Do you think Virgin Mary in schools is racist?

The outlaw

In relation to the thread on Ruari Quinn's stance on religion in schools I posted the following: "In this day and age it is completly unacceptable to expect for example, children of people from the middle east to go to school and walk by, every single day one of those vulgar statues of the vigin mary where a woman from the middle east is dipicted as having pale white skin - incredibly racist! Children of chirtians, muslims, atheists etc should go to school based on the area they live in so that there is a strong sense of community. You even have that in the US." (I should have explained here that EVEN a country like America where most poeple are religious, their schools are mostly not controlled by religions and where most schools are co-ed) "Here you could have children from the same estate going to 4 or 5 different schools - you can't get more secregated than that. We have the highest proportion of single sex schools in Europe, now that may be seen as a different topic but it all mostly goes back to the Catholic church."
I then got someone saying my post is digusting. Is it? I just want whats best for the young of our country. Am I out of line or is the blogger a right wing nutter?

I find your post unnecessarlly distastefull and disrespectfull.
To non catholics,it's only a statue and a very fully clothed one.
To practicing catholics it's a symbol of someone venerable.

I respect both views regardless of which I believe in a free country.
A little respect goes a long way.

There are things that I couldn't respect,extremes of various kinds but this would be far from being one of them.

bitter

I think all those shrines all over the countryside and in hospitals should be removed. The Catholic Churches presence in Ireland has not been a good one. I wonder how an abused person & his family feel looking at these statues?

Killer Pigeon

OK, how about this;

School's will be force to put up racially equal religious statues. So for example, in a typical corridor, if there's a Middle Eastern depiction of the Virgin Mary, there will also have to be a White and Black depiction of the same statue beside it.

Toby Take a Bow

Most societies will depict their icons and gods and godesses to look like whatever the majority of the people look like in their society. (Obviously this wouldn't apply to Hindus or Muslims and the like). I would think that most of these statues were made some time back, thus reflect the majority of the people in Ireland at the time. In Africa, expect to see black Jesuses (depending on the brand of religion they're teaching around there).

In my opinion, they've always struck me as a little bit creepy and a bit unsettling.

The outlaw

I didn't mean to be offensive but the Virgin Mary would have had very dark skin. What would she say if she came back and saw the statues? I don't care what colour someone's skin is but at least have them depicted correctly. It's absurd to suggest to have different skin colours to cater for the different races. There would be an outcry if in the future there was a painting of Obama as having pale white skin or one of the Queen as looking Hispanic or whatever.

KeithAFC

Can't say it really matters much? I don't see how it could be offensive, unless im missing something? Perhaps this is just militant atheists getting upset again?

JonJoeDali

Another excuse for an anti-Catholic troll thread...

mikemac

The outlaw wrote: »

I didn't mean to be offensive but the Virgin Mary would have had very dark skin. What would she say if she came back and saw the statues? I don't care what colour someone's skin is but at least have them depicted correctly. It's absurd to suggest to have different skin colours to cater for the different races. There would be an outcry if in the future there was a painting of Obama as having pale white skin or one of the Queen as looking Hispanic or whatever.

And there are pictures in Africa several centuries old showing Jesus as black.

Some of most famous Jesuits who went to Japan have portraits with Asian features.

Here in the West, the pictures show Jesus as we look, albeit he is presented as very attractive.

Does it realy matter? Believers worship what they stand for, not what they look like. Nobody knows for sure what Jesus looked like though maybe there is some text somewhere that can be quoted

partyatmygaff

The outlaw wrote: »

I didn't mean to be offensive but the Virgin Mary would have had very dark skin. What would she say if she came back and saw the statues? I don't care what colour someone's skin is but at least have them depicted correctly. It's absurd to suggest to have different skin colours to cater for the different races. There would be an outcry if in the future there was a painting of Obama as having pale white skin or one of the Queen as looking Hispanic or whatever.

Not necessarily. People from the Middle East and North Africa do not always have dark skin. I've met a lot of people from the Middle East who range from dark black to pale European white.

partyatmygaff

The outlaw wrote: »

In relation to the thread on Ruari Quinn's stance on religion in schools I posted the following: "In this day and age it is completly unacceptable to expect for example, children of people from the middle east to go to school and walk by, every single day one of those vulgar statues of the vigin mary where a woman from the middle east is dipicted as having pale white skin - incredibly racist!

