Mary says YES!

recedite · 17-10-2015 5:34pm

amdublin wrote: »

Ps. Just to get things straight. Is it really being taught in schools that the angel Gabriel IMPREGNATES Mary?? From my school days I just remember the angel Gabriel coming to Mary and TELLING her she was going to have a baby. "Don't be afraid you are going to have baby"

ABC101 wrote: »

IMO there sees to be a lot of confusion about the issue of the Annunciation, certainly confusion on this thread.
The A.I. article about the story makes a number of assumptions, some of which are incorrect, perhaps deliberately so.

The Annunciation was the event where the Angel Gabriel sent by God appears to Mary and informs her that God wishes her to take part in his plan.
The Annunciation is not a sexual event, which is what seems to be suggested by a number of posters on here.

The A.I. article does quote the text of the lesson as Mary is described as a young woman.
Where the A.I. article seems to object is that the cartoon image used is appears to depict Mary as a young child saying Yes to a form of abuse
....For A.I. to infer that the cartoon image portrays Mary as a young child is dishonest IMO.

Lets clear up this confusion about who impregnated Mary in the story. The angel Gabriel warned Mary in advance and told her not to panic, not to tell anybody about it, and to submit to what was going to happen. In modern parlance, he "groomed" her. Then his boss came along and did the deed, in the form of the holy spirit.
According to the bible (Luke)

And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" 35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God." 38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Just noticed there is a justification for the holy fertility treatment of older women in the same verse! I wonder why they never mention that :pac:

As for whether the girl in this new primary school book is depicted as child or adult, that is in the eye of the beholder. IMO it looks like a child.
Biblical scholars reckon Mary would have been about 12 -14 years old, so perhaps this version is more biblically or historically accurate, but also more disturbing than the spiel taught to the previous couple of generations.

Perhaps more important is the age group that this lesson is taught to.

Traditional pagan fairly tales of Europe such as Little Red Riding Hood have survived because parents see the opposite message there, one that they really want the child to learn. Don't go off on your own, and don't trust what the stranger tells you. Beware of the bad guy taking on the disguise of a trusted authority figure.

evolving_doors · 17-10-2015 5:36pm

ABC101 wrote: »

You are distorting what is written in the Gospel.

Mary was a young woman... not a 6 year old child.

Mary was startled / afraid when she saw the Angel Gabriel at first.

Angel Gabriel told her not to be frightened / afraid.

Mary is now no longer afraid.

Angel Gabriel gives Mary the message.

Mary freely consents to God's will.

Angel Gabriel departs.

How you can infer that this is the same as a child in their bedroom being approached by a figure of authority (i.e. adult) who wants to do something abusive is ridiculous.

Sorry i got it wrong, it wasnt the angel that did the impregnating, it was god himself.
Did joseph get a say in any of this cuckolding?

But back to my original question, what is the teaching point of this lesson?

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 5:48pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I get the impression you think posters are suggesting that children will think it is literally the case that Mary had a sexual relationship with the Angel. I can't speak for others, but that's not my point at all.

No, no, not at all, I get that posters are suggesting, like the article even suggests, that -

This is an extraordinary and dangerous message to give to young children. ‘SAY YES’!, even if you are afraid and confused. Just trust someone that comes to your bed in the night.

Young children are expected to complete a maze to help Gabriel to find his way to Mary, who is portrayed as a child in her bed at night, and then the children have to trace out the word ‘YES’.

The text describes Mary as a young woman, despite portraying her as a little girl without adult characteristics, but the message of saying ‘Yes!’ while being afraid and confused is dangerous regardless of the age of the character.

If parents decide to opt out their children from the religion class they are responsible for their supervision. Our children are still left sitting at the back of the class absorbing the Catholic Church message: ‘SAY YES’!, even if you are afraid and confused. Just trust someone that comes in the night.

They're suggesting that children are being taught to accept being sexually molested and abused by strangers that come into their bedroom at night. It's at best a pretty misguided and quite frankly disgusting interpretation that plays on parent's fears for their children, and Atheist Ireland are doing themselves no favours IMO in trying to make the connection to the sexual abuse of children.

volchitsa wrote: »

I already described my own feeling of shock and disbelief at 13 that a trusted adult could do something "wrong" and ask me to behave in a way that I was entitled, indeed supposed, to refuse to. I know that for a younger child in a more complicated family situation it may have been much harder to refuse, and I also think that this "updated" and "child-friendly" version of the annunciation could well be a further brake on a child's ability to stand up for itself in a way which requires a certain amount of independence and in fact disobedience.

