attain it.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not do the Santa thing with my kids at all so I can not be accused of this alleged contradiction or dissonance. However to play devils avocado for those that do, there are stark differences between the two things you compare. The largest of these is the fact that no one intends the santa indoctrination to last a life time or to be disseminated to others. At some point the parents intend to "come clean" and either tell the child it was all a ploy/game.....or admit it was all a plot/game when the child asks. This is not so with religion.

I very much doubt either the proponents of Santa or religion consider what they're telling their children to be indoctrination, but I think there's a reasonable expectation in both cases that children will share their understanding of the subject with their peers; there's certainly no expectation that they won't, I would say. And I very much doubt that any parent who enjoys the Santa Claus experience with their child doesn't wish for their child to share the experience with their own children when they grow up, so the large difference that it's not intended to last a life time seems pretty damn spurious when it comes down to it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Another difference is that Santa is not used to get bums on seats in the clubhouses of whatever particular hobby the god is used to promote, to get money and donations from them, or excercise any kind of social long term control.

You've never queued (and paid) for Santa's grotto? Lots of other parents have... some of my own family have spent extravagant amounts on trips to Santa's 'clubhouse' in Lapland, and Santa is used considerably more effectively to promote hobbies and products, and long term spending habits than any religion these days.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Another is that Santa is not used to contradict known science or other fact. And another difference is that Santa is something done in the home under the purview of the parents and their control, rather than something done or perpetuated in the school.

So... how exactly does Santa get down the chimney then? Even when there's no chimney? How does he visit every home in one night? How does he know who's naughty or nice? All of these things contradict known science or other facts. And if you think Santa isn't being used to promote behavior in school right now, well, maybe that's just down to your own peculiar aversion to Santa, but I think most parents will acknowledge Santa is 'done or perpetrated in school', if not as a formal educational element.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And finally, since this IS the parenting forum so a chunk of my reply should be about parenting..... if done right, the innocuous Santa law could be used as a parental tool for inoculation against other unsubstantiated nonsense memes.

Innocuous Santa law? Even wanting to describe a law as 'innocuous' sounds pretty furtive, but making laws about Santa seems positively Puritanical.....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One can merely come clean on the Santa myth and leave it at that, or one could use it to explore with the child why they were fooled, what were the fallacies that they fell for, how to identify those fallacies in the future and avoid them. And so on. Just like we treat biological infection with injections of more innocuous forms of the infection, we can use things like, and including, the Santa Myth as innocuous memetic injections that allow a beneficial increase in immunity to bad and false ideas and thinking.

I'm starting to feel like someone ruined Christmas for you when you were a child.... My alternative is that we all enjoy the idea of jolly gift givers, we grow out of believing in their literal existence, and we should enjoy perpetrating the same nonsense on our children because just sometimes feeling good and being nice to each other for no good reason is nicer than being the grinch.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I could go on with more differences but suffice at this point to say that the differences are numerous and large enough that your amusement is not really all that warranted. Not that I would want to divest you of the pleasure of amusement, be the source of it real or, in this case, imagined.

Or... we could acknowledge that both Santa and Jesus, despite lots of people not believing in them, nevertheless make lots of people feel good. And there certainly is something amusing about people being outraged, as jimmycrackcorm says, by the teaching of one fable, whilst happily teaching another fable, certainly when they themselves are certain both are fables.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is of course hard to argue with that.... as most of us do want that kind of thing taught or trained into our children. However certainly two points of concern as a parent come up when you mention it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The first would be whether we need to teach those kind of beneficial ideas through lies. Morality attained through immorality seems something of a contradiction. Further if and when children grow to realize that the foundation of that education was unsubstantiated nonsense / lies..... do we then risk that they will throw the sought after baby out with the putrid bath water?

Well, the rather obvious hole in that argument is that the beneficial ideas are not being taught through lies. Religious people genuinely believe in the fundamental truths on which their morality is based, so there really is no contradiction at all.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The second would be that when teaching those kinds of morals would it not be better our children learn those morals as an end in themselves. To "be good for goodness sake" as it were? Rather than teaching them that morality is predicated on them being watched by a "benign dictator" the whole time and that the point of being moral is to please that entity, rather than simply because it is the right thing to do?

Ah, but again, that's not the perspective of those doing the teaching is it? Most religions teach that there is something greater than the self, and that being good for goodness sake, whilst laudable, is not as good as being good for Gods sake for instance, because your goodness then transcends the self and glorifies that which deserves glorification above all else. Grafting your perception of something onto how it behaves ignores the fundamental difference in starting point; no one teaches morality is predicated on them being watched by a "benign dictator" the whole time and that the point of being moral is to please that entity; that's your perception. Attacking their teaching on the basis of your perception rather than their teaching is as much an exercise in belief as the teaching you object to.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So even if we grant, and I find it problematic to do so but lets, that the heart is in the right place doing what we do..... the question still remains if we are right to do so or if there are more effective and less damaging ways to attain it.

