Mary says YES!

swampgas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can separate civil matters from religious matters and hold conflicting opinions on many issues quite comfortably.

It helps me to examine all aspects of an issue to get a broader perspective, rather than just seeing what I want to see in everything.

I appreciate that it's important to consider multiple points of view when coming to an opinion, but are you claiming to have multiple contradictory beliefs?

To me this is the hallmark of religious indoctrination as a child - being trained to ignore the glaring contradictions between religious teaching and reality so as to have "faith".

The fact that you can self-identify as a Roman Catholic while rejecting some of the core beliefs of that religion is very common in Ireland, however it's not something I think you (or anyone else) should be comfortable with.

Because sooner or later it will cloud your ability to deal rationally with something like this message to children that it's okay to submit unquestioningly to authority.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Umm, it's the official theology. And always has been. I'm amazed that you don't know that.

If you find a genuine RC/Vatican site that teaches that Mary was not in fact a virgin, I'll eat my hat. And yours too if you want.

Yeah, that's the official theology and all, of course I know all that, but the claim that it has ever been taught as fact simply isn't true, when it is known in Irish schools at least as "faith formation".

I didn't ask you to object to it, I asked you if you agree that your child's confidence and (presumed) ability to recognize when he's being approached inappropriately, and to defend himself against that, may not be typical of all children. Also he's no longer 6.

So my question is do you agree that this message could be confusing for young children who are or could be in a situation of being groomed by adults in some authority over them?

A plain yes or no would be helpful.

I don't know, is the honest answer I can give you. I think it's highly unlikely that a child would make that connection, but I'm arguing that with adults who believe as an absolute and incontrovertible fact that children would interpret it that way. They could, anyone could, even adults could.

I don't think they even need to be in that position you describe above, but if you were to take it as a given that this story could cause them confusion, how do you explain the previous decades of abuse before this book was ever published with it's non-anatomically correct representations of persons (no reflection of reality, of course!) and a story about some strange man that comes into the bedrooms of little girls and has sex with them and then they get pregnant and so on and so on (are we reflecting reality now?).

I can hear the screams of MRA's pissing their pants already, holding up pictures of bearded men and saying "This is not what a rapist looks like!" :rolleyes:

(Though if it's a no, I would also ask why you are so sure it can't possibly matter, and what use you think it is teaching things to children in the first place if they are then expected to disbelieve them anyway?)

I can argue that of course it could confuse a child, but that's what a teacher is there for, that's what a priest is there for, that's what parents are there for, to explain these things to the child in a way that the child understands, like anything else we teach our children. I would expect and encourage children to question what they're being told, I would never suggest a child should ever try and conflate faith with facts - you end up dead when you think you can jump off a cliff without some form of aviation under your arse.

The creativity to design that has to come from your imagination, so I would never be so literal with my children, with any children, with any adult, as I've seen some people doing even in this thread alone.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, that's the official theology and all, of course I know all that, but the claim that it has ever been taught as fact simply isn't true, when it is known in Irish schools at least as "faith formation".

Right, so generations of teachers have been saying 'this is what we think you should believe'? No they have been saying 'this is the truth'. How else are you going to get faith? Faith is an illusion that people hold to in order to justify what they want to believe, and that belief is as a result of being told 'facts'.

The Jesuits made no secret of it - 'give me a child until he is 7 and I will give you the man'. Do all your indoctrination by 7 and you will have the adult you want. (Though to be honest, its not entirely true, my kids were all indoctrinated, at least two fleetingly potential nuns at 12, and fell away from the church in their teens).

kylith

purplecow1977 wrote: »

The new Grow in Love programme is definitely more.... Jesus and God based than the older Alive O used to be.
I'm not teaching infants this year and so I haven't seen the new programme but I agree that's a bit strange.
On the other hand, I guess it's not necessary to over analyse every thing though. The children will be learning about saying NO in their SPHE curriculum and I doubt any child of that age will even draw any similarity to "but Mary said yes"!!
Parents need to fight against religion in schools if they are unhappy.
From what I can gauge, it's only a minority who are unhappy (and informed!) so things won't change until numbers increase.