That's exactly the kind of perception Atheist Ireland are banking on to reinforce their scaremongering.

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't agree - but you haven't explained why the risk of you being wrong for even one child is worth taking.

Because the risk simply doesn't exist. It's nothing more than scaremongering based on their twisting of a story to produce a particularly heinous narrative, which they are hoping will relate to parent's fears for their children. The more I think about it, the more I think it's likely to backfire spectacularly for them, and tbh, I wouldn't be sorry for them if it does.

volchitsa · 17-10-2015 5:53pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, no, not at all, I get that posters are suggesting, like the article even suggests, that -

They're suggesting that children are being taught to accept being sexually molested and abused by strangers that come into their bedroom at night. It's at best a pretty misguided and quite frankly disgusting interpretation that plays on parent's fears for their children, and Atheist Ireland are doing themselves no favours IMO in trying to make the connection to the sexual abuse of children.

That's exactly the kind of perception Atheist Ireland are banking on to reinforce their scaremongering.

Because the risk simply doesn't exist. It's nothing more than scaremongering based on their twisting of a story to produce a particularly heinous narrative, which they are hoping will relate to parent's fears for their children. The more I think about it, the more I think it's likely to backfire spectacularly for them, and tbh, I wouldn't be sorry for them if it does.

Sorry, I must have missed your explanation of why the risk doesn't exist - as opposed to "is unlikely to exist". Perhaps you could recap?

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 5:55pm

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Sorry i got it wrong, it wasnt the angel that did the impregnating, it was god himself.
Did joseph get a say in any of this cuckolding?

But back to my original question, what is the teaching point of this lesson?

The learning objectives and faith formation goals are listed at the foot of the picture linked in the article (frankly I'm surprised they even included that much) -

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Grow-in-Love4-8.jpg

expectationlost · 17-10-2015 6:00pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The learning objectives and faith formation goals are listed at the foot of the picture linked in the article (frankly I'm surprised they even included that much) -

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Grow-in-Love4-8.jpg

I've read a few of the teachers instructions, and I've found it hard to conceive how the simple drawings and stuff in the kids book match the lesson that are supposed to learn

but the main lesson in this seems to be is to honour Mary because of her huge trust in God?

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 6:11pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Sorry, I must have missed your explanation of why the risk doesn't exist - as opposed to "is unlikely to exist". Perhaps you could recap?

Sorry, I didn't think you would interpret that so literally tbh. The risk of a stranger entering the home of a child and going up to their bedroom to sexually abuse them on the back of this story is so statistically insignifigant that it isn't even worth entertaining as a scaremongering tactic.

The idea that a child would interpret this story so literally and allow themselves to be sexually abused, based on this story, is a risk so remote, that you could use the same tenuous link to argue anything that puts a child at risk of being abused should be banned.

Forget about evaluating the actual risk any more, now we can just argue potential instead, and ban anything we don't like on the basis that it could potentially be damaging to a child.

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 6:12pm

recedite wrote: »

Lets clear up this confusion about who impregnated Mary in the story. The angel Gabriel warned Mary in advance and told her not to panic, not to tell anybody about it, and to submit to what was going to happen. In modern parlance, he "groomed" her. Then his boss came along and did the deed, in the form of the holy spirit.
According to the bible (Luke) Just noticed there is a justification for the holy fertility treatment of older women in the same verse! I wonder why they never mention that

As for whether the girl in this new primary school book is depicted as child or adult, that is in the eye of the beholder. IMO it looks like a child.
Biblical scholars reckon Mary would have been about 12 -14 years old, so perhaps this version is more biblically or historically accurate, but also more disturbing than the spiel taught to the previous couple of generations.

Perhaps more important is the age group that this lesson is taught to.

Traditional pagan fairly tales of Europe such as Little Red Riding Hood have survived because parents see the opposite message there, one that they really want the child to learn. Don't go off on your own, and don't trust what the stranger tells you. Beware of the bad guy taking on the disguise of a trusted authority figure.

WRT the cartoon image....my opinion is different.

1) It is a cartoon image.... not possible to tell what age the figure of Mary is exactly.

2) IMO.... the figure of Mary is much older than 14. My reason being is that her ankles are rather fat, waistline rather 'pear shaped'.... sort of physical characteristics of a woman in her 40's or older if you ask me.

