Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mary says YES!
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »If the STORY of Mary were taught as fact
Hang on, are you missing the
or :rolleyes: smilie?
While some of the bible is now taken as allegorical (try that a few hundred years ago if you wanted to know what your burning flesh smelt like) by some and not to be taken literally (although see Free Presbyterian etc.) I'm pretty sure the whole Jesus being conceived through God's intervention is pretty much considered as, erm, gospel.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wait - at six? Your child was taught to walk up to unknown adults at six years of age and to ask for a loan of their phone? Really??
Mine certainly wouldn't have been - on the rare occasions at that age where they might find themselves without an adult who was already known to them, (if they ever got lost in a crowd, mainly) I always told them to look preferably for someone in authority, with a uniform for example : because those people are more likely to have been vetted - not by me personally, but then that's neither necessary nor possible.
I simply don't believe that you just allowed your six year old to be in situations where he not only knew no adults but may have had to walk up to random strangers and ask them for favours. I genuinely do not believe that a careful parent would show that level of negligence towards their child's safety.
So either you are (IMO) unfit to be a parent or you are still desperately inventing excuses to make this "Mary said yes!" business into unexceptionable. I suspect strongly that it's the latter.
I'm ok with being thought of an an unfit parent by your standards. If it's any consolation though, I got him his own phone at six so he wouldn't have to be asking other people (and I could track him on Google Latitude!). I taught him from a very early age to be independent, much to my wife's frustration, because she was, like yourself, more concerned about his safety than his independence.
Different parenting styles I guess. I wouldn't ever suggest you were an unfit parent though if I didn't at least first try and understand you without being so quick to pass judgment. Kinda funny how that works, and you're not even religious?
EDIT:
I'm also deeply puzzled by what you think the "nuance" in the message you taught them was : mine was that no matter how trusted someone appeared to be, whether by me or by the children or by "authority", if what the person was asking the child to do made them feel uncomfortable, then they were to trust their own feelings about the situation and didn't have to obey - and that they should never be afraid to talk to us about it before doing anything that worried them.
It's the negation of that essential nuance that worries me in this business.
The message I taught him was that I'm not always going to be there to wipe his arse for him and pick him up when he falls. He has to learn to look after himself (and he does, he's 10 now and walks to school himself), because he's not afraid of the world around him, he's not afraid of strangers, he knows how to handle himself and what to do in an emergency situation, not just a situation where he breaks a nail or someone calls him nasty names.
He is a confident, happy, socially outgoing child, high achiever academically (up at half 5 the other morning doing extra math on his tablet), high achiever in numerous sports and social clubs, and has a healthy respect for adults and people in positions of authority.
In isolation of course, your judgement is that I'm an unfit parent, but working with social care professionals every day who have nothing but praise for my child, I think they're more likely to know my child and I better than a stranger on the Internet (no disrespect meant to you personally volchista, but it's one of the other things I talk to children about when I talk to them about protecting themselves - not needing validation from strangers on the internet).0 -
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »If the STORY of Mary were taught as fact, then you might have a point about there being conflicting messages being taught to children
....
It's only a story Cabaal, there's no need to worry, Mary isn't real remember?One eyed Jack wrote: »It isn't, and it never was, and that IS a fact, rather than what you're trying to claim is a fact.
Jack, I realize you claim to be an atheist, and that may be true, going by your apparent ignorance about the fundamentals of catholic theology anyway - but there comes a point where someone with apparently zero knowledge of what exactly children are being taught in religion classes shouldn't be defending that content by posting direct falsehoods about what it consists of!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
The Virgin Birth is taught as fact, not only to children but as a basic tenet of Catholicism.
That you and indeed many practising Catholics may think that Mary had sex either with Joseph or with someone else entirely and that the virgin birth was just a made up story is not relevant when six year olds are being taught it as fact.