Wow. That is actually quite laughable. How is a statue of a woman in any way vulgar? It is in fact you who is coming across as racist as you seem to think that everyone in the Middle East has dark skin which is not the case. It ranges from pale white to very dark black. There's quite a lot of variation.

Children of chirtians, muslims, atheists etc should go to school based on the area they live in so that there is a strong sense of community.

Isn't that what they already do? Forgive me if i'm wrong but you seem to be under the impression that a Muslim would find a statue of the Virgin Mary vulgar or disagreeable in some way. Newsflash, Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet who came before Muhammad and as such they respect Mary as being the mother of a prophet. They would not find a statue of Mary disagreeable.

I then got someone saying my post is digusting. Is it? I just want whats best for the young of our country. Am I out of line or is the blogger a right wing nutter?

It is a tad racist and a bit ignorant of other cultures... although I am sure you did not mean it as such.

RandomName2

The outlaw wrote: »

In relation to the thread on Ruari Quinn's stance on religion in schools I posted the following: "In this day and age it is completly unacceptable to expect for example, children of people from the middle east to go to school and walk by, every single day one of those vulgar statues of the vigin mary where a woman from the middle east is dipicted as having pale white skin - incredibly racist! Children of chirtians, muslims, atheists etc should go to school based on the area they live in so that there is a strong sense of community. You even have that in the US." (I should have explained here that EVEN a country like America where most poeple are religious, their schools are mostly not controlled by religions and where most schools are co-ed) "Here you could have children from the same estate going to 4 or 5 different schools - you can't get more secregated than that. We have the highest proportion of single sex schools in Europe, now that may be seen as a different topic but it all mostly goes back to the Catholic church."
I then got someone saying my post is digusting. Is it? I just want whats best for the young of our country. Am I out of line or is the blogger a right wing nutter?

What you are saying has no logical continuity.

You say:

The outlaw wrote: »

it is completly unacceptable [in Ireland] to have children of people from the middle east to go to school and walk by, every single day one of those vulgar statues of the vigin mary where a woman from the middle east is dipicted as having pale white skin

You immediately follow on by saying

The outlaw wrote: »

'Children of chirtians, muslims, atheists etc should go to school based on the area they live in so that there is a strong sense of community'

These two statements seem to contradict one another. You want homogeneous communities based on local culture, yet you chastise local culture for being racist because its depiction of one of its religious personae is not historically accurate.

If you want a rational response, you must first be rational. :cool:

hivizman

The outlaw wrote: »

I didn't mean to be offensive but the Virgin Mary would have had very dark skin. What would she say if she came back and saw the statues? I don't care what colour someone's skin is but at least have them depicted correctly. It's absurd to suggest to have different skin colours to cater for the different races. There would be an outcry if in the future there was a painting of Obama as having pale white skin or one of the Queen as looking Hispanic or whatever.

In 1993, Benetton ran an advertisement with a photograph of Queen Elizabeth II that had been altered to make her look African:



And, yes, some royalists were offended.

prinz

bitter wrote: »

I think all those shrines all over the countryside and in hospitals should be removed. The Catholic Churches presence in Ireland has not been a good one. I wonder how an abused person & his family feel looking at these statues?

So when do we start razing family homes to the ground then?

bmaxi

Nobody has ever seen her so how do we know what she looked like? Historians claim that Jesus would have looked nothing like the pictures we see of him, most likely would not have had a beard and would have been about 5'6" tall.
All we are seeing is the depiction of people as they were when the pictures were painted. I don't see why it should be offensive, it just reflects the ethos of the people who provide the school. If I go into an RC church I expect to see statues, if I go into a Protestant or Orthodox church I don't.As a non RC. non Protestant, non Orthodox, I wouldn't be offended either way.

LordSutch

I have no problem at all with Virgin Mary statues in Roman Catholic schools, thats part of their religion so each to their own, but I do have an issue with Virgin Mary statues in multidenominational Hospitals - Not everybody in Ireland is Roman Catholic :eek:

Fanny Cradock

LordSutch wrote: »

but I do have an issue with Virgin Mary statues in multidenominational Hospitals - Not everybody in Ireland is Roman Catholic :eek:

That is neither here nor there.