3) The addition of a headscarf.... while most probably very common among young and old women 2000 years ago would not be common today. IMO... if I see a cartoon character of a woman wearing a head scarf I think of a woman in her 60's or 70's in today's culture. In fact I think she looks more like Mother Teresa of Calcultta if you ask me!!

Getting back to the article written by ADMIN...

'As part of the new Catholic religion course ‘Grow in Love’, six year old infants in Irish schools are being taught that ‘Mary says YES’! to God ‘working through her’ by making her pregnant, despite Mary being afraid, confused and not understanding what was going on"

Clearly false and misleading statement..... taking the Gospel out of context.

Mary was startled / afraid initially when the Angel appeared.....

It is not the case that Mary is afraid of God's plan.

Mary is a believer in God... she trusts God...and while she may not understand the logic of God..... it is dishonest to state that she is afraid of God's plan.

Either ADMIN does not understand the Gospel Readings.... or is deliberately misconstruing the facts.

ADMIN then goes on to mention the Maze Puzzle which is used. Not sure what relevance this is to Child protection policy / prevention of child abuse.

Crosswords / maze puzzles are all used in school from time to time, in different subjects too. When I did various activities in school I never felt abused / taken advantage of.

Does ADMIN think this is some form of trickery / deception?

It is very clear that ADMIN has taken the initial fear that Mary had on seeing the Angel Gabriel for the first time ...... and carried this fear over to following God's plan. When that is not the case.

Clearly disingenuous indeed.

pauldla · 17-10-2015 6:14pm

expectationlost wrote: »

I've read a few of the teachers instructions, and I've found it hard to conceive how the simple drawings and stuff in the kids book match the lesson that are supposed to learn

but the main lesson in this seems to be is to honour Mary because of her huge trust in God?

Yes, I think that's the point; unquestioning belief and trust in God. Of course, God unfortunately not being directly to hand, it follows that one should look to his Anointed Representatives, though this of course does not need to be stated explicitly.

As I said above, hogwash.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 6:17pm

expectationlost wrote: »

I've read a few of the teachers instructions, and I've found it hard to conceive how the simple drawings and stuff in the kids book match the lesson that are supposed to learn

but the main lesson in this seems to be is to honour Mary because of her huge trust in God?

Well, the main lesson with regard to faith formation is written right there -

It is intended that the children will honour Mary, because she is the Mother of Jesus.

Pherekydes · 17-10-2015 6:19pm

ABC101 wrote: »

Either ADMIN does not understand the Gospel Readings.... or is deliberately misconstruing the facts.

What facts?

Are you referring to the annunciation as a fact? Who was there to verify it? Was there someone with Mary when she experienced these things? Like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 6:20pm

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Sorry i got it wrong, it wasnt the angel that did the impregnating, it was god himself.
Did joseph get a say in any of this cuckolding?

But back to my original question, what is the teaching point of this lesson?

O.k...... glad we are getting some of the confusion sorted out.

The point of the lesson would be explaining...

1) The example Mary gives which is that...... Mary is a believer submitting her will to God's will.

2) The important role Mary .... as a woman had in the role of Jesus Christ on Earth.

3) There are other points... like the fulfilling of the prophets that Jesus would be a descendant of the line of David etc.

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 6:22pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

What facts?

Are you referring to the annunciation as a fact? Who was there to verify it? Was there someone with Mary when she experienced these things? Like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

The facts of what is written in the Gospel.

volchitsa · 17-10-2015 6:22pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't think you would read that so literally tbh. The risk of a stranger entering the home of a child and going up to their bedroom to sexually abuse them on the back of this story is so statistically insignifigant that it isn't even worth entertaining as a scaremongering tactic.

The idea that a child would interpret this story so literally and allow themselves to be sexually abused, based on this story, is a risk so remote, that you could use the same tenuous link to argue anything that puts a child at risk of being abused should be banned.

Forget about evaluating the actual risk any more, now we can just argue potential instead, and ban anything we don't like on the basis that it could potentially be damaging to a child.

No, sorry Jack, you're the one who has repeatedly taken things to be literally meant. I certainly didn't think that's what you meant, and why you think I did is a bit beyond me.

It's not primarily about strangers, because the Angel Gabriel, and God etc are not presented as strangers to Mary, and are not strangers to the children. They are well known characters to them. Fantasy and reality are not always clearly defined at six or seven, so the idea of Gabriel turning up in your home making it unlikely may not be clear to children. Especially as this, remember, and contrary to your belief, is being taught as factually true.