If schools were teaching in "Santa" classes that Santa was real, and that men in long red robes were fine to be let into the house when the child is home alone, I think parents would object - and rightly so. It wouldn't mean that the parents believed in Santa, would it? It's a question of children being expected to believe what their teachers tell them, and not getting the bits that are not meant to be taken seriously. Like religion, according to you. Which makes one wonder why you are so desperate to defend it in the first place.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 26389
One eyed Jack wrote: »Spectacularly missing the irony there yourself in claiming that I'm crying about something and criticising something and being disingenuous, when religious ideas are regularly ripped the piss out of on here,
See's that the thing,
Religion isn't factual, Jesus isn't the actual son of god so we are free to take the piss out of it.
The NSPCC however have actually run safety campaigns, just not one like you claimed called "just say no".What's utterly pathetic is using the issue of child abuse to score points against an ideology you just don't like. It's really that simple.
I don't give a monkeys if this booklet was created by the church or not, creating a message saying its ok to say yes even when you're scared etc is idiotic.
It doesn't matter if the catholic church is involved or not, I'd have the same issue with any similar message pushed in our primary schools.It isn't, and it never was, and that IS a fact, rather than what you're trying to claim is a fact.
So Mary isn't portrayed as actually having existed by catholic schools in religion class?
What drugs are you on?
Catholic Schools push the story of Mary and Jesus as factual and having actually happened, its as simply as that.But in YOUR eyes Cabaal, did any of these things exist?
No of course not, only a complete idiot thinks Mary existed, was made pregnant but still remained a Virgin and her baby was the son of a all powerful god.
:rolleyes:If your answer is no, then cool beans, you have nothing to worry about.
But the thing is we do,
It doesn't matter what I personally think, Catholic Primary schools teach the story as something that actually happened.
Regardless, even if they did say "hey kids, this whole Mary and Jesus think is actually just a fairytale", then its still an idiotic message to teach children.
Of course the frightening thing is they actually do teach it as factual.
Oh for goodness sake, I'm being disingenuous because I'm struggling to take this particular objection seriously, because I know it's less about preventing child abuse, and more about some people's objections to religion in schools.
I don't like the idea of religious ethos State schools, but for anyone to use child abuse in furthering their agenda, I'll quickly tell them to fcuk right off tbh.Sure she is Cabaal. Sure she is. The most worrying part of that whole article is the fact that people like the author think the way they do - paedophiles, paedophiles everywhere.
I'm not sure why but you seem to have a very hard time understanding that the whole story of Mary and Jesus is thought as factual in schools. You seem to forget that without this story the Catholic Church doesn't exist as Jesus on the cross never happened.
The Catholic church very much so states that Jesus actually existed and so did Mary, this is the message put across in catholic schools.
My thinks your reason for claiming it isn't thought as fact is to try and draw away from the issue itself, again another pathetic response from yourself.
Nobody has stated that pedophiles are everywhere,
The issue here is teaching children a common sense message, the message we should teach is that its good to say no when somebody wants to do something to you that is uncomfortable to you or makes you scared. This is especially important if you don't know the person but they claim to be a figure of a authority.
Instead, here we are saying the opposite.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm ok with being thought of an an unfit parent by your standards. If it's any consolation though, I got him his own phone at six so he wouldn't have to be asking other people (and I could track him on Google Latitude!). I taught him from a very early age to be independent, much to my wife's frustration, because she was, like yourself, more concerned about his safety than his independence.
Different parenting styles I guess. I wouldn't ever suggest you were an unfit parent though if I didn't at least first try and understand you without being so quick to pass judgment. Kinda funny how that works, and you're not even religious?
The message I taught him was that I'm not always going to be there to wipe his arse for him and pick him up when he falls. He has to learn to look after himself (and he does, he's 10 now and walks to school himself), because he's not afraid of the world around him, he's not afraid of strangers, he knows how to handle himself and what to do in an emergency situation, not just a situation where he breaks a nail or someone calls him nasty names.
He is a confident, happy, socially outgoing child, high achiever academically (up at half 5 the other morning doing extra math on his tablet), high achiever in numerous sports and social clubs, and has a healthy respect for adults and people in positions of authority.