Saint Ruth

The outlaw wrote: »

"In this day and age it is completly unacceptable to expect for example, children of people from the middle east to go to school and walk by, every single day one of those vulgar statues of the vigin mary where a woman from the middle east is dipicted as having pale white skin - incredibly racist! Children of chirtians, muslims, atheists etc should go to school based on the area they live in so that there is a strong sense of community. You even have that in the US."
...
Am I out of line or is the blogger a right wing nutter?

Who finds it racist?
Middle eastern people? Did they tell you? How many said this?
I work with quite a few Indians and Pakistanis, and I find that they don't go around getting offended all the time.

Apologies if I'm wrong, but are you getting "offending" on their behalf, and then using them as an excuse to push for something you want to do (get rid of religious statues) regardless of whether they're offended or not?

I wouldn't call your post "disgusting" but no, only a "left wing nutter" would call anyone who disagrees with removing all religious statues because they're of White people a "right wing nutter"...

Toby Take a Bow

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Newsflash, Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet who came before Muhammad and as such they respect Mary as being the mother of a prophet. They would not find a statue of Mary disagreeable.

As far as I know, in traditional Muslim teaching, any iconography is a big no-no, so they probably would find a statue of Mary insulting. Or maybe that just applies to Mohommed?

I'd also like to say, I'd consider myself quite left-wing, and find the OP to be kind of pointless and possibly a little bit troll-y.

georgieporgy

bmaxi wrote: »

what she looked likeNobody has ever seen her so how do we know ? Historians claim that Jesus would have looked nothing like the pictures we see of him, most likely would not have had a beard and would have been about 5'6" tall.
All we are seeing is the depiction of people as they were when the pictures were painted. I don't see why it should be offensive, it just reflects the ethos of the people who provide the school. If I go into an RC church I expect to see statues, if I go into a Protestant or Orthodox church I don't.As a non RC. non Protestant, non Orthodox, I wouldn't be offended either way.

http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Aparitns.htm
gives a partial list of many people who have seen her

thebullkf

bitter wrote: »

I think all those shrines all over the countryside and in hospitals should be removed. The Catholic Churches presence in Ireland has not been a good one. I wonder how an abused person & his family feel looking at these statues?

really?..... i would've thought, feeding,clothing and educating the poorest in society as a good thing?... (secular people have and do abuse kids as well)

While i don't go to mass meself,i see the merits in the good things they've done,as well as the bad.

I think as a species, we are flawed.

But i truly believe the good far outweighs the bad. The CC fostered community and goodwill in this country and still does for the majority, that should not be forgotten.

seems a la mode to slate christians recently. I just don't get it

LordSutch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is neither here nor there.

It certainly is, if you're seriously ill in a hospital bed with a statue of Mary at the end of your bed, & you're not a Roman Catholic!

thebullkf

LordSutch wrote: »

It certainly is, if you're seriously ill in a hospital bed with a statue of Mary at the end of your bed, & you're not a Roman Catholic!

what if you're in a country that has a buddha,ganesha (?) . there....would you have a problem then?

Fanny Cradock

LordSutch wrote: »

It certainly is, if you're seriously ill in a hospital bed with a statue of Mary at the end of your bed, & you're not a Roman Catholic!

No it is not. This thread is asking (rather incredibly) if people think that Virgin Mary statues in schools is racist? Stop muddying the waters.

Rabble Rabble

The outlaw wrote: »

I didn't mean to be offensive but the Virgin Mary would have had very dark skin. What would she say if she came back and saw the statues? I don't care what colour someone's skin is but at least have them depicted correctly. It's absurd to suggest to have different skin colours to cater for the different races. There would be an outcry if in the future there was a painting of Obama as having pale white skin or one of the Queen as looking Hispanic or whatever.

No she wouldn't. At most she would be olive skinned ( which is the general depiction) but quite possibly as white as Larry David.

As for statues, ( now look here!), if the statue is white the person depicted may not be white that's just the material; similarly if the statue is black ( as is Cromwell's statue outside the houses of parliament) it doesnt mean the depicted person is black, and if the statue is green he is not a muppet, it is probably copper oxide.

The outlaw

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Wow. That is actually quite laughable. How is a statue of a woman in any way vulgar? It is in fact you who is coming across as racist as you seem to think that everyone in the Middle East has dark skin which is not the case. It ranges from pale white to very dark black. There's quite a lot of variation.

.