So IMO it's a story that is more about trusted authority figures, not about strangers. My point is about the real shock that a child feels when any attempt at abuse by a trusted adult occurs, and the difficulty for a child to decide to disobey when obedience is the normal behaviour for the child. I know that can be the case because it was the case for me, and I have no reason to think other children are less shocked - in fact that shock is often mentioned in one form or another by people who have been abused as children.

So given that this shock which can lead to an inability to react and to passivity (and this is probably exactly what the grooming/abusing adult is counting on) anything that might falsely reassure the child that this scary situation might turn out ok if they just accept it is potentially an abuser's dream.

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 6:24pm

ABC101 wrote: »

O.k...... glad we are getting some of the confusion sorted out.

The point of the lesson would be explaining...

1) The example Mary gives which is that...... Mary is a believer submitting her will to God's will.

2) The important role Mary .... as a woman had in the role of Jesus Christ on Earth.

3) There are other points... like the fulfilling of the prophets that Jesus would be a descendant of the line of David etc.

From a non christian point of view which looks on the Catholic Church Hierarchy as an organisation that should have no contact with children never mind being in charge of their education - as evidenced by how much they have abused trust in the past the above is a load of auld rubbish. And that it has pedophile enabling propaganda it should not be allowed within a mile of any child.

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 6:25pm

ABC101 wrote: »

The facts of what is written in the Gospel.

Wrong forum if you think that's going to be taken seriously.

expectationlost · 17-10-2015 6:27pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, the main lesson with regard to faith formation is written right there -

It is intended that the children will honour Mary, because she is the Mother of Jesus.

think people are asking why.

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 6:33pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

From a non christian point of view which looks on the Catholic Church Hierarchy as an organisation that should have no contact with children never mind being in charge of their education - as evidenced by how much they have abused trust in the past the above is a load of auld rubbish. And that it has pedophile enabling propaganda it should not be allowed within a mile of any child.

Only a very small % of religious members of the R.C. Church were actually child abusers.

The majority of child abuse is carried out by people who are not members of any particular religious organisation.

Initially the response of the Church Authorities was appalling... moving pedophiles around with the expectation that they would reform.

Thankfully the R.C. church as learn t from this appalling misjudgement and now has very strict controls in place.

recedite · 17-10-2015 6:45pm

ABC101 wrote: »

IMO.... the figure of Mary is much older than 14. My reason being is that her ankles are rather fat, waistline rather 'pear shaped'....

I wouldn't say fat, but its like the face of a child on a woman's body. Also, just noticed some other imagery there relating to the "deflowering" of a virgin. A bee in the room is landing on a flower. The girl is reclining on virginal white bedsheets. The flower is a lily, imagery associated with Mary, and also with the transition from chastity and virginity to motherhood and fertility. Its all about giving in to this trusted authority figure, in a sexual way. Its about saying yes, despite the fears and misgivings.

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 6:50pm

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't say fat, but its like the face of a child on a woman's body. Also, just noticed some other imagery there relating to the "deflowering" of a virgin. A bee in the room is landing on a flower. The girl is reclining on virginal white bedsheets. The flower is a lily, imagery associated with Mary, and also with the transition from chastity and virginity to motherhood and fertility. Its all about giving in to this trusted authority figure, in a sexual way. Its about saying yes, despite the fears and misgivings.

Well in fairness.... Mary retained her virginity by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis.

The incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary would not be a sexual event as we physical humans would understand it.

And I state again.... the fears / misgivings are related to the initial appearance of the Angel Gabriel..... NOT to the fact that the Holy Spirit came to her later on.

pauldla · 17-10-2015 6:50pm

ABC101 wrote: »

Only a very small % of religious members of the R.C. Church were actually child abusers.

The majority of child abuse is carried out by people who are not members of any particular religious organisation.

Initially the response of the Church Authorities was appalling... moving pedophiles around with the expectation that they would reform.

Thankfully the R.C. church as learn t from this appalling misjudgement and now has very strict damage controls in place.

Fixed yer post there, bud.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 6:51pm

volchitsa wrote: »

No, sorry Jack, you're the one who has repeatedly taken things to be literally meant. I certainly didn't think that's what you meant, and why you think I did is a bit beyond me.

I thought we were talking about the article linked in the OP and their interpretation of this story, and the fact that it's been pointed out a couple of times now how children could possibly interpret this story.