But don't you think it's counter-productive to teach them to say NO in one class and then teach them to say YES, even if their scared and confused, in another class with the added weight of 'God says so' behind it?

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but that has never been the case in Catholic schools, and certainly isn't the case in modern Catholic ethos schools.

This has to be the funniest thing I've read this week,
So schools tell the story of Jesus and claim it never actually happened?
:rolleyes:

So 10% of primary school time and you think that catholic ethos schools make it clear the students that all of it is made up and never actually happened?

One eyed Jack

swampgas wrote: »

I appreciate that it's important to consider multiple points of view when coming to an opinion, but are you claiming to have multiple contradictory beliefs?

To me this is the hallmark of religious indoctrination as a child - being trained to ignore the glaring contradictions between religious teaching and reality so as to have "faith".

The fact that you can self-identify as a Roman Catholic while rejecting some of the core beliefs of that religion is very common in Ireland, however it's not something I think you (or anyone else) should be comfortable with.

I sort of understand where you're coming from, but I think you're trying to analyse something that's far more complicated than simply "the hallmark of religious indoctrination as a child", I've met many non-religious people whose grasp on reality and the the ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy was, well, tenuous at best.

By that "hallmark" standard, you could point out numerous "hallmarks" that could equally be applied to non-religious people in other ways.

As regards the bit in bold, well, at 38 years of age, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of taking anything at face value without question, and I've taught my child to do the same. He's quite comfortable with the idea of analyzing and critiquing information. I think it has less to do with being religious or absent of religion, I think it's more to do with how people think about things themselves.

Because sooner or later it will cloud your ability to deal rationally with something like this message to children that it's okay to submit unquestioningly to authority.

The same could be said for any ideology really. The weird thing is that simply because we have a different perspective on this, you immediately assume that my disagreement is down to my ability to think rationally being clouded by that which you find objectionable. I don't read it at all the same way you, the same way other people here are reading it.

I don't think at all that the only thing influencing that difference in perspective is religion.

robindch

What a truly creepy idea to propagate to kids - if a stranger comes into your room, you must consent to unprotected sex. The parallels to the RCC's child sex abuse scandal are too obvious to need pointing out.

Does anybody know how this crap is produced in the classroom? Do any of the kids ever realize that it's about sex? Has this ever made it as far as the world's most creepy nativity play? Have any religious parents ever complained about it?

Avatar MIA

Cabaal wrote: »

This has to be the funniest thing I've read this week

Mmm, are we just pandering to an attention seeker?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, that's the official theology and all, of course I know all that, but the claim that it has ever been taught as fact simply isn't true, when it is known in Irish schools at least as "faith formation".

The word "faith" doesn't mean untruth you know. if a cancer patient has faith in their doctor's capacity to prescribe the right treatment for them, doesn't that mean they believe the doctor does actually possess that capacity?

Do you have any evidence that it isn't taught to children as being literally true that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary etc etc?

Because I know that it is, and I've linked to evidence that it is. So unless you have something to the contrary, I'm going to have to assume you are just making stuff up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know, is the honest answer I can give you.

That being so, why would you want to take that possible risk, however small you think it is? There's no good reason to describe the VB story in that updated, hyper-realistic way that could possibly create confusion in a small child's mind.

Why deliberately remove the "fairy-tale" aspect to the story if it wasn't with the intention of making it more believable to small children?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think they even need to be in that position you describe above, but if you were to take it as a given that this story could cause them confusion, how do you explain the previous decades of abuse before this book was ever published with it's non-anatomically correct representations of persons (no reflection of reality, of course!) and a story about some strange man that comes into the bedrooms of little girls and has sex with them and then they get pregnant and so on and so on (are we reflecting reality now?).

I cannot hear the screams of MRA's pissing their pants already, holding up pictures of bearded men and saying "This is not what a rapist looks like!" :rolleyes:

I don't understand what relevance that has here. As a just barely pubescent teen I was the victim of minor sexual abuse by a very close friend of my parents : basically I was groped, nothing more, and luckily not enough to traumatize me - partly I think because I knew my parents would believe me if I told them.

