Mary says YES!

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

More waffle. In faith schools how is religious doctrine taught in a different manner to other subjects, apart from facilitating those who wish to opt out of indoctrination?

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

More waffle. In faith schools how is religious doctrine taught in a different manner to other subjects, apart from facilitating those who wish to opt out of indoctrination?

Because it's imparted as education relating to a system of beliefs, not at all equivalent to the same way in which history for example is imparted as fact (although history may not be the best example given that it too is open to questionable interpretation), we'll say science then. Religion is not taught in the same way as science or geography in Irish schools.

Creationism in the US is a prime example of religion taught as fact in an education system.

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's imparted as education relating to a system of beliefs, not at all equivalent to the same way in which history for example is imparted as fact (although history may not be the best example given that it too is open to questionable interpretation), we'll say science then. Religion is not taught in the same way as science or geography in Irish schools.

Creationism in the US is a prime example of religion taught as fact in an education system.

Not sure what your experience of being taught religion in school, but I went to a convent and taught by nuns for the religious bit.

Now, you tell me. Do you think they taught it as fact or as something to be considered as a possibility. :pac:

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's imparted as education relating to a system of beliefs, not at all equivalent to the same way in which history for example is imparted as fact (although history may not be the best example given that it too is open to questionable interpretation), we'll say science then. Religion is not taught in the same way as science or geography in Irish schools.

Creationism in the US is a prime example of religion taught as fact in an education system.

Is Mary Saying YES imparted as a fact? What about preparation for sacraments like confession and penance? Is that presented as fact?

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not sure what your experience of being taught religion in school, but I went to a convent and taught by nuns for the religious bit.

Now, you tell me. Do you think they taught it as fact or as something to be considered as a possibility. :pac:

I'm willing to acknowledge that individual teachers will impart religious beliefs as though they are facts, but that's not how it is supposed to be taught.

(my own mother was also one of my teachers in primary school, attended a CBS for secondary school, religious education imparted by a lay teacher who went off the script altogether where we had philosophical discussions about abortion, euthanasia, etc. Fantastic teacher, taught fcukall about religion though!)

lazygal wrote: »

Is Mary Saying YES imparted as a fact?

It's not supposed to be, but like I said above, some individual teachers may impart it as though it is fact, and they can do that with any part of the religious education curriculum. They can even go off the script and introduce anything they like and impart it as fact too.

What about preparation for sacraments like confession and penance? Is that presented as fact?

It's not meant to be, but again - individual mileage may vary in that regard, depends upon the teacher.

mattP

Honestly I believe in the Catholic version of events (more or less), but the church itself disgusts me.
Its so corrupt. Certain things were covered up, people went to great lengths to conceal them. People high up in the church, people who if had any connection to The Man Upstairs surely wouldn't have done so. I wont pretend to understand where the collection money goes after it plinks into the wicker basket, but im yet to see a priest driving anything older than an '08.
My other begrudgement (and actually related to the post!:p) is the RCC's position in schools. We had to go to mass, we had to go to confession, we had to learn all the hymns, etc.
Children should not be indoctrinated. I was baptised at four months - I dont really think I knew what I was getting into when I agreed(?) to the process.

Avatar MIA

mattP wrote: »

Children should not be indoctrinated. I was baptised at four months - I dont really think I knew what I was getting into when I agreed(?) to the process.

From a legal point of view you cannot enter a contract until 18 years. Of course you were signed up to something you did not have any knowledge of.

However, with that said. Anyone posting in this thread is hereby signed up to the Church of Avatar MIA.

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

From a legal point of view you cannot enter a contract until 18 years. Of course you were signed up to something you did not have any knowledge of.

However, with that said. Anyone posting in this thread is hereby signed up to the Church of Avatar MIA.

Pineapple free pizza instead of crackers and I'm in!

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pineapple free pizza instead of crackers and I'm in!

No backsies now, you're already in

_Whimsical_

recedite wrote: »

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

That is a really shocking read into a children's cartoon picture. I don't know where to start. You are literally seeing things that aren't there, the sheets aren't white, they're a light blue/grey, she isn't "reclining" she is sitting. Bees and flowers may be classical symbols of fertilisation but not of "deflowering of a virgin". No sex takes place in the story of the conception of Jesus at all. That you see sexual imagery here is really quite disturbing but you've made it perfectly clear it's not a matter of interpretation of the picture but one of your own rather peculiar bias brought to bear on the image.

expectationlost

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

forget fact, is it thought as truth?

Kiwi in IE

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

Is atheist or moral indoctrination ok ?

