How Ireland deals with issues relating to sex. What I think needs to be changed...

Shellie13

Cantab. wrote:

And why shouldn't a school with a Catholic ethos be in charge of its own sexual ethics program given that matters of faith and morals are central to the Church?

Liberal theology should not be allowed worm its way into Catholic schools under the auspices of 'sex education'.

Parents who want such views instilled in their children should send their children to aethist schools and stop demanding that the Church change their views to satisfy this liberal majority that I keep talking about!

Ah the way it is today though i think parents are hiding their heads naiively if they chose NOT to educate their kids on sex! Better they hear all the details and precations from a responsible adult than a snickering peer filled with rumours that could ultimatly put their lives in danger!

I think ALL educators have the responsiblity to tell children the dangers and precations surrounding sex!

My schools extreamelly catholic and they provided a wonderful sexeducation programme although in 5th year i think it was a little late!
The message was "sex out of marraige is a sin but so is juding people for it!"
Like our teacher stood there quite oopenly and said she waited until she was married persoanlly, and was happy about it- yet answerd all questions on contraceptives unjudmentally and even spoke about gay and lesbian sex!
You can still practice your religios beliefs and influnce people with them with out juding them for disagreeing with you and choosing their own path!

I think this open unjudmental approach is for the best- if people decided they dont want sex themselfs i can respect them for that- but if they do-they should be doing it safely!

I think the core of every religion and indeed they ideal way for all to live is to treat others as you'd like to be treated (and that can include your biased advice). Noone wants to be judged at the end of the day just helped out!

DOLEMAN

Shellie13 wrote:

Hey now thats pure ignorance!!!

I don't appreciate religious freaks trying to hijack things. Religion has nothing to do with the real world and should be a personal matter, not enforced on people who don't care.

metrovelvet

Cantab. wrote:

And why shouldn't a school with a Catholic ethos be in charge of its own sexual ethics program given that matters of faith and morals are central to the Church?

Because the state is paying for it. Who pays the state? The people.

Shellie13

DOLEMAN wrote:

I don't appreciate religious freaks trying to hijack things. Religion has nothing to do with the real world and should be a personal matter, not enforced on people who don't care.

Your atheism or watever doctine ya follow etc is also a personal matter which shouldn't be forced on people either!
Where your views come from?!
I'm sure not the same place as every other joesoap in the world!

snickerpuss

To everyone whos worried cos they're sending their kids to catholic schools - i went to a catholic primary and secondary (in secondary we even had to say prayers before most classes) and i don't don't know anything about religion. Not a thing. Nor am i religious or anyone else i know who went there.
So i wouldn't worry about your kids getting all religoius though i can of course see why it annoys you.

Downside was the only sex education i ever got was being told about my reproductive organs, i don't remember hearing anything about contraception/STDs etc.

Conar

I know its not all that bad! I went to a catholic school as a child and was also an atheist back then (lucky enough to have never been baptised or anything mad like that) so I know that people can get through it without being converted.
It still doesn't excuse the fact that the catholic religion is forced upon us in this way!

DOLEMAN

Shellie13 wrote:

Your atheism or watever doctine ya follow etc is also a personal matter which shouldn't be forced on people either!
Where your views come from?!

That makes absolutely no sense. I'm not forcing my non-religious views on people. Religion has nothing to do with this topic. The religious guy was trying to hijack a topic completely unrelated to religion.

Just because someone believes in something doesn't mean that belief can be related to whatever topic he feels like. I love football but I haven't tried to relate it to anyones points here.

Your problem shellie is that you have been brainwashed to believe it's ok to enforce personal religious beliefs on other people. It's not OK. Personal religious beliefs do not belong anywhere except religious places and in your own head. Of course the Catholic Church don't believe this way. They are famous for forcing people to listen and follow their rules. The reality is most people don't give a **** about their views and cannot understand why we have to listen to such nonsense.

By the way, not being interested in religion cannot be enforced on other people.