But the thing is, I didn't tell them, because I was afraid of the potential fallout for his own family and for mine. I was very fond of his wife, and of his sons, and didn't want to be responsible for possibly causing a divorce or other form of row.

But more importantly, my initial reaction was one of disbelief, and that it was somehow my fault, that I couldn't possibly tell an adult whom I'd known all my life to just fck off. That's what " a healthy respect for authority" does - it creates an assumption in the child's mind the adult is right.

And I did get over it - when he tried again, a second time, some weeks/months later (despite me trying to ensure I didn't find myself alone with him again) I punched him in the stomach (probably not hard, but certainly not bloodily hard enough anyway!) and shouted at him to fck off. Literally. And that was the end of that.

But there are several important points there : I was 13, not 6 or 7, so probably already getting bolshy, and I had a loving family whom I assumed would support me if necessary. (Though they'd never talked about abuse other than as "stranger-danger", but then parents weren't as aware of the risk then as they are now).

I am certain that children raised in a less secure environment woud not have dared to tell an adult to fck off. And giving them the message that feeling unsure about what an authority figure is doing to you in the privacy of your own bedroom is a feeling that can be safely ignored may well make the difference between daring to stand up for yourself and not quite daring to.

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Mmm, are we just pandering to an attention seeker?

Avatar this is a discussion forum, and I've been contributing to A&A for a long time now with no accusation that I was ever an attention seeker (could you at least have attempted to be less passive aggressive about it?).

I get involved in discussions and I don't try shoving my opinion down people's throats and I'm always mindful of the forum I'm in. If you think for a minute that I'm only here for the attention, then I'm sure you'll understand why I might feel the same when I see someone making a mountain out of... well, nothing, IMO, but to link that to a history of institutional child abuse?

Jesus, what must have happened to someone in childhood to make them think like that?

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Avatar this is a discussion forum, and I've been contributing to A&A for a long time now with no accusation that I was ever an attention seeker (could you at least have attempted to be less passive aggressive about it?).

I get involved in discussions and I don't try shoving my opinion down people's throats and I'm always mindful of the forum I'm in. If you think for a minute that I'm only here for the attention, then I'm sure you'll understand why I might feel the same when I see someone making a mountain out of... well, nothing, IMO, but to link that to a history of institutional child abuse?

Jesus, what must have happened to someone in childhood to make them think like that?

Its not nothing, its really quite worrying. Most kids of 5-7 are abused by a family member, someone who will have access to this book. Abusers are manipulative and will use emotional abuse to keep their victim quiet. Maybe you can't see it but I can totally see an abuser who has seen this using it as a way of rationalising their actions to a child who at 6 is probably not going to have the maturity to know what is happening is wrong. I don't believe there was a sinister motive in how this segment was produced but I hope they remove it from further editions of the book.

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Avatar this is a discussion forum, and I've been contributing to A&A for a long time now with no accusation that I was ever an attention seeker (could you at least have attempted to be less passive aggressive about it?).

I get involved in discussions and I don't try shoving my opinion down people's throats and I'm always mindful of the forum I'm in. If you think for a minute that I'm only here for the attention, then I'm sure you'll understand why I might feel the same when I see someone making a mountain out of... well, nothing, IMO, but to link that to a history of institutional child abuse?

Jesus, what must have happened to someone in childhood to make them think like that?

You've made some absolutely ridiculous comments one could hardly credit to a person sentient enough to power up and operate a PC.

You'll have to forgive my scepticism - it is, after all, the A&A forum.

swampgas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I sort of understand where you're coming from, but I think you're trying to analyse something that's far more complicated than simply "the hallmark of religious indoctrination as a child", I've met many non-religious people whose grasp on reality and the the ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy was, well, tenuous at best.

By that "hallmark" standard, you could point out numerous "hallmarks" that could equally be applied to non-religious people in other ways.

The popularity of things like astrology, crystal healing, and many other sorts of woo indicates the same thing. However there are studies that link religious belief in children to difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.

I accept you're an independent thinker, but how do you square that with allegiance to the RCC, which teaches (for the most part) faith and unquestioning obedience to authority?