_Whimsical_

I think this is a really sad take on a simple issue. Most of us were brought up hearing that story every Christmas, playing it out in nativity plays in school, yet I don't think any of us could say we were left confused on the issue of sexual consent at the end of it. In fact is there anyone who as a child thought watching a nativity play that there was anything sexual or strange going on?

Mary did say yes, but she was given a choice, she was asked not forced, not enticed with riches and she ultimately chooses her own fate in the story. She gives informed consent. In our lives we face lots of difficult decisions and circumstances that initially scare us that we embrace because we decide they're for our longterm betterment or the betterment of others, that's also a lesson that can be taken from this story. Looking at this picture and notion of Mary's yes as a sexual consent issue is bizarre in my eyes though.

frostyjacks

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

Is atheist or moral indoctrination ok ?

Can you explain? Atheist indoctrination? What is that? Counteracting the bollocks that they've been told in their RCC primary school? If they had been told nothing at all about religion, their natural state would be atheist, the same as all of us. How is that indoctrination exactly?

anothernight

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

You'll find that a lot of traditional fairytales are told in a very different manner to the original stories, precisely to avoid giving children the wrong message.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can you explain? Atheist indoctrination? What is that? Counteracting the bollocks that they've been told in their RCC primary school? If they had been told nothing at all about religion, their natural state would be atheist, the same as all of us. How is that indoctrination exactly?

What bollocks would atheists in atheist/agnostic schools be learning ?

So what's the "learning about atheism curriculum for schools" by atheism ireland ?

What about moral indoctrination then, is that ok ?

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

Ah frosty, I read my kid Enid Blyton books every night about things such as 'the land of goodies'. I don't tell him that these stories are factual though, and when he asks me about pixies, brownies, fairies and wizards, I tell him that they are make believe, pretend creatures. Do they do the same in religious indoctrination class in RCC primary schools? Tell children that they are simply beliefs, rather than fact, and make believe fairy stories? If so, there would'nt be much need for this forum at all!

Kiwi in IE

La Fenetre wrote: »

What bollocks would atheists in atheist/agnostic schools be learning ?

So what's the "learning about atheism curriculum for schools" by atheism ireland ?

What about moral indoctrination then, is that ok ?

Not sure what you're on about! I'm not sure that anyone, even Atheist Ireland, is proposing 'Atheist Schools'. Look up how secular schools work as state schools in almost every other developed, first world country!

One eyed Jack

expectationlost wrote: »

forget fact

Is that meant to be ironic?

is it thought as truth?

Yes it is, but before you rush to judgement, it'd be very unfair of me not to point out to you that even people's interpretation of 'truth' has become a very individualist ideology in recent times, particularly among people who like to talk about their 'truth', or rather what appears to be true for them, but that 'truth' having no basis in reality.

Often reminds me of the guy from Mythbusters -

"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own"

Referring of course to his own individualistic perspective which is based upon his perception of reality.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

All children are vulnerable, naive and innocent which is why they need extra protection in law that reflects that. I believe that religious indoctrintation potentially increases that vulnerability.

You could say the same about anything a child is exposed to though Kiwi, that it potentially increases a child's vulnerability. I haven't seen my child all day because he was gone playing with friends early this morning, then called me earlier and asked could he go to a birthday party, then called me tonight to ask could he stay over with one of his mates. He came home, packed an overnight bag and off he went. I won't see him till morning when he comes home and we head off for mass while my wife will either have a lie-in or head to the gym.

What's required really is to balance giving the child freedom and independence, with the risk of increasing their vulnerability once they're out of your sight. I would sooner give the child freedom and independence and a sense of responsibility for himself and for other people, than hole him up and never let him out of my sight because I constantly fear for his safety - the child would then suffer because of my paranoia.

That'd be no way for me to live, and more importantly - that would be no way for my child to live, because he would learn nothing, and when I'm gone, he wouldn't be able to cope on his own.

La Fenetre

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Not sure what your on about! I'm not sure that anyone, even Atheist Ireland, is proposing 'Atheist Schools'. Look up how secular schools work as state schools in almost every other developed, first world country!

Atheist.ie didn't call it a secular curriculum, they call it a learning atheism curriculum.

True Secularism does not favour unbelief over belief, it takes no particular side.

You didn't answer the question about moral indoctrination, is that ok or not ?

_Whimsical_

anothernight wrote: »

You'll find that a lot of traditional fairytales are told in a very different manner to the original stories, precisely to avoid giving children the wrong message.

What is the wrong message though? As you're considering it as a fairytale we may as well leave out the validity argument.

It is a story in which Mary is told she has been chosen for this role, she says yes to it, she is not enticed with promises or "groomed" as an earlier poster claimed. She can say no. I think it's important that it's highlighted that she says yes and chose this fate herself.