CathyMoran

The condom issue - not everyone who uses them uses them to prevent STD's, some use them soley as contraception but their use should be taught to older kids. Cantab, I do respect your views but I do believe that everyone should be educated fully so that they can make up their own minds, sure you can say that this is against Catholic teaching etc but education is power. I would consider myself Catholic but I would be very much pro the use of condoms and other contraceptives. Condoms should be subsidised because everyone has a right to have safe sex, having them prohibitivly expensive is putting some people off having safe sex and that is creating further problems down the line.

coffee_cake

DOLEMAN wrote:

By the way, not being interested in religion cannot be enforced on other people.

However, views such as "people who follow a religion are brainwashed" can be. Your comments so far certainly do not indicate a lack of interest in religion.

Conar

I often find it funny that it is generally acceptable to use the term "brainwashing" when talking about cults, yet when a cult gains enough momentum to be promoted to a religion then it is no longer acceptable.

At the moment there is a lot of media attention and mockery of the Church of Scientology, but if it gets any bigger they're going to have to stop as they will be insulting peoples religious beliefs.

I think that as long as it is ok for religious people/leaders to talk openly about their beliefs then they should be open to any/all criticism. Lets face it, most religions talk about how all non-believers will be damned.
I have been told many times that I will be going to hell because of my beliefs, which is fine by me because the place does not exist.
If it is ok for people to say that to me or others like me, then we should be able to criticise their religion and beliefs to our hearts content.

DOLEMAN

bluewolf wrote:

However, views such as "people who follow a religion are brainwashed" can be. Your comments so far certainly do not indicate a lack of interest in religion.

Well I think it's fair to say that considering what we now know about the world, it is a fact that Jesus's mother was not a virgin and he was not the son of God, who rose from the dead.

So if you choose to believe this you are either purposefully deluding yourself, brainwashed or stupid.

The Catholic guy who was posting earlier is clearly not stupid, so he's either brainwashed or choosing to delude himself.

This is not just my opinion. It is completely unreasonable and going against all reality to actually believe the Catholic thing is anything other than a nice story. Trying to tie in the Catholic story with reality and trying to relate that story with non-Catholic issues is wrong, inappropriate and should not be tolerated.

People give Catholics too much sympathy and space. As someone just said, we should either tolerate all cults (no matter how weird) or dismiss them all. We can't just pick and choose.

metrovelvet

wait - are the attitudes that you want changed present exclusively among practising catholics or are they also present among semi-practising [the non religious who marry in Chiurch and get their kids baptised] and the completely non practising?

Cantab.

DOLEMAN wrote:

Well I think it's fair to say that considering what we now know about the world, it is a fact that Jesus's mother was not a virgin and he was not the son of God, who rose from the dead.

So if you choose to believe this you are either purposefully deluding yourself, brainwashed or stupid.

The Catholic guy who was posting earlier is clearly not stupid, so he's either brainwashed or choosing to delude himself.

This is not just my opinion. It is completely unreasonable and going against all reality to actually believe the Catholic thing is anything other than a nice story. Trying to tie in the Catholic story with reality and trying to relate that story with non-Catholic issues is wrong, inappropriate and should not be tolerated.

First off, it seems you have been reading too much Dan Brown fiction.

You talk of Catholics as being some-how 'brainwashed' and that '... [Jesus] was not the son of God', yet you don't seem to realise that it is you who is being deluded into a false sense of reality about the universe we live in (afaik).

And who are you to say that Jesus was not the son of God? Perhaps you, as an individual, know better than 2000 years of documented christian history, indeed know better than anyone else on matters of morals - the great lie of liberalism.

A lot of catholic-bashers choose omit the fact that the Catholic Church is actually all for religous freedom in society, please read the famous Vatican II document: DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (from vatican.va) - ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS, PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI, ON DECEMBER 7, 1965.
In this document, you will see (amongst other things) that religous freedom is encouraged in society not only because it dissuades dishonest people going to Mass because of artificial social pressures (as happened in Ireland throughout the 20th century), but it leads to stronger, more faithful and honest believers within the church's community.
So really, the argument that Catholicism seeks to 'impose' faith and morals onto society is dismissed. This does not mean however, that the Church will sit idly by and watch society deteriorate - she will strive to influence matters of interest by reason and persuasion through its army of clergy and laypersons interspersed within society. Such persons are indeed part of society itself and are entitled to a say in how it works. The mission to reason with people is an ongoing one - this is not 'brainwashing' as some people like to call it, but involving people (by their own choice) with God and helping them on their journey of Truth.

In summary: religous freedom, love of thy fellow man and tolerance, yes - moral relativism and the compromise of Truth, a definite no.

DOLEMAN wrote:

People give Catholics too much sympathy and space. As someone just said, we should either tolerate all cults (no matter how weird) or dismiss them all. We can't just pick and choose.

So are you proposing to dismiss all persons with religous stances? Who determines what is religous and what isn't? And to be quite frank, I'm finding the kind of anti-Catholic sentiment being expressed by you quite appaling.

DOLEMAN

metrovelvet wrote:

wait - are the attitudes that you want changed present exclusively among practising catholics or are they also present among semi-practising [the non religious who marry in Chiurch and get their kids baptised] and the completely non practising?

No my topic has nothing to do with religion. Cantab has hijacked it and successfully stopped us from talking about sex and instead we're now talking about his warped view of the world/women :rolleyes:

Dirk Gently

Cantab. wrote:

First off, it seems you have been reading too much Dan Brown fiction.

You talk of Catholics as being some-how 'brainwashed' and that '... [Jesus] was not the son of God', yet you don't seem to realise that it is you who is being deluded into a false sense of reality about the universe we live in (afaik).

And who are you to say that Jesus was not the son of God? Perhaps you, as an individual, know better than 2000 years of documented christian history, indeed know better than anyone else on matters of morals - the great lie of liberalism.

A lot of catholic-bashers choose omit the fact that the Catholic Church is actually all for religous freedom in society, please read the famous Vatican II document: DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (from vatican.va) - ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS, PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI, ON DECEMBER 7, 1965.
In this document, you will see (amongst other things) that religous freedom is encouraged in society not only because it dissuades dishonest people going to Mass because of artificial social pressures (as happened in Ireland throughout the 20th century), but it leads to stronger, more faithful and honest believers within the church's community.
So really, the argument that Catholicism seeks to 'impose' faith and morals onto society is dismissed. This does not mean however, that the Church will sit idly by and watch society deteriorate - she will strive to influence matters of interest by reason and persuasion through its army of clergy and laypersons interspersed within society. Such persons are indeed part of society itself and are entitled to a say in how it works. The mission to reason with people is an ongoing one - this is not 'brainwashing' as some people like to call it, but involving people (by their own choice) with God and helping them on their journey of Truth.

In summary: religous freedom, love of thy fellow man and tolerance, yes - moral relativism and the compromise of Truth, a definite no.



So are you proposing to dismiss all persons with religous stances? Who determines what is religous and what isn't? And to be quite frank, I'm finding the kind of anti-Catholic sentiment being expressed by you quite appaling.

So cantab, by the logic displayed in your last post you would be all in favour of catholic schools allowing discussion on sexual education which was more based in the reality of society than catholic methods. You support telling students about safe sex and STD's. Not to do so would in fact be forcing the students to accept the catholic teaching by depriving them of a non catholic education.
Don't give me any crap about sending kids to non-religious schools as we both know the dominance religious orders have in school education.

By not providing sex education in catholic schools they are denying the students a non-catholic alternative.


And whats this compromise of truth you're talking about? You believe what you believe to be your version of the truth (even if it is all fantasy and make believe to other people) but you have no right to say a non-catholic teaching is not truth. It is not catholic truth, that’s all. Catholicism has no right to impose its own unquestioning faith based truth on society by denying students a full education based on questions and debate supported by facts.

does your great Vatican II document support free association of religion, if so how is teaching school going children only catholic methods and excluding realistic education a support for free religious association. Surely this practice runs counter to free association and is more about promoting catholicism by denying the students an alternative.

metrovelvet

Well, imo it seems like it comes from a general attitude toward the body which then extends into sexuality. And I dont think its something sex ed can change, although its a start.

There was a thread on after hours recently about someone boyfriend being embarrassed in the bra section which then triggered a whole conversation about the phobia of buying a tampon.

I mean ffs.

simu

metrovelvet wrote:

Well, imo it seems like it comes from a general attitude toward the body which then extends into sexuality. And I dont think its something sex ed can change, although its a start.

There was a thread on after hours recently about someone boyfriend being embarrassed in the bra section which then triggered a whole conversation about the phobia of buying a tampon.

I mean ffs.

Orly? You have a link (for research purposes )

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

Well, imo it seems like it comes from a general attitude toward the body which then extends into sexuality. And I dont think its something sex ed can change, although its a start.

There was a thread on after hours recently about someone boyfriend being embarrassed in the bra section which then triggered a whole conversation about the phobia of buying a tampon.

I mean ffs.

All the more reason to have a personal development class in schools in my opinion. Not discussing these things leads to a phobia or misconception later on in life (or at that stage in life as it’s the teenage years when education is most important). Things need to be explained clearly and talked about openly and the best way to do that is in a class situation with people of your same age and a qualified teacher or councillor there to respond to questions. From my own Irish school experience this was not the case and I was condemned to sit silently and listen to catholic teaching which answered nothing. Ironically I remember going to religion class directly after science, (science in my school was very underfunded and we had it taken away from us as a subject in the last two years) with one teacher telling me about evolution and the next teacher dismissing it and telling me god made the earth in 6 days. I learned nothing about sex in school. It is an inadequate system as it stands and while not a solution as a whole, personal development classes are a major step in the right direction. Keeping students ignorant by teaching them only catholic methods while not discussing the reality of modern Irish life is definitely part of the problem.

/

Just on the point about the tampon and phobias. When I was at college, part of my architecture course was a class in free hand art. None of us much liked drawing fruit in bowls and other silly objects so the lecturer got in a life model. A devout catholic member of our class ran out of the life drawing class when the bloke stripped naked and posed. He as a very strict up bringing and was not use to such things. As a result he didn't attend the drawing classes, even when we had a hot chick pose for us. This was in no way sexual and was just about learning how to draw properly but as a result of his strict faith he viewed it as a sexual thing and wouldn't take part.

Sleepy

Cantab. - I have zero respect for your religious beliefs. I consider a religious belief to be the result of one of two things - inate stupidity or self-delusion stemming from one's fear of their own mortality. There's no other logical reason for religious beliefs imho.

That is my belief system and I don't expect you to have any respect for it either.

Dogma of any religious organisation (or indeed atheistic dogma) has no place in an education environment paid for by the state. You don't want your kids to be taught my religious views and I don't want any children I may have being taught yours. As such, the only fair system is to remove religious education of all kinds from our education system. Besides that, education is about providing people with knowledge, facts and skills i.e. the ability to form an opinion rather than spout those of another.

Sex education is not about religion in any way. It's about educating young people about their bodies, their sexuality, contraceptive devices, dangers of STD's etc. This education should be based on factual education e.g. Abstinence is the only 100% guarantee against STD's and unwanted pregnancy but the most reliable means of preventing these if you choose not to abstain are condoms, the pill etc.

If the child receiving this education is a Catholic, it doesn't do them any harm to attend this class. They get knowledge of facts and even if they've been taught in Sunday school, in church or by their parents that sex before marriage is sinful and they agree with this and live their life by it, what harm does it do them to know the biological facts of the sexual act? I might be wrong but as far I know it's not against the laws of the Catholic church for it's followers to be knowledgeable about things their religion forbids.

For those children, Catholic, Atheist, Jewish or Arabic who choose not to follow their religion's teachings and have pre-marital sex, the lack of this knowledge could have serious, potentially fatal, repercussions.

Now, can you please tell me how this thinking (or practice) is either logically or rationally unsound?

the_syco

DOLEMAN wrote:

1. I don't think rapists/pedophiles are criminals. Someone who has money problems and robs a bank is a criminal. Someone who abuses someone is mentally ill. I do not believe anyone chooses to be a rapist or pedophile. Rather than outcasting them we should try to understand them and help cure them. We should try to stop the shame someone may feel of being a sexual deviant and instead see it as an illness and encourage getting help.

Its a frame of mind. IMO they don't choose it, they become it. F**k the helpline: they should be tagged, and measures put in place to ensure they don't live near children, schools, etc, nor work in such places. Punishment for the above should include letting the public know who they are, to ensure they don't have as free access. For those who complie with the system, have their anomity protected, and have some type of help to see why they think the way they do, to study that frame of mind, and to see if its all in their head, or due to something which happened to them.