As regards the bit in bold, well, at 38 years of age, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of taking anything at face value without question, and I've taught my child to do the same. He's quite comfortable with the idea of analyzing and critiquing information. I think it has less to do with being religious or absent of religion, I think it's more to do with how people think about things themselves.

TBH, if you're uncomfortable taking things at face value without question, does that not give you pause for thought with respect to the way this "Mary says Yes" story is worded? At no point does Mary get a chance to have an opinion of her own, she does not get to question, instead she meekly bows her head and says the equivalent of "Thy will be done" .
Given the number of Marian shrines and grottos around the place, holding up the obedient Mary as a role model is not something I agree with.

Out of curiosity, do you think it would colour your opinion at all if it were your daughter rather than your son who was being exposed to this story?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not nothing, its really quite worrying. Most kids of 5-7 are abused by a family member, someone who will have access to this book. Abusers are manipulative and will use emotional abuse to keep their victim quiet. Maybe you can't see it but I can totally see an abuser who has seen this using it as a way of rationalising their actions to a child who at 6 is probably not going to have the maturity to know what is happening is wrong. I don't believe there was a sinister motive in how this segment was produced but I hope they remove it from further editions of the book.

I actually can, totally see how an abuser could use this book, I can see how they could use this story, I can see and have seen abusers use the most innocent and unthinkable methods to manipulate children, and I have experienced just how a child's naivety can be used against them by a person who would wish to take advantage of them.

If we remove every story that we as adults think would confuse a child, then one has to wonder - where does it stop? Should we use the potential for a child abuser to use something as a way to manipulate a child as a standard for what we now deem acceptable or not in society?

I'm glad my child doesn't watch Barney any more. For a while there he was terribly confused any time he heard someone mention that they were sweating like a paedophile in a Barney suit.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I actually can, totally see how an abuser could use this book, I can see how they could use this story, I can see and have seen abusers use the most innocent and unthinkable methods to manipulate children, and I have experienced just how a child's naivety can be used against them by a person who would wish to take advantage of them.

If we remove every story that we as adults think would confuse a child, then one has to wonder - where does it stop? Should we use the potential for a child abuser to use something as a way to manipulate a child as a standard for what we now deem acceptable or not in society?

I'm glad my child doesn't watch Barney any more. For a while there he was terribly confused any time he heard someone mention that they were sweating like a paedophile in a Barney suit.

The "where will it end" argument isn't valid in this case imho. This isn't someone taking an innocent idea and giving it legs. The entire basis for this lesson is that Mary was impregnated by God despite her fear and reservations. Its a pretty powerful message imo to give to kids that age. Its not so much the sexual aspect of it that bothers me, its the idea that you put your trust in God and your faith no matter what your inner voice might be saying. I don't believe questioning any authority is a bad thing, I think its essential but this is a subtle message that you let older, senior, authority figures make decisions and you go along with them and don't question it. Every parent will make their own decisions about what they deem acceptable for their children and that's fair enough but in a school system when your child is a captive audience people really should be taking a stand if they see something they feel is unacceptable or sending a potentially dangerous message.

purplecow1977

kylith wrote: »

But don't you think it's counter-productive to teach them to say NO in one class and then teach them to say YES, even if their scared and confused, in another class with the added weight of 'God says so' behind it?

I don't really teach religion anyway (technically I'm not paid to!)
but Mary has always said 'yes' when the Angel Gabriel came to her, so I don't know what's so different now. Is it the image?
It's just one page, I wouldn't base too much importance on it!

evolving_doors

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I find it rather interesting that you would have all these fears for children who haven't done the facts of life yet and so on, yet if a child in primary school identified as transgender, you'd be among the first on social media to scream that children can be aware of their sexuality from as young as two years of age.

If you read that story as explicit, best keep your children protected from nursery rhymes like Jack and Jill and what they must have got up to when they went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. A likely story indeed... :rolleyes:

You're still avoiding the question. Plus I have no clue what transgender has anything to do with this topic, I never mentioned it.

So was there any overt mention in the Jack and Jill story about getting pregnant and being visited in the night time by an 'angel' to do the biz, being cinfused and scared but 'trusting in the will of the impregnator'?

When I say 'explicit', I'm not talking about bare assed bonking in the 'graphically sexually explicit' way that you are reaching for.

I mean it is obvious...

1. She's getting impregnated by a stranger.
2. It's night time.
3. She's scared.
4. She's told to just go with it.

Which of these four points above are untrue about the story as presented in the "grow in Love' book?

What is the teaching point of that lesson?

looksee

My final comment on OEJ's take on this subject. You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same flexible approach to what they believe as you have. You may be able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, and, apparently, disbelieve them after breakfast, but 6 year olds tend to be literal and if they are told something, they believe it.

Can you not see the difference between a trusted teacher spending classroom time teaching this material and a bedtime story in an environment where 'we know this is just a story'? If you cannot, then there is no point in pursuing the discussion.

frostyjacks

Trolling a children's textbook...seriously? I thought the complaints against the Angelus were ridiculous, but this is on another level.

evolving_doors

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trolling a children's textbook...seriously? I thought the complaints against the Angelus were ridiculous, but this is on another level.

Well I would assume if you had kids you might be concerned. The content of the story is simply this,

1. She's getting impregnated by a stranger.
2. It's night time.
3. She's scared.
4. She's told to just go with it.

Can you please tell us what the teaching point of that lesson actually is, if not then do you accept or reject the above points are contained within the lesson?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trolling a children's textbook...seriously? I thought the complaints against the Angelus were ridiculous, but this is on another level.

How's it trolling for people to examine lessons being taught in primary schools?

It's not unreasonable for people to say that maybe teaching young girls to accept a woman becoming pregnant 'despite [Mary] being afraid, confused and not understanding what was going on' isn't a great idea.

Pink Fairy

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trolling a children's textbook...seriously? I thought the complaints against the Angelus were ridiculous, but this is on another level.

The paedophiles handbook is more like it

kylith

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I don't really teach religion anyway (technically I'm not paid to!)
but Mary has always said 'yes' when the Angel Gabriel came to her, so I don't know what's so different now. Is it the image?
It's just one page, I wouldn't base too much importance on it!

Pretty much this:

'despite [Mary] being afraid, confused and not understanding what was going on'

Back when they were attempting to indoctrinate me Mary was presented as a grown woman at prayer in the middle of the day, not a scared, confused girl alone at night.

purplecow1977

kylith wrote: »

Pretty much this:


Back when they were attempting to indoctrinate me Mary was presented as a grown woman at prayer in the middle of the day, not a scared, confused girl alone at night.

She was always afraid/confused!

http://www.whychristmas.com/story/angel_mary.shtml

One eyed Jack

swampgas wrote: »

The popularity of things like astrology, crystal healing, and many other sorts of woo indicates the same thing. However there are studies that link religious belief in children to difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.

Children have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction, because they are children. They lack an adult perspective on many things simply because they lack the experience which would better inform their judgement about the difference between reality and fantasy (and you can substitute in any ideology you like there, it's called selection bias).

swampgas wrote: »

I accept you're an independent thinker, but how do you square that with allegiance to the RCC, which teaches (for the most part) faith and unquestioning obedience to authority?

Well it's simply that for me the Roman Catholic Church is more than just about nurturing faith, spirituality and unquestioning obedience to authority. The unquestioning obedience to authority is an interesting one because I've never experienced that unquestioning obedience to authority from any religious authority, but I've experienced it from my parents, from employers, from educators, even at third level, people who by virtue of either their experience or simply fuelled by their arrogance, expected me to defer to their authority.

The bit about squaring my beliefs with reality and so on, well I don't impose my beliefs on anyone else other than my own child, and that is because I wanted to bring him up in the community of the Roman Catholic Church. My wife who is non-religious, has never had an issue with this. I guide my child in the same way as a person who is non-religious or atheist would guide their child in the absence of belief, they might choose to guide their child in a vegan lifestyle and so on. I think the vegan thing is a bit odd and all, but I trust that they aren't actively trying to cause the child harm.

swampgas wrote: »

TBH, if you're uncomfortable taking things at face value without question, does that not give you pause for thought with respect to the way this "Mary says Yes" story is worded? At no point does Mary get a chance to have an opinion of her own, she does not get to question, instead she meekly bows her head and says the equivalent of "Thy will be done".

I get why some people here might find it objectionable, I really do, but to try and argue that something like this could contribute to a child being confused about child abuse? I think that's honestly a very knee-jerky hyperbolic reaction that reminds me of some students in third-level institutions in the US who want books censored for fear of "triggering". It shows a very poor understanding of post-traumatic stress disorder, rape, and in this case it's being linked to child abuse to make it objectionable.

I simply cannot support that sort of reading into things that much that we could end up with a situation where children will sit in class with nothing in front of them, not so much as a chair, because sitting down triggers one child who is traumatised because they fell off a chair, and the sight of furniture makes them anxious.

swampgas wrote: »

Out of curiosity, do you think it would colour your opinion at all if it were your daughter rather than your son who was being exposed to this story?

I really don't think so tbh, I understand what you mean alright (obviously the fact that she's a girl and girls can get pregnant), but I don't think that's a very reasonable fear based upon just this one particular story, especially when taken in the context that this is not a single isolated story on it's own and children would be exposed to far more than just this one single story in their albeit short childhood and as they grow into adults.

looksee wrote: »

My final comment on OEJ's take on this subject. You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same flexible approach to what they believe as you have. You may be able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, and, apparently, disbelieve them after breakfast, but 6 year olds tend to be literal and if they are told something, they believe it.

It's been my experience that children believe what they want to believe, they believe what suits them, and question that which doesn't. The likelihood that a person is going to use a story in a child's religion book to manipulate a child so they can abuse them, is about as likely as the existence of Russel's teapot. If a child believes everything they are told, and that child tends to be literal, there are bigger issues there IMO than just a story in a religion book.

looksee wrote: »

Can you not see the difference between a trusted teacher spending classroom time teaching this material and a bedtime story in an environment where 'we know this is just a story'? If you cannot, then there is no point in pursuing the discussion.

Of course I can, but I just think the reaction to this particular story is way over the top tbh, and linking it to child abuse is just all sorts of wrong IMO.

ABC101

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.

Surprised, confused, startled are conditions which occur to children and adults. These conditions are not the same as being abused.

If a angel did appear to any one of us...... I think we would all express initial surprise, perhaps fear and confusion..... but I don't think we would state we have been abused.

For A.I. to infer that the cartoon image portrays Mary as a young child is dishonest IMO.

How old is Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Freddy Flintstone & Wilma etc, 26, 36, 56?

Is it normal for people to complain about the violence the Coyote orchestrates against Road Runner? Is it politically correct to show Elmar Fudd trying to shoot Bugs Bunny?

For A.I. to infer that the cartoon image of the Annunciation in the lesson is a deliberate attempt by the R.C. Church to get children to say yes to abuse by adults is ridiculous in the extreme.

God gave Mary a choice..... Yes or no...... Mary made the deliberate choice of submitting to God's plan.

This is a important theme which R.C. are asked of themselves.... what is God's plan and how can I be a part of it as I go around my normal daily life / routine etc.

It is a act of love of the believer to God.

Samaris

I think the story is very clumsily put across. They tried to "translate" a story that has elements that doesn't sit right with our current overall moral compass into a story that children can place themselves into (like making the Mary character look young and placing her in a familiar and rather western context - the bedroom with its purple walls.)


Back then, yes, young girls were supposed to be absolutely obedient, and obedience and submitting ones will to a higher power is still a central tenet of the Catholic ethos. The societies these stories are being taught too don't hold that tenet and actually considers it somewhat dangerous. That the Church itself betrayed the deal in terms of obedience (obey your God and Church and we'll protect you - well, we know how that went in Ireland!) really doesn't make it popular. OK, so there's the first essential conflict.


The story as I was taught shows Mary, a girl, true, but an adult woman in the context of that time - and she tended to be drawn as a young woman, not a child, praying to her God and being chosen as worthy for his task/epic quest/however you like. While she didn't entirely understand what was happening, her love and trust in God was enough to know that it was right (which is again a totally different message to the story as presented). The Holy Spirit came down to her (not Gabriel, angels are sexless messengers, dammit, the story's implying that wrongly too - it announced she was chosen, it didn't impregnate her) and she carried Jesus while still a virgin. Whilst elements of this can -definitely- be argued about, it's not particularly alarming.