I think 'we' would be wrong to try and dictate how those whose hearts are in the right place should go about doing good... we can affiliate ourselves with those who agree with us in how to go about doing good, and we can promote our perspectives, but I think there will always be (and always should be) some room to disagree about what exactly 'doing good' is, and what the most effective way to go about it is.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

I very much doubt either the proponents of Santa or religion consider what they're telling their children to be indoctrination

Nor did I say they did. Amazing how you always reply to my posts by taking stances against things I never actually said. Again all I said is that on average the intention with santa is to eventually "come clean". This is less so the case with religion where people tend to teach it to their children as a truth about the universe, and one they even expect and hope they will believe for their entire life. This is no small difference between the two.

In fact just about everything you wrote misses the points I make entirely. For example this....

Absolam wrote: »

So... how exactly does Santa get down the chimney then?

.... is not at all what I was referring to. I am referring to how purveyors of religious nonsense actively attack science in education and society. How they will go into schools and try to edit the curriculum to match their belief. Or how they will attack science and scientific progress in society. If there is anyone at all, let alone a significant number of people, doing this with santa.... I admit not being aware of them.

I am not at all referring to how the "magic" of santa is contradictory to reality or how the narrative itself is not scientific.

In fact I am struggling to find anything in your post that actually replies to anything I was actually saying, rather than your modified version of it. In fact the only thing I found worth anything is this....

Absolam wrote: »

Innocuous Santa law?

..... where yes you managed to find where my autocorrect shafted me. Somehow it changed "meme" into "law" here.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm starting to feel like someone ruined Christmas for you when you were a child....

Perhaps you are. But as usual when you shift away from replying to what I wrote, to replying about me as a person.... you are simply wrong. Nothing of the sort occurred.

Absolam wrote: »

we should enjoy perpetrating the same nonsense on our children because just sometimes feeling good and being nice to each other for no good reason is nicer than being the grinch.

You make it sound like it is either/or. As if not perpetrating nonsense means you can not feel good, be nice to each other, or be other than a "grinch". Quite the contrary to that is true however. One can attain all those things entirely well without perpetrating nonsense. In some ways even BETTER given you are not ceding credit for the beauty of those things to someone who is not only not there, but non-existent.

I am sorry those things occur "Just sometimes" in your life or relationship with children. They are pretty consistent in my relationship with mine however, no unsubstantiated nonsense required.

Absolam wrote: »

Or... we could acknowledge

I fail to see how acknowledging that replies to, rebuts, or is relevant to anything I wrote however. You could entirely acknowledge it and still all the things I wrote would stand entirely as they are.

Absolam wrote: »

Religious people genuinely believe in the fundamental truths on which their morality is based, so there really is no contradiction at all.

Another "reply" from you that manages to not at all address that was said. A lie remains a lie even if one person in the chain that is telling it happens to believe it. Your mistake is to take my general comment down to the level of the individual and thus reply to something I am, once again, not actually saying.

But even without the pedantic equivocation over the meaning of "lie" the point I make still stands..... that A) I would think it better to teach morality as an end in itself and to be "good for goodness sake" rather than base it on unsubstantiated nonsense and the possible risk that if the target divests itself of that nonsense later, that the "good stuff" is put in jeopardy too.

Absolam wrote: »

Ah, but again, that's not the perspective of those doing the teaching is it?

Ah, but again, that's not the crux of the point I am actually making it it? Once again by taking my general comment down to the level of the individual to discuss their perspective you are talking past me rather than with me. I am talking about the effects of doing X and you deflect by discussing the perspective the person has WHILE doing X.

The point again however is the relative differences of teaching our children, as parents, to be "good" just for the sake of being "good"..... or to be "good" because some "benign dictator" requires it of us. The latter does not appear to be morally positive at all. While, as I said, if the person taught to be good for these reasons later loses belief in the basis of those reasons (that a god even exists) there is at least a risk that the baby goes out with the bath water.

Absolam wrote: »

because your goodness then transcends the self

As it does if you are being "good for goodness sake" too. That transcends the self too because you are being good for the sake of goodness, not for the sake of the self. So the same thing you suggest is just as attainable, only without recourse to unsubstantiated claims.