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not primarily about strangers, because the Angel Gabriel, and God etc are not presented as strangers to Mary, and are not strangers to the children. They are well known characters to them. Fantasy and reality are not always clearly defined at six or seven, so the idea of Gabriel turning up in your home making it unlikely may not be clear to children. Especially as this, remember, and contrary to your belief, is being taught as factually true.

Barney is a well known character to children. Do we ban Barney because children believe that Barney is real? It's being taught as faith formation in religious ethos schools. If you have a source from the DES that will confirm that religious education is taught as fact in Irish schools, then I might be more inclined to believe your claim has merit. Until then, I remain skeptical of such claims.

volchitsa wrote: »

So IMO it's a story that is more about trusted authority figures, not about strangers. My point is about the real shock that a child feels when any attempt at abuse by a trusted adult occurs, and the difficulty for a child to decide to disobey when obedience is the normal behaviour for the child. I know that can be the case because it was the case for me, and I have no reason to think other children are less shocked - in fact that shock is often mentioned in one form or another by people who have been abused as children.

I have every reason to think other children may react in an infinite number of different ways, because with all due respect, they're not you. You're basing your opinion on your own personal experience rather than your objectivity, and that's naturally going to fuel any inherent prejudices you may have when an issue like this comes up. I could do the same, based upon my own personal experiences (which I won't relate here on a public forum), or I could choose not to base my opinion on my own personal experiences and instead choose to give an objective opinion on the issue.

volchitsa wrote: »

So given that this shock which can lead to an inability to react and to passivity (and this is probably exactly what the grooming/abusing adult is counting on) anything that might falsely reassure the child that this scary situation might turn out ok if they just accept it is potentially an abuser's dream.

I do understand where you're coming from, genuinely I do, but I don't think this story carries as much signifigance to a child with regard to sexual abuse as either yourself, or Atheist Ireland are trying to make out.

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 6:57pm

ABC101 wrote: »

The majority of child abuse is carried out by people who are not members of any particular religious organisation.

???what????

volchitsa · 17-10-2015 7:07pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I thought we were talking about the article linked in the OP and their interpretation of this story, and the fact that it's been pointed out a couple of times now how children could possibly interpret this story.

No, or I'm not anyway, I'm talking about my reaction to it. The fact that Atheist Ireland were the original link used in the OP doesn't mean we can only discuss their take on it, any more than the Indo being the link in an OP means the discussion will necessarily be about the Indo's take on an event.

That you persist in claiming this shows that you are being disingenuous - again.

Barney is a well known character to children. Do we ban Barney because children believe that Barney is real? It's being taught as faith formation in religious ethos schools. If you have a source from the DES that will confirm that religious education is taught as fact in Irish schools, then I might be more inclined to believe your claim has merit. Until then, I remain skeptical of such claims.

I did. An official catholic website describes it as true, so if you think it's being taught to infants as being allegorical you need to bring some evidence about that.

I have every reason to think other children may react in an infinite number of different ways, because with all due respect, they're not you. You're basing your opinion on your own personal experience rather than your objectivity, and that's naturally going to fuel any inherent prejudices you may have when an issue like this comes up. I could do the same, based upon my own personal experiences (which I won't relate here on a public forum), or I could choose not to base my opinion on my own personal experiences and instead choose to give an objective opinion on the issue.

And yet there is plenty of evidence from people who have been abused as children that they didn't dare reject an adult's advances because of the trust and authority that adult had been invested with.

So you're rejecting evidence in favour of your assumptions that everyone else is like you. I'm saying that some people are like that, so it's not good to increase that effect, even in a minor way.

I do understand where you're coming from, genuinely I do, but I don't think this story carries as much signifigance to a child with regard to sexual abuse as either yourself, or Atheist Ireland are trying to make out.

Yet you haven't said why it shouldn't be removed as a precautionary action. There is exactly zero reason to take that risk, yet you are insistent that it should be taken. Why?

Pherekydes · 17-10-2015 7:28pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I thought we were talking about the article linked in the OP and their interpretation of this story, and the fact that it's been pointed out a couple of times now how children could possibly interpret this story.

6 year-old children do not interpret stories. They just believe what they are told by their teachers and parents.

That's why the church needs to get their hands on children at this age. Indoctrination is much more difficult at later ages.

kylith · 17-10-2015 7:41pm

ABC101 wrote: »

3) There are other points... like the fulfilling of the prophets that Jesus would be a descendant of the line of David etc.