Conar

the_syco wrote:

Its a frame of mind. IMO they don't choose it, they become it. F**k the helpline: they should be tagged, and measures put in place to ensure they don't live near children, schools, etc, nor work in such places. Punishment for the above should include letting the public know who they are, to ensure they don't have as free access. For those who complie with the system, have their anomity protected, and have some type of help to see why they think the way they do, to study that frame of mind, and to see if its all in their head, or due to something which happened to them.

I'm not sure how they will ever tackle this issue.
One thing I do feel very strongly about though is they should be tracked until the day they die if they are not locked up.
They cannot be trusted, they persistently reoffend, and they prey on the weakest in society.
We should NEVER hide their identity or consider them as equal! Once they cross that line I feel they have relinquished their human rights and should have a different set of rules to abide by.
Personally I would love to line them all up and shoot them, maybe even torture them....I do actually feel that strongly. I would never do that though as I know that it is wrong, but it doesn't stop me from feeling that way.

Its a shame that we don't have an Australia to ship people off to these days as I think it would be a great solution. Let them live their lifes in a remote island with no form of escape and no children for them to abuse.

the_syco

Conar wrote:

We should NEVER hide their identity

If we don't, they won't come forward. We offer them consulling and ensure they don't offend.

Conar

the_syco wrote:

If we don't, they won't come forward. We offer them consulling and ensure they don't offend.

I was talking about people that have already offended.
I agree that we need to make an effort to stop them from ever offending, and we should offer them any assistance we can.
BUT once they have offended then that is it! No second chances!
It doesn't matter how disturbed they are, they are still trying to groom the kids and get away with it. It is premeditated! It is unforgivable! Anyone who gives into a sexual urge to harm children does not deserve anyones pity or assistance.

If someone is even caught looking at child porn they should go on the register for a minimum of 25 years. 3 years or similar just does not cut it. They need to realise that if they cross that line then they are risking their entire life as they know it!

the_syco

Conar wrote:

I was talking about people that have already offended.

Ah. Well, if they offend, thake their passport off them, ban them from travelling. Ban them from going within 20 meters of a school, and sterilize them.

DOLEMAN

Does anyone know what % of sex offenders reoffend? Also, what was done differently by the government between the people who didn't reoffend and those who did?

Zombrex

DOLEMAN wrote:

Does anyone know what % of sex offenders reoffend? Also, what was done differently by the government between the people who didn't reoffend and those who did?

These are American statistics -

Of those sex offenders who recieved little or no reabilitiation in prision 90% will re-offend in 5 years, 67% in the first 3 of their release.

Reabilitation and re-entry programs can lower this to 12% in the first 3 years.

DOLEMAN

Wicknight wrote:

These are American statistics -

Of those sex offenders who recieved little or no reabilitiation in prision 90% will re-offend in 5 years, 67% in the first 3 of their release.

Reabilitation and re-entry programs can lower this to 12% in the first 3 years.

Thanks for that...

WOW! So why would the government possibly not want to rehabilitate?

And, if we were to apply this rehabilitation system before someone offends, would it have the same results?

Nevyn

They can't force them to undergo treatment currently.

Conar

They are interesting figures but i still think that even 12% is too high, especially given that it is within 3 years.
I wonder what the percentage is over 15 or 20 years.
We need to find a way to ensure they don't reoffend.
I think they should definitely server life (their entire life, not 25 years) without parole if they ever reoffend.

Samos

I don't think that vilification is a successful method to curb occurances of sexual abuse (or any other crime for that matter). Education is a key requirement, not just of the facts, but in teaching children from a young age how to think independently and critically. I don't think anyone chooses a criminal act freely, but that they feel compelled by life circumstances that are beyond personal control.

Everbody acts in accordance with their own ethical code, but many are not aware of what motivates them deep down, which is why teaching children to analyse their own feelings in the context of others may elucidate the reasons why some people act as they do, and help prevent future acts of harm.

Encouragement to choose behaviour that is most beneficial both personally and to others is more successful than threatening punishment for acts that are deemed to be unquestionably wrong.