I agree with you in that there is alot of variation, I should have been more clear. I obviously know not everyone is dark there. What I meant is that on probality we can be very confident she would have tanned. To answer your question along with the other posts, I believe the statues of the vigin mary are a sublte, indirect and inadvertent form of white supremacy. Insinuating the mother of the son of God was definitely white which the staues protray is just too much, especially in public places. All I want is people to question things more, not just accept things as they are.

Overature

its another case of 'if you come to our country you respect our way of life and our culture' and if you dont like it then you can get out

The outlaw

What you are saying has no logical continuity.

Ouote from Random Name 2: "You say:


Quote:
Originally Posted by The outlaw
it is completly unacceptable [in Ireland] to have children of people from the middle east to go to school and walk by, every single day one of those vulgar statues of the vigin mary where a woman from the middle east is dipicted as having pale white skin

You immediately follow on by saying


Quote:
Originally Posted by The outlaw
'Children of chirtians, muslims, atheists etc should go to school based on the area they live in so that there is a strong sense of community'

These two statements seem to contradict one another. You want homogeneous communities based on local culture, yet you chastise local culture for being racist because its depiction of one of its religious personae is not historically accurate. "

After posting that, I realised that some people may interpret the two statemets as being contradictory so apologies for that. What I meant is that there should be no statues in shools at all. Rather then ranting that all religious statues in public places should be torn down, I wanted to put the question whether they were appropriate in the first place. I find it very upsetting that young non-catholic children in catholic schools have to sit in class in the corner when the religious subjects are being taught. Sure these children are encouraged to talk about their religion but at the end of the day it is wrong for them to be sitting in the corner doing their own work. (It is nearly like the teacher saying 'look this pupil is not really one of us, we'll include them as much as we can but at the end of the day, they're not catholic and this is a catholic shoool')
I can guarantee that in fifty years time all children will go to school based on the area they live in, without religions getting in the way of segregating children who live within a stones throw of each other. Also there will probably be no single sex schools in Ireland just like in a good few other EU countries. It was the curse of religion in Ireland, that brainwashed parents into thinking that single sex education is appropriate for development. Are people in other EU countries not as well rounded as us from their mixed and secular education?

Rabble Rabble

The outlaw wrote: »

I agree with you in that there is alot of variation, I should have been more clear. I obviously know not everyone is dark there. What I meant is that on probality we can be very confident she would have tanned. To answer your question along with the other posts, I believe the statues of the vigin mary are a sublte, indirect and inadvertent form of white supremacy. Insinuating the mother of the son of God was definitely white which the staues protray is just too much, especially in public places. All I want is people to question things more, not just accept things as they are.

You haven't questioned a thing in your life. Its been pointed out to you that

1) She was probably white
2) All cultures depict their gods in their own fashion, with their own looks.

You come back with boiler plate sophmoric claptrap about white "supremacy", the kind of banal reasoning which got you whatever useless degree you probably hold.

Rabble Rabble

The outlaw wrote: »

I can guarantee that in fifty years time all children will go to school based on the area they live in, without religions getting in the way of segregating children who live within a stones throw of each other. Also there will probably be no single sex schools in Ireland just like in a good few other EU countries. It was the curse of religion in Ireland, that brainwashed parents into thinking that single sex education is appropriate for development. Are people in other EU countries not as well rounded as us from their mixed and secular education?

Plenty of evidence that pupils do better in single sex schools actually.

The outlaw

Hi Rabble Rabble,

Beleive it or not I am a person of reason who questions things all the the time and does alot of quantitative research so see if the opinions and views of people hold any merit. (eg. seeing if there is any link between belief and God and lower suicide rates among all EU countries using t-test analysis, assessing the factors affecting house prices etc..)
As for having a useless degree, I have a first class honours degree in Accounting & Finance.

It's nothing personal, I accept my view on this may be extreme. Having said that its only 15 years ago when the Irish public voted for divorce by a margin of only around 0.2%. It's enevitable that there will be less control by churches of schools. That may seem up setting to many but the best we can plan for is having a strong sense of community.

partyatmygaff

The outlaw wrote: »

I agree with you in that there is alot of variation, I should have been more clear. I obviously know not everyone is dark there. What I meant is that on probality we can be very confident she would have tanned. To answer your question along with the other posts, I believe the statues of the vigin mary are a sublte, indirect and inadvertent form of white supremacy.