Which in itself is nonsense since it was Joseph that was a descendent of David, not Mary. And since Joseph is not Jesus' father then Jesus can't be of the line of David.

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 7:57pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

???what????

I mean people who are not priests / brothers / nuns etc

gctest50 · 17-10-2015 7:57pm

ABC101 wrote: »

Well in fairness.... Mary retained her virginity by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis.

The incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary would not be a sexual event as we physical humans would understand it.

And I state again.... the fears / misgivings are related to the initial appearance of the Angel Gabriel..... NOT to the fact that the Holy Spirit came to her later on.

really ? where is that in yer bible ? ( ye know Mark 666 Act 333:999 kinda thing)

ABC101 wrote: »

.......the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis.....

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 7:58pm

gctest50 wrote: »

really ? where is that in yer bible ? ( ye know Mark 666 Act 333:999 kinda thing)

And lo, the Holy Spirit looked south and was utterly devastated.

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 8:02pm

ABC101 wrote: »

I mean people who are not priests / brothers / nuns etc

Strange way to put it, as it implied something entirely differently.

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 8:07pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Strange way to put it, as it implied something entirely differently.

Abuse of children does not solely relate to sexual abuse / physical abuse of children by priests / nuns / brothers etc.

There are other forms... emotional, verbal and neglect.

Neglect is probably the biggest % of abuse occurring in Ireland today.

The majority of abusers would be a parent of the child.

http://www.tusla.ie/services/child-protection-welfare/definitions-of-child-abuse

Frequently we hear of child neglect cases coming up in todays courts etc.

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 8:09pm

ABC101 wrote: »

Abuse of children does not solely relate to sexual abuse / physical abuse of children by priests / nuns / brothers etc.

There are other forms... emotional, verbal and neglect.

Neglect is probably the biggest % of abuse occurring in Ireland today.

The majority of abusers would be a parent of the child.

http://www.tusla.ie/services/child-protection-welfare/definitions-of-child-abuse

Frequently we hear of child neglect cases coming up in todays courts etc.

What I meant was that the way you worded it it was implied that non religious people abuse children more.

ABC101 · 17-10-2015 8:12pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What I meant was that the way you worded it it was implied that non religious people abuse children more.

Yes I understand your point....I could have worded it better;)

Unfortunately however.... parents who neglect children are technically the biggest % of abusers.

Terrible pity really.

gctest50 · 17-10-2015 8:18pm

I blame all that religion stuff on video games

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 8:24pm

volchitsa wrote: »

No, or I'm not anyway, I'm talking about my reaction to it. The fact that Atheist Ireland were the original link used in the OP doesn't mean we can only discuss their take on it, any more than the Indo being the link in an OP means the discussion will necessarily be about the Indo's take on an event.

That you persist in claiming this shows that you are being disingenuous - again.

I'm genuinely not being disingenuous, I was reading your posts in the context of what was written in the article linked in the OP and the connections between the particular narrative of this story, and child sexual abuse.

volchitsa wrote: »

I did. An official catholic website describes it as true, so if you think it's being taught to infants as being allegorical you need to bring some evidence about that.

An official catholic website that describes the beliefs of Roman Catholicism is not evidence that religion is taught as fact in Irish schools. You made the claim, so it's up to you to provide evidence that religion is taught as fact in Irish schools. Any source at all to back up your claim at this point would be good, I'm really not that fussy.

volchitsa wrote: »

And yet there is plenty of evidence from people who have been abused as children that they didn't dare reject an adult's advances because of the trust and authority that adult had been invested with.

So you're rejecting evidence in favour of your assumptions that everyone else is like you. I'm saying that some people are like that, so it's not good to increase that effect, even in a minor way.

I'm not rejecting evidence at all that people who have been abused as children didn't dare reject an adult's advances because of the trust and authority that adult had been invested with.

I'm rejecting your use of this particular interpretation of a story that's over 2,000 years old as the basis of your claims that it could increase the effect you claim in your first paragraph - that it could lead to children not daring to reject an adult's advances and lead to them acccepting being sexually abused as normal behaviour.

volchitsa wrote: »

Yet you haven't said why it shouldn't be removed as a precautionary action. There is exactly zero reason to take that risk, yet you are insistent that it should be taken. Why?