In isolation of course, your judgement is that I'm an unfit parent, but working with social care professionals every day who have nothing but praise for my child, I think they're more likely to know my child and I better than a stranger on the Internet (no disrespect meant to you personally volchista, but it's one of the other things I talk to children about when I talk to them about protecting themselves - not needing validation from strangers on the internet).
Okay good, I'm very happy to be wrong about you and him then. Genuinely.
And you'll notice that I said that I actually don't really believe it to be as you said - and still don't tbh, because you say he's confident, which means you expect him not to obey "authority" in situations of grooming, which you accept can happen, and which was my worry about the message transmitted by this story.
So would you agree that not all six year old children in these religion classes are as confident and outgoing as your son, nor as smart (in all senses of the word) and that some may not be able to stand up for themselves to someone in authority if they ever were being groomed?
And that since the story, as it's presented in this book, doesn't need to be told in this particular way (Mary, a confused child in bed at night etc) and that this could be a confusing and potentially dangerous message to teach to children who are (and some are) at risk of being groomed by adults, it's a most unfortunate choice of images and words?0 -
-
-
Jack, I realize you claim to be an atheist
volchista I've make some funky claims in my time, but never have I ever claimed to be atheist. I've always maintained that I identify as Roman Catholic., and that may be true, going by your apparent ignorance about the fundamentals of catholic theology anyway - but there comes a point where someone with apparently zero knowledge of what exactly children are being taught in religion classes shouldn't be defending that content by posting direct falsehoods about what it consists of!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
The Virgin Birth is taught as fact, not only to children but as a basic tenet of Catholicism.
That you and indeed many practising Catholics may think that Mary had sex either with Joseph or with someone else entirely and that the virgin birth was just a made up story is not relevant when six year olds are being taught it as fact.
If schools were teaching in "Santa" classes that Santa was real, and that men in long red robes were fine to be let into the house when the child is home alone, I think parents would object - and rightly so. It wouldn't mean that the parents believed in Santa, would it? It's a question of children being expected to believe what their teachers tell them, and not getting the bits that are not meant to be taken seriously. Like religion, according to you. Which makes one wonder why you are so desperate to defend it in the first place.
That's an interesting interpretation of what's taught in Roman Catholic ethos schools, but I think there was an actual religious curriculum floating around the place here somewhere that was published by the Catholic Bishops (I think it's either in the patronage thread, or the hazards of belief thread), but some people's thinking here about what's taught in schools is way out tbh.
I can object to the content of a book based upon how it offends me. I don't need to make any excuses about child abuse.0 -
-
-
-
My mistake. It's so rare to find a poster on here who does admit to it these days!One eyed Jack wrote: »volchista I've make some funky claims in my time, but never have I ever claimed to be atheist. I've always maintained that I identify as Roman Catholic.
Umm, it's the official theology. And always has been. I'm amazed that you don't know that.One eyed Jack wrote: »That's an interesting interpretation of what's taught in Roman Catholic ethos schools
If you find a genuine RC/Vatican site that teaches that Mary was not in fact a virgin, I'll eat my hat. And yours too if you want.One eyed Jack wrote: »but I think there was an actual religious curriculum floating around the place here somewhere that was published by the Catholic Bishops (I think it's either in the patronage thread, or the hazards of belief thread), but some people's thinking here about what's taught in schools is way out tbh.
I didn't ask you to object to it, I asked you if you agree that your child's confidence and (presumed) ability to recognize when he's being approached inappropriately, and to defend himself against that, may not be typical of all children. Also he's no longer 6.I can object to the content of a book based upon how it offends me. I don't need to make any excuses about child abuse.
So my question is do you agree that this message could be confusing for young children who are or could be in a situation of being groomed by adults in some authority over them?
A plain yes or no would be helpful.
(Though if it's a no, I would also ask why you are so sure it can't possibly matter, and what use you think it is teaching things to children in the first place if they are then expected to disbelieve them anyway?)0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement