Mary says YES!

pauldla

ABC101 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Fixed yer post there, bud.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

Avatar MIA

ABC101 wrote: »

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

???what????

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pherekydes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

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

kylith

ABC101 wrote: »

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

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

ABC101

Avatar MIA wrote: »

???what????

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

gctest50

ABC101 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

ABC101 wrote: »

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

Avatar MIA

gctest50 wrote: »

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

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

Avatar MIA

ABC101 wrote: »

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

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

ABC101

Avatar MIA wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avatar MIA

ABC101 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABC101

Avatar MIA wrote: »

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

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

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

Terrible pity really.

gctest50

I blame all that religion stuff on video games

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

Pherekydes wrote: »

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

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

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

swampgas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

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

evolving_doors

ABC101 wrote: »

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

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

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

Is that what the teacher says to the kids?

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

Avatar MIA

Gebgbegb wrote: »

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

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

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

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

lazygal

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Is that what the teacher says to the kids?

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

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

One eyed Jack

swampgas wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

lazygal

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

looksee

lazygal wrote: »

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

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

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

lazygal

looksee wrote: »

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

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

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

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

frostyjacks

looksee wrote: »

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

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

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lazygal

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

Avatar MIA

frostyjacks wrote: »

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

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

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

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

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

Because it isn't?

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