I simply see no compelling reason to remove it, and even less reason to remove it as a precautionary action based on any sort of claims relating to the potential for an increase in the risk of a child being sexually abused. For me it's akin to suggestions that children shouldn't be allowed to sit on Santa's lap because of the potential risk of a child being sexually abused.

Pherekydes wrote: »

6 year-old children do not interpret stories. They just believe what they are told by their teachers and parents.

That's why the church needs to get their hands on children at this age. Indoctrination is much more difficult at later ages.

I've already linked to evidence that shows this statement simply isn't true, but carry on believing that if it suits you. I'm not going to judge you for it.

swampgas · 17-10-2015 8:53pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An official catholic website that describes the beliefs of Roman Catholicism is not evidence that religion is taught as fact in Irish schools. You made the claim, so it's up to you to provide evidence that religion is taught as fact in Irish schools. Any source at all to back up your claim at this point would be good, I'm really not that fussy.

Anyone who went through an Irish primary school will have some experience of this. I can only speak from my own experience, and in both primary and secondary schools Catholicism was taught as "the Truth".

In secondary school there was an attempt to gloss over the more egregious problems (Why did God drown everyone in the Flood? Was there an actual Adam and Eve?) by suggesting that some stories might be somewhat allegorical. But this was very much the exception. The truthfulness of Catholic religion was never questioned in any way. And in primary school "faith formation" was (pardon the pun) dogmatic in the extreme.

evolving_doors · 17-10-2015 8:54pm

ABC101 wrote: »

Well in fairness.... Mary retained her virginity by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis.

The incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary would not be a sexual event as we physical humans would understand it.

And I state again.... the fears / misgivings are related to the initial appearance of the Angel Gabriel..... NOT to the fact that the Holy Spirit came to her later on.

Is that what the teacher says to the kids?

Anyhow this virgin mary thing is misunderstood, wasnt it that SHE was born of a virgin birth, not Jesus.

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 8:56pm

Gebgbegb wrote: »

wasnt it that SHE was born of a virgin birth, not Jesus.

That's a new one on me if it's the case.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 17-10-2015 9:08pm

No, the immaculate conception was when Mary was conceived in the normal way, but without original sin, Mary's eternal virginity is a separate thing, but equally 'true'

lazygal · 17-10-2015 9:08pm

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Is that what the teacher says to the kids?

Anyhow this virgin mary thing is misunderstood, wasnt it that SHE was born of a virgin birth, not Jesus.

No no no. Your indoctrination was faulty. 25,000 rosaries for you. God having decided to impregnate a 12 year old virgin with his seed via the holy spirit decided when Mary was conceived to make her uterus permanently pristine via super special means because he knew she'd be knocked up despite being 12 and scared and uncertain about the whole deal.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 9:22pm

swampgas wrote: »

Anyone who went through an Irish primary school will have some experience of this. I can only speak from my own experience, and in both primary and secondary schools Catholicism was taught as "the Truth".

In secondary school there was an attempt to gloss over the more egregious problems (Why did God drown everyone in the Flood? Was there an actual Adam and Eve?) by suggesting that some stories might be somewhat allegorical. But this was very much the exception. The truthfulness of Catholic religion was never questioned in any way. And in primary school "faith formation" was (pardon the pun) dogmatic in the extreme.

Absolutely, I can understand why many, many people would be of the belief that religion is taught as fact in Irish schools, but that belief itself is not a fact, because while the religious education curriculum is the responsibility of the patronage in religious ethos national schools, to claim that it is taught as fact, akin to the way Creationism is taught as fact in some schools in the US, is simply misleading, and fuels that misunderstanding.

I get the pun and all though, having experienced the dogmatic authoritarian way in which my parents imparted their religious beliefs upon me, but anything I experienced outside of home I've always classified as religious indoctrination 'lite' in comparison.

My sister converted to Islam in her 30's, and two of my brothers at least identify as atheist, and there are many posters here who identify as atheist, having been exposed to religious indoctrination as children, so the idea that indoctrination as children is the an effective means to indoctrinate people in a religion, simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. More and more we're also becoming aware of Islam apostates, and even recently I read of Sam Harris and an Islam leader (whose name escapes me but he had what seems like a fascinating story to tell) teaming up to open discussion about religion and atheism in a constructive way.