Absolam wrote: »

I think 'we' would be wrong to try and dictate

Take it up with someone who is trying to dictate then. Last time I checked, offering another perspective is the opposite of "dictating". Unless of course you are merely using the more dilute definition of "dictate".

thegodlife

I stepped away from religion years ago and don't go to church and when my eldest was going to school had no choice but to send her to a RC school. She found it difficult and was a little alienated as there were a lot of prayers at different times of the day and at other occasions. Eventually when the communion came my daughter wanted to take part and I think it was mainly because of the alienation, not wanting to be different and a little pressure from the school not understanding reasons why she wouldn't.

To cut a long story short and after a lot of soul searching we agreed to her wish but at the time but didn't for see all the consequences of this and its eventual enrollment of our younger children and us into the church again.

I wish I could go back in time and to have stood my ground on this matter.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor did I say they did. Amazing how you always reply to my posts by taking stances against things I never actually said. Again all I said is that on average the intention with santa is to eventually "come clean". This is less so the case with religion where people tend to teach it to their children as a truth about the universe, and one they even expect and hope they will believe for their entire life. This is no small difference between the two.

I never said you said it... so feel free to read the rest of your sentence back to yourself
You're choosing to characterise what people do in a pejorative fashion, which reflects your own opinions more than it does theirs. People teaching a religious view are "coming clean" from the outset... and people who indulge in the Santa Claus experience aren't attempting any true sort of indoctrination... despite the perceptions of others.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In fact just about everything you wrote misses the points I make entirely. For example this........ is not at all what I was referring to. I am referring to how purveyors of religious nonsense actively attack science in education and society. How they will go into schools and try to edit the curriculum to match their belief. Or how they will attack science and scientific progress in society. If there is anyone at all, let alone a significant number of people, doing this with santa.... I admit not being aware of them. I am not at all referring to how the "magic" of santa is contradictory to reality or how the narrative itself is not scientific.

And yet, the very fabric of the myth of Santa is used to contradict science and other facts contrary to what you said. My point being, you're grinding an axe for one, yet deliberately glossing over the same aspects of another.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In fact I am struggling to find anything in your post that actually replies to anything I was actually saying, rather than your modified version of it. In fact the only thing I found worth anything is this......... where yes you managed to find where my autocorrect shafted me. Somehow it changed "meme" into "law" here.

Be fair though... I haven't modified anything you've said. That you struggle with another view on what you have said isn't all that surprising.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps you are. But as usual when you shift away from replying to what I wrote, to replying about me as a person.... you are simply wrong. Nothing of the sort occurred.

No perhaps about it, I was certainly starting to feel it. Still got that niggling feeling, I have to admit....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You make it sound like it is either/or. As if not perpetrating nonsense means you can not feel good, be nice to each other, or be other than a "grinch". Quite the contrary to that is true however. One can attain all those things entirely well without perpetrating nonsense. In some ways even BETTER given you are not ceding credit for the beauty of those things to someone who is not only not there, but non-existent.

Do I? I certainly didn't say that though. If you think you can be a grinch and it's not less nice than enjoying perpetrating the same nonsense on our children, feeling good and being nice to each other for no good reason, then maybe you're a particularly peculiar grinch?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am sorry those things occur "Just sometimes" in your life or relationship with children. They are pretty consistent in my relationship with mine however, no unsubstantiated nonsense required.

That's ok, I didn't say these things occur "Just sometimes" in my life or relationship with children so no need to feel sorry at all!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fail to see how acknowledging that replies to, rebuts, or is relevant to anything I wrote however. You could entirely acknowledge it and still all the things I wrote would stand entirely as they are.

Well, jimmycrackcorm has offered the perpetuation of the two myths for discussion. My personal feeling is that both make lots of people feel good, which is quite germane to discussing them in the round; consider it an addition to the discussion that you omitted from your rather more negative views.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Another "reply" from you that manages to not at all address that was said. A lie remains a lie even if one person in the chain that is telling it happens to believe it. Your mistake is to take my general comment down to the level of the individual and thus reply to something I am, once again, not actually saying.

Well, that seems a tad disingenuous. I obviously addressed your use of the word lie; that is something you said. You know I addressed it, because you're replying to it. And a person who believes what they are saying is not telling a lie; it is not a lie when they say it. They're not teaching beneficial ideas through lies, they're teaching beneficial ideas rooted in the truth that they understand and know.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But even without the pedantic equivocation over the meaning of "lie" the point I make still stands..... that A) I would think it better to teach morality as an end in itself and to be "good for goodness sake" rather than base it on unsubstantiated nonsense and the possible risk that if the target divests itself of that nonsense later, that the "good stuff" is put in jeopardy too.

Sure, you could have offered the point without offering the notion that they're teaching beneficial notions through lies, but you didn't; you chose to offer your little barb, so it's hardly surprising you'll be picked up on it. And what you would rather is well and good enough for you; your belief in unsubstantiated nonsense probably predicates your choice in just the same way as a religious persons belief predicates theirs; if both end up with a morality I agree with I'm inclined to tolerance of how they get there.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah, but again, that's not the crux of the point I am actually making it it? Once again by taking my general comment down to the level of the individual to discuss their perspective you are talking past me rather than with me. I am talking about the effects of doing X and you deflect by discussing the perspective the person has WHILE doing X. The point again however is the relative differences of teaching our children, as parents, to be "good" just for the sake of being "good"..... or to be "good" because some "benign dictator" requires it of us. The latter does not appear to be morally positive at all. While, as I said, if the person taught to be good for these reasons later loses belief in the basis of those reasons (that a god even exists) there is at least a risk that the baby goes out with the bath water.

Whether or not its the crux of the point you're trying to make doesn't detract from the terms you couch it in; you've presented us with your own rather twisted perspective on the person doing X, which again you didn't require for your point, but placed the barbs nonetheless. You obviously expect it to be picked up, so you can't be dismayed that it's commented on? You've (twice) offered your own perspective for moral teaching, yet you think the perspective of another person should not only be ignored, but insist on misrepresenting it. Not something that inspires confidence in your point of view.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As it does if you are being "good for goodness sake" too. That transcends the self too because you are being good for the sake of goodness, not for the sake of the self. So the same thing you suggest is just as attainable, only without recourse to unsubstantiated claims.

Sure, why not? I'm not saying there aren't loads of ways to be a good person... though I think sneering at and misrepresenting others isn't likely to be one of them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Take it up with someone who is trying to dictate then. Last time I checked, offering another perspective is the opposite of "dictating". Unless of course you are merely using the more dilute definition of "dictate".

Sure. Though those who feel is it within their grant whether or not other peoples hearts are in the right place when they do what they do may be a little closer to dictating how those whose hearts are in the right place should go about doing good. Particularly when they're prepared to misrepresent how those people are going about it if it doesn't align with how they'd go about it themselves....

farmchoice

just out of curiosity could you outline the consequences that presented later,im kind of in the same boat in the sense that i'm allowing the religious thing for now but i was working on the assumption that it wouldn't have any great long term effect.

sorry this question is for the ''thegodlife''

thegodlife

Hi Farmchoice

As you can imagine it was difficult we were no longer connected to any religion although still spiritual we just didn't feel organized religion was the answer. Looking back now our eldest daughter was very adamant she wanted this but she never followed through and didn't keep up.

Initially it meant getting my daughter baptized so we got a job lot done and did them all at the one time, the parish we live in is small and for the communion service all parents we expected to have an involvement in the religious education. So it meant going to the parish community hall with my child once month for about 6/7 months beforehand and helping the religious preparation of the class of children. this evolved reading going through the RC issued booklets connected and testing the kids on them. It also was connected to the Sunday mass and our children were expected to be involved in this and even got us involved in church readings etc etc.

This may be different in a large parish be we had only about 12 children in ours at the time, We have 4 children and still involved and connected to something i dont want.

All of this is ok but if you don't believe and just doing it for your child I ended up feel very two faced about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

I never said you said it... so feel free to read the rest of your sentence back to yourself

Nor did I say you said I said it. However it was useful to acknowledge that when you choose to reply to me you tend to take the tack of replying to things I never actually said, despite seemingly replying to my post.

Again the point I was making with the "coming clean" comment was that the large difference as a parent between teaching them your religion and engaging in the Santa claus narrative is that generally at some point people intend to remove the latter, and generally not the former. Yet as usual with you you are choosing to reply to HOW I make that point rather than the point itself.

And when I am talking about "contradicting science" I am not at all discussing how the Santa narrative is unscientific. I am talking about the difference between the clash between the santa narrative in schools and society (little to none) and the clash between religion in schools and society (where religion can often tend to throw itself into direct conflict with things like science).

I have no idea what you think you mean with the "less nice" and "grinch" comments though. I certainly see nothing more OR less nice about it. Just different. It is certainly a line of reasoning I have seen in the parenting forum before that people who do not do the santa thing are accused of denying the children the magic of christmas, or some form of happiness or joy from christmas. But in reality the opposite is true. They enjoy it every bit as much as any other children it seems to me, nothing is lost.... just different....... and the spirit of things like "giving" and "being nice to each other for no reason" and so forth is even more real as it involves the people there.... rather than having any element of it transferred to an imaginary third party.