Note that that is a common situation in stories, particularly fantasy, and a lot of fantasy is aimed at children - look at the story of King Arthur, a scared, confused boy made King, or Harry Potter, or Garion in Eddings' Belgariad - children being given a task beyond a child and being told that only they and their courage can save the world. I entirely get that this is fantasy and not presented as fact in any regard, but it's an interestingly common trope in storytelling.


It's a common convention to present stories, even more "adult" stories in childlike pictures and words for small kids to understand. Unfortunately, at times that can lead to..ah..Unfortunate Connotations, which it has done here, and, innocent or not, should probably be modified to be less potentially creepy, because the context of OUR times is important, especially when the book can't be relied upon to make the context of THOSE times clear in a way that a small child can understand.


(Since I'm not a usual A&Aer; quick introduction so you know where I'm coming from. Raised a Catholic, was very into it as a child, knew the Bible unusually well, bar Revelations (which was nuts) and Kings (which was incredibly boring), have been sitting back and analysing it as an adult and am probably agnostic leaning towards tolerant atheist. I'll happily argue religion for hours, although I don't subscribe to insulting either a mode of belief or a lack thereof.)

Delirium

ABC101 wrote: »

For A.I. to infer that the cartoon image portrays Mary as a young child is dishonest IMO.

How old is Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, Freddy Flintstone & Wilma etc, 26, 36, 56?

Is it normal for people to complain about the violence the Coyote orchestrates against Road Runner? Is it politically correct to show Elmar Fudd trying to shoot Bugs Bunny?

For A.I. to infer that the cartoon image of the Annunciation in the lesson is a deliberate attempt by the R.C. Church to get children to say yes to abuse by adults is ridiculous in the extreme.

That's somewhat disingenuous. Catholics, and other Christians, believe God, Mary and Jesus all exist/existed.

A Catholic school isn't giving a lesson about a fictional Mary/God/Jesus. It's a lesson with the understanding they all exist.

You're not comparing like with like.

If a doctor appeared (or sent someone) to a womans home to announce they were to be implanted with an embryo, regardless of consent from the woman, I'd imagine nobody would defend the doctors actions.

So why is it when the same scenario is framed with God, angel and Mary, it suddenly becomes okay to teach kids as an acceptable scenario?

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Children have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction, because they are children. They lack an adult perspective on many things simply because they lack the experience which would better inform their judgement about the difference between reality and fantasy (and you can substitute in any ideology you like there, it's called selection bias).

Not entirely true. While children in general can have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction studies have shown that religious children have more difficulty doing so.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12138/abstract

ABC101

Delirium wrote: »

That's somewhat disingenuous. Catholics, and other Christians, believe God, Mary and Jesus all exist/existed.

A Catholic school isn't giving a lesson about a fictional Mary/God/Jesus. It's a lesson with the understanding they all exist.

You're not comparing like with like.

If a doctor appeared (or sent someone) to a womans home to announce they were to be implanted with an embryo, regardless of consent from the woman, I'd imagine nobody would defend the doctors actions.

So why is it when the same scenario is framed with God, angel and Mary, it suddenly becomes okay to teach kids as an acceptable scenario?

In the Gospel readings..... Mary is startled by the act of the Angel Gabriel appearing to her. If an Angel appeared to me..... I would be startled too.

The Angel Gabriel tells her not to be afraid, "the Lord is with thee".

The message is explained to Mary, and Mary agrees. Mary consents.

What is wrong with that?

Is it now the case that believers are not permitted to allow God into their life?

That is not the same as what you are inferring in your quote about a doctor deliberately making a woman pregnant against her will.

On another point... there are lots of couples who are unfortunately infertile... and they do seek medical treatment.

In relation to the Cartoon image.... it is the writer of the article on the A.I. supported site.... teachdon'tpreach who has a problem with it, not me.

I was merely using the comparison of other cartoon images as an example.