"on probality we can be very confident she would have tanned."
What? How can we be very confident in her skin colour? Does her skin colour even matter? No one else seems to care too much about the colour of her skin as it really makes no difference to her person.

The outlaw wrote: »

After posting that, I realised that some people may interpret the two statemets as being contradictory so apologies for that. What I meant is that there should be no statues in shools at all. Rather then ranting that all religious statues in public places should be torn down, I wanted to put the question whether they were appropriate in the first place. I find it very upsetting that young non-catholic children in catholic schools have to sit in class in the corner when the religious subjects are being taught.

So basically you tried to make another one of these anti-Catholic threads except with a new and completely irrelevant racism spin to try and get people to agree with you?

I can guarantee that in fifty years time all children will go to school based on the area they live in, without religions getting in the way of segregating children who live within a stones throw of each other.

You should contact a Physicist. They'd love to know how you invented a time machine that can transport you to the future so as to ascertain these "guarantees" you're making.

Also there will probably be no single sex schools in Ireland just like in a good few other EU countries. It was the curse of religion in Ireland, that brainwashed parents into thinking that single sex education is appropriate for development. Are people in other EU countries not as well rounded as us from their mixed and secular education?

Single or mixed schools both have their merits and their flaws. It is not a product of the "curse of religion" as you call it either. Many secular people also see the merit of single sex schools as do religious people see the flaws of single sex schools.

The outlaw wrote: »

It's nothing personal, I accept my view on this may be extreme. Having said that its only 15 years ago when the Irish public voted for divorce by a margin of only around 0.2%. It's enevitable that there will be less control by churches of schools. That may seem up setting to many but the best we can plan for is having a strong sense of community.

So to sum up, you fabricated an element of racism to try and add a spin to the typical anti-Catholic rant thread.

bmaxi

georgieporgy wrote: »

http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Aparitns.htm
gives a partial list of many people who have seen her

Your link didn't work but I can imagine the content, never have been and never will be convinced by any of this. Historically, more people have seen Martians.:)

thebullkf

Overature wrote: »

its another case of 'if you come to our country you respect our way of life and our culture' and if you dont like it then you can get out

i had a good chuckle at that.... where in Gods name did you get that from?

jim69

last time i looked i was living in ireland,not the middle east,its a christian country,see how far you get going into a muslim school in saudi arabia and kick up about something you deem offensive

bitter

LordSutch wrote: »

I have no problem at all with Virgin Mary statues in Roman Catholic schools, thats part of their religion so each to their own, but I do have an issue with Virgin Mary statues in multidenominational Hospitals - Not everybody in Ireland is Roman Catholic :eek:

spot on

bitter

prinz wrote: »

So when do we start razing family homes to the ground then?

reel it in a bit son

partyatmygaff

LordSutch wrote: »

I have no problem at all with Virgin Mary statues in Roman Catholic schools, thats part of their religion so each to their own, but I do have an issue with Virgin Mary statues in multidenominational Hospitals - Not everybody in Ireland is Roman Catholic :eek:

How is a statue of the Virgin Mary causing anyone any offense?

To a Christian - Certainly not a problem
To a Muslim - They see her as the mother of a prophet therefore again no problem
To a Jew - A statue of a woman
To a Buddhist - A statue of a woman
To a Hindu - A statue of a woman
To an Atheist - A statue of a woman

If the only problem you can find with Ireland's health system is a statue then you are clearly ignoring the elephant in the room.

bitter

thebullkf wrote: »

really?..... i would've thought, feeding,clothing and educating the poorest in society as a good thing?... (secular people have and do abuse kids as well)

While i don't go to mass meself,i see the merits in the good things they've done,as well as the bad.

I think as a species, we are flawed.

But i truly believe the good far outweighs the bad. The CC fostered community and goodwill in this country and still does for the majority, that should not be forgotten.

seems a la mode to slate christians recently. I just don't get it

not worth the hair on an innocent childs head

bitter

Overature wrote: »

its another case of 'if you come to our country you respect our way of life and our culture' and if you dont like it then you can get out

interesting;)

georgieporgy

bmaxi wrote: »

Your link didn't work but I can imagine the content, never have been and never will be convinced by any of this. Historically, more people have seen Martians.:)

the link works fine. try it again. have faith!

bmaxi

georgieporgy wrote: »

the link works fine. try it again. have faith!