I do not think any individual person has to know what they are saying is a lie for it to be a lie. A lie can be perpetuated by a mix of people who know it to be one, and those who do not. Certainly claiming something to be true that you have no substantiation for being true errs towards the lying territory too. But suffice to say if you have an issue with people sneering and misrepresenting then you should take it up with people doing that. And if you think I have espoused something that is unsubstantiated, then by all means pointed out. Given I have not done any of these things however, they have nothing to do with me.

farmchoice

thegodlife wrote: »

Hi Farmchoice

As you can imagine it was difficult we were no longer connected to any religion although still spiritual we just didn't feel organized religion was the answer. Looking back now our eldest daughter was very adamant she wanted this but she never followed through and didn't keep up.

Initially it meant getting my daughter baptized so we got a job lot done and did them all at the one time, the parish we live in is small and for the communion service all parents we expected to have an involvement in the religious education. So it meant going to the parish community hall with my child once month for about 6/7 months beforehand and helping the religious preparation of the class of children. this evolved reading going through the RC issued booklets connected and testing the kids on them. It also was connected to the Sunday mass and our children were expected to be involved in this and even got us involved in church readings etc etc.

This may be different in a large parish be we had only about 12 children in ours at the time, We have 4 children and still involved and connected to something i dont want.

All of this is ok but if you don't believe and just doing it for your child I ended up feel very two faced about it.

ya i see what you mean, i think once you have to go back and get them baptized you are entering a whole new level of involvement alright, plus as my wife in nominally religious i can leave all that craic to her.

thegodlife

Well they have to baptized first and our parish priest wouldn't accept just one parents involvement, small parish which he has a lot of respect and control of. Nice man and all but not something I wanted to be involved with and now stuck until last one is confirmed.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

How would saying what you actually are (if Pastafarian is what you are) 'spoil your vote'? Isn't the point of the question to ascertain what peoples' non/religious belief is?

That's a rather curmudgeonly presumption there, but that aside, it's true that the schools in Ireland were founded/built/maintained with a range of varying ownership structures. Since the State's obligation is to provide for education rather than provide education, it's sound fiscal policy to allow other interested parties to fund the actual provision of education to the greatest possible degree; it takes a financial burden away from the State, as well as providing options for parents availing of their right to send their children to schools not established by the State, or particular types of school designated by the State.

So in your typical rural village you have... COI, RC, Jewish, Muslim, Non-Religious, Multi Denom..

'Options' for everyone?

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor did I say you said I said it. However it was useful to acknowledge that when you choose to reply to me you tend to take the tack of replying to things I never actually said, despite seemingly replying to my post.

Like you did? Must be one of those quid pro quo things then.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the point I was making with the "coming clean" comment was that the large difference as a parent between teaching them your religion and engaging in the Santa claus narrative is that generally at some point people intend to remove the latter, and generally not the former. Yet as usual with you you are choosing to reply to HOW I make that point rather than the point itself. .

And the point I was making was HOW you make your point is to characterise what people do in a pejorative fashion, which reflects your own opinions more than it does theirs. Those parents have no need or obligation to "come clean" since they are already presenting useful truths, just ones you disagree with.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And when I am talking about "contradicting science" I am not at all discussing how the Santa narrative is unscientific. I am talking about the difference between the clash between the santa narrative in schools and society (little to none) and the clash between religion in schools and society (where religion can often tend to throw itself into direct conflict with things like science).

I don't think the clash between the Santa narrative or the Christian narrative in schools and society is all that substantial though. You may choose to seek out creationists and biblical literalists as examples of direct conflict but these are not conflicts between our schools and our society. By and large about as much attention is given to just how Santa gets down chimneys as is given to just how Jesus turned water into wine, so whilst you're obviously concerned at the predations of religious instruction on science, I'm saying both are contradicting science, and neither is likely to lead us into another Dark Age.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have no idea what you think you mean with the "less nice" and "grinch" comments though. I certainly see nothing more OR less nice about it. Just different. It is certainly a line of reasoning I have seen in the parenting forum before that people who do not do the santa thing are accused of denying the children the magic of christmas, or some form of happiness or joy from christmas. But in reality the opposite is true. They enjoy it every bit as much as any other children it seems to me, nothing is lost.... just different....... and the spirit of things like "giving" and "being nice to each other for no reason" and so forth is even more real as it involves the people there.... rather than having any element of it transferred to an imaginary third party.

Mm. I can't help but feel you're deliberately wandering astray of my assertion that an alternative to 'coming clean' about Santa is to enjoy the idea of jolly gift givers, that we grow out of believing in their literal existence, and we should enjoy perpetrating the same nonsense on our children because just sometimes feeling good and being nice to each other for no good reason is nicer than being the grinch. The 'grinch' comment which you've no idea what I think I mean by it, refers to 'coming clean' about Santa, rather than enjoying it. You'll recall the grinch stole Christmas simply because the festivities annoyed him, which is somewhat analagous to 'coming clean' about Santa in order to 'treat' bad and false ideas and thinking with innocuous memetic injections that allow a beneficial increase in immunity.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think any individual person has to know what they are saying is a lie for it to be a lie.