Atheist Ireland could do to take a leaf from Sam Harris' book if they ever hope to promote secularism in Ireland, because how they're going about it right now is just more likely to cause people to want to distance themselves from Atheist Ireland's goals relating to promoting secularism in Irish education.

lazygal · 17-10-2015 9:26pm

Religious doctrine is taught as facts in faith schools. Any parent will tell you that. This new Grow in Love programme simply increases the amount of doctrine taught compared to Alive O.
Of course if you're looking for an argument as to why state funded employees should be required to teach doctrine in state funded schools you'll manage to come up with all sorts of reasons why the current situation is fine.

looksee · 17-10-2015 9:29pm

lazygal wrote: »

No no no. Your indoctrination was faulty. 25,000 rosaries for you. God having decided to impregnate a 12 year old virgin with his seed via the holy spirit decided when Mary was conceived to make her uterus permanently pristine via super special means because he knew she'd be knocked up despite being 12 and scared and uncertain about the whole deal.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

He failed to mention this though till 1854 when he told the pope, who passed it on.

lazygal · 17-10-2015 9:30pm

looksee wrote: »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

He failed to mention this though till 1854 when he told the pope, who passed it on.

Better late than never I suppose. Mysteries of faith or some such I'm sure.

looksee · 17-10-2015 9:38pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Absolutely, I can understand why many, many people would be of the belief that religion is taught as fact in Irish schools, but that belief itself is not a fact, because while the religious education curriculum is the responsibility of the patronage in religious ethos national schools, to claim that it is taught as fact, akin to the way Creationism is taught as fact in some schools in the US, is simply misleading, and fuels that misunderstanding.

I have read that several times and I cannot see that it means anything at all.

Atheist Ireland could do to take a leaf from Sam Harris' book if they ever hope to promote secularism in Ireland, because how they're going about it right now is just more likely to cause people to want to distance themselves from Atheist Ireland's goals relating to promoting secularism in Irish education.

I have no interest in Atheist Ireland, I know very little about them and do not require someone else to tell me what it is that I do not believe.

Taking religion out of education will happen, whether because of AI or in spite of them, and it will not be too many years before people look back to this time and say 'how could they allow it?'

frostyjacks · 17-10-2015 9:54pm

looksee wrote: »

Taking religion out of education will happen, whether because of AI or in spite of them, and it will not be too many years before people look back to this time and say 'how could they allow it?'

Will it really though? I doubt it, unless the standards in Catholic run schools drop to the level of non-denominational schools that makes the choice for parents redundant.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 9:57pm

lazygal wrote: »

Religious doctrine is taught as facts in faith schools. Any parent will tell you that.

I'm a parent, and I'm telling you that religious doctrine is not taught as fact in Irish Catholic schools at least.

This new Grow in Love programme simply increases the amount of doctrine taught compared to Alive O.

Certainly there does appear to be a renewed effort among Irish Bishops to increase the emphasis on doctrine in Irish Catholic ethos schools, perhaps because they are feeling the heat from the fact that many students in Irish Catholic schools are not members of the Irish RCC, but are members of other religions and indeed none.

Of course if you're looking for an argument as to why state funded employees should be required to teach doctrine in state funded schools you'll manage to come up with all sorts of reasons why the current situation is fine.

I dunno really, there doesn't appear to have been much interest in a conference I was due to attend today, the National Religious Education Conference, cancelled due to 'unforeseen circumstances' (it would have been nothing short of a miracle if any more than a handful of people had turned up anyway really

).

The current situation really isn't good, at all (and I say that having supported the petition for a new secondary ET school in my area, because choice is always a good thing. I may never avail of the option myself, but to deny other people that opportunity would simply be spiteful on my part IMO), and that's why I fully support and advocate for a secular education system in Ireland, but what I do not support, and will never support, are Atheist Ireland's efforts to use the issue of child sexual abuse, to further their own aims.

lazygal · 17-10-2015 9:59pm

How is religious doctrine not taught as fact in faith schools?

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 10:00pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Will it really though? I doubt it, unless the standards in Catholic run schools drop to the level of non-denominational schools that makes the choice for parents redundant.

There's an excellent new non religious school in Limerick. It's a gael scoil.

The reason why educate together may not perform as well as religious schools is because this is where many immigrant families will want to send their kids and may not have decent english.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 10:06pm

lazygal wrote: »

How is religious doctrine not taught as fact in faith schools?

Because it isn't?

It's imparted as faith, through indoctrination, but to claim religion is taught as fact in Irish schools is either genuinely misunderstanding the concept of faith formation, or a deliberately misleading statement that is purported as fact.

Mary says YES!

Comments