Worked this time and it is just as I thought. I don't want to offend anybody by giving my opinion of this sort of thing and it is just that, my opinion, but I don't believe in Santa either.

thebullkf

bitter wrote: »

not worth the hair on an innocent childs head

can you expand a bit. i don't understand

thebullkf

bmaxi wrote: »

Worked this time and it is just as I thought.

which was what exactly

I don't want to offend anybody by giving my opinion of this sort of thing and it is just that, my opinion, but I don't believe in Santa either.

nice try, but to say you don't want to offend,and then simultaneously deride christian beliefs,in a christian forum by compapring said beliefs to Santa is a tad lame.

Toby Take a Bow

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To a Muslim - They see her as the mother of a prophet therefore again no problem

I think practicing/traditional Muslims would have a problem of Mary being depicted in statue-form. Being the mother of a prophet and all that.

I don't think atheists would have a problem with statues in religious institutions, be they churches, hospitals or schools as long as they're not funded by the public. As Christianity is a proselyting religion, and an element of this proselyting is done by statues and iconography, some would find it offensive that these statues are in public places funded by the tax payer. As an agnostic who has spent a considerable time in a publicly funded hospital and walking past a fairly battered Jesus most days, I didn't necessarily mind the statue of Jesus, but did find it a bit disturbing (it was quite graphic).

blacktalons

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Another excuse for an anti-Catholic troll thread...

very true, with easter approaching we can expect lots more of this utter and complete bull**** on boards.ie

bitter

thebullkf wrote: »

can you expand a bit. i don't understand

it's pretty evident

partyatmygaff

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I think practicing/traditional Muslims would have a problem of Mary being depicted in statue-form. Being the mother of a prophet and all that.

Have you ever heard of a Muslim complaining of it? Most Muslims only care if the depiction is of Allah or Muhammad.

bmaxi

thebullkf wrote: »

which was what exactly




nice try, but to say you don't want to offend,and then simultaneously deride christian beliefs,in a christian forum by compapring said beliefs to Santa is a tad lame.

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was a forum to discuss Christianity, not a "Christian" forum. I used the analogy of Santa to avoid putting my opinion in words and I don't see how my scepticism at the occurrence of these apparitions is derisive of Christian beliefs, Christian beliefs, surely, are based on the teachings of the New Testament.

partyatmygaff

bmaxi wrote: »

Forgive me but I was under the impression that this was a forum to discuss Christianity, not a "Christian" forum. I used the analogy of Santa to avoid putting my opinion in words and I don't see how my scepticism at the occurrence of these apparitions is derisive of Christian beliefs, Christian beliefs, surely, are based on the teachings of the New Testament.

A red herring.

Your opinion I believe is that of "Miracles can't occur therefore apparitions cannot occur" or something to that effect.

You compared people's belief in these apparitions to belief in a known-to-be fictional character such as Santa. Therefore you are insinuating that people who do believe in these apparitions are part of a conspiracy to falsify claims of apparitions which certainly does not appear to be the case looking at certain apparitions. Naturally, no one does mind if people are sceptical and choose not to believe but it would be far better if you expressed your opinion a bit less snidely. Equating belief in the veracity of apparitions to belief in a fictional character of 19th century creation is a rather underhand way of derision.

bmaxi

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A red herring.

Your opinion I believe is that of "Miracles can't occur therefore apparitions cannot occur" or something to that effect.

You compared people's belief in these apparitions to belief in a known-to-be fictional character such as Santa. Therefore you are insinuating that people who do believe in these apparitions are part of a conspiracy to falsify claims of apparitions which certainly does not appear to be the case looking at certain apparitions. Naturally, no one does mind if people are sceptical and choose not to believe but it would be far better if you expressed your opinion a bit less snidely. Equating belief in the veracity of apparitions to belief in a fictional character of 19th century creation is a rather underhand way of derision.

Please don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself.
I don't believe these apparitions ever happened, I don't believe in moving statues or the sun standing still, that's my prerogative and not intended to deride anything. I don't know where the conspiracy accusation comes from, as far as I'm concerned people are free to believe whatever they want, maybe the people who saw it really believe they saw it, I don't.
If your sensitivities are offended by the Santa analogy, that's unfortunate but any analogy would probably have the same effect.