Well, there we're just going to have to flat out disagree. A lie is an intentionally false statement, to lie is to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. That you may feel the statements are untrue is your own perspective; they're certainly not lies, and presenting them as such is deliberately pejorative.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A lie can be perpetuated by a mix of people who know it to be one, and those who do not. Certainly claiming something to be true that you have no substantiation for being true errs towards the lying territory too.

When someone says something they believe to be true, with no intent to deceive, they're not perpetuating a lie; they're telling the truth. They may be wrong (though I doubt you can prove there is no God anymore than they can prove there is one) but they're not lying. That you present it as a lie, again says more about you than about them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But suffice to say if you have an issue with people sneering and misrepresenting then you should take it up with people doing that. And if you think I have espoused something that is unsubstantiated, then by all means pointed out. Given I have not done any of these things however, they have nothing to do with me.

Well.. you have. Terms like 'dissonance', 'indoctrination', 'coming clean', 'bums on seats in the clubhouses of whatever particular hobby', 'unsubstantiated nonsense memes', ' bad and false ideas and thinking', 'lies', 'benign dictator'... that is sneering and misrepresenting. You could have offered at least what you're claiming is the substance of your points without those characterisations, but you chose to make them nonetheless... they have everything to do with you.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So in your typical rural village you have... COI, RC, Jewish, Muslim, Non-Religious, Multi Denom.. 'Options' for everyone?

Are you saying someone is obliged to provide options that all of these people will like? Personally I don't think that is the case. In providing for education rather than providing education the State can provide options for parents availing of their right to send their children to schools not established by the State, or particular types of school designated by the State; anything other than home schooling is such an option.

nozzferrahhtoo

The only quid pro quo of interest to me is having actual points replied to and discussed rather than desperate tangents, or irrelevant treaties on HOW the points were made rather than WHAT the points were.

As it stands the crux of my point has barely been addressed, let alone rebutted or accepted. That there are plenty of differences between how we engage with religion as parents, and how we engage with the Santa narratives as parents to justify engaging with one while having issues with the other.

The main one as I said is that the Santa narrative for the vast majority of parents is one we intend to be a temporary game in our home, mostly done under our purview and control and the fact that we are parents do "come clean" about it has nothing to do with Grinchs but is a reality for the majority of us.

And there is opportunity WHILE doing so as parents to use that process to inoculate our children against other unsubstantiated and bad ideas by teaching them how and why they were fooled by the Santa narrative so as to assist them not being fooled by other people in their future using similar tactics and fallacies. No one HAS to take that opportunity of course, but it is there for those parents who wish to try. Nor is anyone taking the fun out of Christmas or anything else by doing so.

Religious narratives however are ones that are often done by our school, the majority of people perpetuating them hold the intent they be permanent, and are often done out of our control and purview.

Those differences alone justify it, but I gave more that have barely been rebutted either, rather just their form of presentation moaned about. And what you badly mistake as sneering and misrepresentation are actually accurate descriptions

Your issue distinguishing between a lie told on an individual level and one told on a larger level is unfortunate. But certainly as a parent my concern is to work towards having schools that only teach children things we actually have actual cause to believe to be true. Teaching as true something that we have no actual arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to believe is actually true, is indeed lying to our children, even if some parent or teacher along that chain happens to believe it too.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only quid pro quo of interest to me is having actual points replied to and discussed rather than desperate tangents, or irrelevant treaties on HOW the points were made rather than WHAT the points were.

That doesn't mean it's the only quid pro quo you'll get though... not many on boards will feel obliged to restrict themselves to the portions of your statements you want to discuss I'm afraid... particularly when we find other parts more interesting.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As it stands the crux of my point has barely been addressed, let alone rebutted or accepted. That there are plenty of differences between how we engage with religion as parents, and how we engage with the Santa narratives as parents to justify engaging with one while having issues with the other.

Maybe if you'd offered the crux of your point without the disingenuous swipes someone might have found it interesting enough to discuss with you. Personally I think your little barbs and snarls at people who don't agree with you are more entertaining.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The main one as I said is that the Santa narrative for the vast majority of parents is one we intend to be a temporary game in our home, mostly done under our purview and control and the fact that we are parents do "come clean" about it has nothing to do with Grinchs but is a reality for the majority of us.

'We'? Didn't you say at the outset that "I do not do the Santa thing with my kids at all "? How is it you are now claiming to speak on behalf of the 'we' who do?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And there is opportunity WHILE doing so as parents to use that process to inoculate our children against other unsubstantiated and bad ideas by teaching them how and why they were fooled by the Santa narrative so as to assist them not being fooled by other people in their future using similar tactics and fallacies. No one HAS to take that opportunity of course, but it is there for those parents who wish to try. Nor is anyone taking the fun out of Christmas or anything else by doing so.

I imagine there are heaps of opportunities; I reckon you could lower your sights and give some thought to your inclination to misrepresent others before trying to school anyone in how to deal with other peoples unsubstantiated and bad ideas.....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Religious narratives however are ones that are often done by our school, the majority of people perpetuating them hold the intent they be permanent, and are often done out of our control and purview.

And the majority of people perpetuating them do so also in their homes, in the full knowledge that what they are doing is right and truthful. Whilst the Santa myth is being perpetuated in schools, often done out of your control and purview, but accounted reasonably harmless by most nonetheless.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Those differences alone justify it, but I gave more that have barely been rebutted either, rather just their form of presentation moaned about. And what you badly mistake as sneering and misrepresentation are actually accurate descriptions

I doubt you'd find anyone who participates in what you've taken aim at who'll consider what you've said to be an accurate description. I think you know that quite well, I think you know that you could offer your points without offering the characterisations you did. That you deliberately chose to nonetheless belies your motivations.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your issue distinguishing between a lie told on an individual level and one told on a larger level is unfortunate.

Nope, my issue is with you describing something as a lie which isn't. As I said.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But certainly as a parent my concern is to work towards having schools that only teach children things we actually have actual cause to believe to be true. Teaching as true something that we have no actual arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to believe is actually true, is indeed lying to our children, even if some parent or teacher along that chain happens to believe it too.

You're conflating truth and fact there, as I'm sure you're aware. And whilst it's certainly laudable to work towards schools teaching facts, it's not so laudable to claim someone is teaching beneficial ideas through lies when they aren't.

nozzferrahhtoo

I will concern myself with how other users restrict themselves at such time as I say anything that requires it of them. But since expressing what is interesting to me puts no restriction on them, what we have is yet another pontificate from you on something that is barely tangential to what you pretend to reply to.

But certainly mis-characterization of both the tone and intent behind my posts fails to address the content of them. Not least because even if the characterization of them was 100% correct, the points will still remain without address or rebuttal. It is a testament to the strength of my posts that the best one can muster in reply to them is to mis-characterize their tone, or even to deflect to a discussion of their tone at all. And I think I can justifiably suspect that this ineffectual flailing has elevated my amusement above that of the poster to whom I originally replied.

Suffice to repeat however that IF the basis of the users amusement is that he perceives some cognitive dissonance and/or contradiction in being entirely ok with X while taking issue with Y.... then I have... without rebutal.... presented sufficient differences between X and Y to undermine the source of that amusement and adequately explain why some people have an issue with one and not the other.

Once again however, teaching something as true without a shred of substantiation that it actually is true.... is indeed lying. Even if at the individual level in that bigger picture SOME elements believe it themselves.

kippy

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So in your typical rural village you have... COI, RC, Jewish, Muslim, Non-Religious, Multi Denom..

'Options' for everyone?

If someone choses to live in a rural village there are consequences of that choice. In the same manner as you would not expect a library, hospital and any other resource that it is not feasible to run in a small village.
If you want access to more options you move.
I am not sure why people dont understand this.
However I do accept earlier points raised around education.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will concern myself with how other users restrict themselves at such time as I say anything that requires it of them. But since expressing what is interesting to me puts no restriction on them, what we have is yet another pontificate from you on something that is barely tangential to what you pretend to reply to.

That certainly sounds like an opinion of some sort... still, if you don't like my replies to your posts no one is obliging your to engage with them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But certainly mis-characterization of both the tone and intent behind my posts fails to address the content of them. Not least because even if the characterization of them was 100% correct, the points will still remain without address or rebuttal.

And yet the pejorative characterisations and barbs you've offered us were assuredly part of your posts. If you'd wanted us to consider your points without considering them, perhaps you shouldn't have included them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a testament to the strength of my posts that the best one can muster in reply to them is to mis-characterize their tone, or even to deflect to a discussion of their tone at all. And I think I can justifiably suspect that this ineffectual flailing has elevated my amusement above that of the poster to whom I originally replied.

I can certainly see you imagine so... but self praise isn't the highest of praises in all fairness, particularly when you are so assidiuous in misrepresenting the efforts of others to their detriment.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Suffice to repeat however that IF the basis of the users amusement is that he perceives some cognitive dissonance and/or contradiction in being entirely ok with X while taking issue with Y.... then I have... without rebutal.... presented sufficient differences between X and Y to undermine the source of that amusement and adequately explain why some people have an issue with one and not the other.

I can honestly say it doesn't appear to suffice at all, but if anyone other than yourself thinks it does I'm sure they'll say so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again however, teaching something as true without a shred of substantiation that it actually is true.... is indeed lying. Even if at the individual level in that bigger picture SOME elements believe it themselves.

And once again, your idea of a lie is at odds with it's definition. Anyone who says something they believe to be true is not telling a lie... even if you don't believe what they're saying.

nozzferrahhtoo

And once again my engaging with your posts is at best tangential to what I actually said. Your inventing pejoratives and barbs that I have not actually engaged in merely fails to address what I have actually said, choosing instead to pontificate on HOW it was said. One again not only have you failed to correctly characterize my tone and intentions, even if you had 100% characterized them correctly it would still be a total failure to actually address the points being made.

Again if the user was suggesting some level of contradiction or dissonance in having an issue with religion in school while not having an issue with Santa at home.... then I have offered several not rebutted points of difference between the two. And merely declaring them not to suffice and running away, does not magically make them take on that attribute. The differences I highlighted are not small and they perfectly explain why someone can have an issue with one and not the other.

And again an individual lie told by an individual person might, in your view, require that the person know it to be a lie. As I said however claiming something to be true without basis is just as much a lie but since that is not what I am talking about with my main point you are (as usual) attacking something that is barely tangential to my point. On a larger societal scale a lie disseminated is still a lie even if SOME individual elements in that dissemination think the lie a truth.

Zynks

Absolam wrote: »

That certainly sounds like an opinion of some sort... still, if you don't like my replies to your posts no one is obliging your to engage with them.

And yet the pejorative characterisations and barbs you've offered us were assuredly part of your posts. If you'd wanted us to consider your points without considering them, perhaps you shouldn't have included them.

I can certainly see you imagine so... but self praise isn't the highest of praises in all fairness, particularly when you are so assidiuous in misrepresenting the efforts of others to their detriment.

I can honestly say it doesn't appear to suffice at all, but if anyone other than yourself thinks it does I'm sure they'll say so.

And once again, your idea of a lie is at odds with it's definition. Anyone who says something they believe to be true is not telling a lie... even if you don't believe what they're saying.

This has gone awfully off topic.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And once again my engaging with your posts is at best tangential to what I actually said. Your inventing pejoratives and barbs that I have not actually engaged in merely fails to address what I have actually said, choosing instead to pontificate on HOW it was said. One again not only have you failed to correctly characterize my tone and intentions, even if you had 100% characterized them correctly it would still be a total failure to actually address the points being made.

Well... I'm sure you know why you're engaged with a tangent to what you're claiming was your point. it's your use, as I said, of terms such as 'dissonance', 'indoctrination', 'coming clean', 'bums on seats in the clubhouses of whatever particular hobby', 'unsubstantiated nonsense memes', ' bad and false ideas and thinking', 'lies', 'benign dictator'. I didn't invent them... they're your words. You're hardly surprised that it's difficult to encourage people to engage with other parts of your posts when you're resorting to that kind of deliberate mischaracterisation. Are you?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again if the user was suggesting some level of contradiction or dissonance in having an issue with religion in school while not having an issue with Santa at home.... then I have offered several not rebutted points of difference between the two. And merely declaring them not to suffice and running away, does not magically make them take on that attribute. The differences I highlighted are not small and they perfectly explain why someone can have an issue with one and not the other.

And yet... there were so many points of similarity to consider as well, and rather than engage with counterpoints you prefer to carp about no one rebutting your points and pretend that you're representative of people who you previously claimed no part of.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And again an individual lie told by an individual person might, in your view, require that the person know it to be a lie.

Nope, not in my view; according to the dictionary definitions of a lie. Obviously your view doesn't accord with those definitions, but given your predilection for presenting others activities in such a way as to slight them, you can probably understand why I'm leaning towards the Oxford Dictionary & Merriam Webster rather than your own rendition...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said however claiming something to be true without basis is just as much a lie but since that is not what I am talking about with my main point you are (as usual) attacking something that is barely tangential to my point. On a larger societal scale a lie disseminated is still a lie even if SOME individual elements in that dissemination think the lie a truth.

And if it were so tangential as to not be relevant, then maybe you shouldn't have offered it for consideration. Since you did, I think I feel quite justified in picking you up on it.

nozzferrahhtoo

So after several posts attempting not to be derailed into tangents irrelevant to my actual points, and pointless pontification on the imagined tone oy the points, I am being accused of going off on tangents. This is sheer comedy now. You couldn't make this stuff up. My point has been clear, concise, and steady for some time now. And my point that there are differences between the two that warrant some peoples concern for one while not for the other is certainly not negated by claiming there are similarities between them too. The differences remain and they still warrant it. And a lie still remains a lie even if someone along the chain of it's dissemination believes it.