School going age children are aware that we are all frightened to do something important at times. None of us would teach our children that they must never do anything that they're afraid of or uncomfortable with. Lots of stories centre around a child overcoming a fear and realising it was a positive move. We don't worry those ideas leave children open to abusers. I think as a kid this story was taught to me as reinforcement of the idea that sometimes life requires you to take a step into the unknown and say yes to something that scares you if you believe it's the right thing to do. At no point would I have ever confused that message with "it's right to do what a stranger who appears in the night says even if it makes me uncomfortable". Teaching our children they must obey a teacher, guard, a friends parent on a playdate is not tantamount to telling them they should allow someone abuse them. Children can decipher those messages if they're taught about their right to bodily integrity. In this story Mary exercises her right to bodily integrity with her yes.

ABC101

kylith wrote: »

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.

Joseph was the adoptive father of Jesus.

Matthew's Gospel starts off with the Roots of Jesus.

Among the Jews....this adoption was sufficient for Jesus to be considered, like Joesph, son of David.

As all Israel knew that the Saviour would be a descendent of David, for Jesus to be the Messiah of the Jews...he had to be a descendent of David.

georgieporgy

kylith wrote: »

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.

Joseph and Mary were both descended from the house of David.

pauldla

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ok. Lets also ban Hansel and Gretel; a clear case of child abandonment. Let's ban Little Red Riding Hood; a predator stalking a little girl. Let's bring our children up in a climate of fear and distrust, because that's progress.

Are we equating a Gospel story with madey-uppy fairytales? It would seem we have more in common than I thought.

Little Red Riding Hood: a seemingly innocuous errand quickly turns a confrontation with a ruthless predator. The child, giving voice to her fears, reveals the danger and immediately seeks help from a grown-up, who proceeds to lay into that Wolf with an axe. Personally I would like to have seen the predator fed feet-first into a John Deere tractor gearbox running at high speed (to borrow a memorable phrase from Bock the Robber), but otherwise it is a quite edifying tale.

Hansel and Gretel: Unable to outsmart their domestic tormentor, Hansel and Gretel are delivered by their unwitting father to an even worse fate. They realise too late that the sweetmeats offered by an authority figure betray her true, sinister intent, but they are able to use their own resources to outsmart her and free themselves from danger.

The Annunciation, for kids: If you have fear of an authority figure, just say yes to them. That's what God wants you to do.

I'd take a Hansel or a Gretel over this Mary any day of the week. She doesn't come across as the brightest of sparks in the Gospel.

Incidentally, is it Hitchens who wonders why fear seems to be the default reaction to encounters with the Divine in the Gospels? Its a good question.

georgieporgy wrote: »

Joseph and Mary were both descended from the house of David.

David having lived about 1000 years BCE, its highly likely that a significant proportion of the local population were descended from him, just as you and I are descended from Brian Boru. Thankfully, we don't have to return to Clare every time there is a census in Ireland.

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

You didn't answer the question about moral indoctrination, is that ok or not ?

What is this moral indoctrination you're on about exactly?
Who's morals exactly....society's?

I'd take society's morals over the catholic church's morals any day of the week, after all the catholic church for example still see's gay people as unnatural...society as we have seen is overwhelmingly accepting of gay and lesbian couples.

If you're somehow suggesting that atheism has a set of morals then it appears you are pretty confused....the only common thing within atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods, thats it.

There is no rules or dogma or anything else like that, you don't have to join a club or believe in some fantastic out of control story like a 12 year old being made pregnant without having sex by some all powerful god.

La Fenetre

Cabaal wrote: »

after all the catholic church for example still see's gay people as unnatural...

It doesn't, but if you repeat a lie often enough and all that . . .

Cabaal wrote: »

What is this moral indoctrination you're on about exactly?
Who's morals exactly....society's?

I'd take society's morals over the catholic church's morals any day of the week, after all the catholic church for example still see's gay people as unnatural...society as we have seen is overwhelmingly accepting of gay and lesbian couples.

If you're somehow suggesting that atheism has a set of morals then it appears you are pretty confused....the only common thing within atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods, thats it.

There is no rules or dogma or anything else like that, you don't have to join a club or believe in some fantastic out of control story like a 12 year old being made pregnant without having sex by some all powerful god.

I said nothing about atheism having any morals, but if it is nothing other than a lack of belief what is this from atheist.ie :

"Please donate to our education fund to produce our "learning about atheism curriculum" for schools. About our education about atheism course"

And if "secular" schools are not allowed to teach religion why would they be teaching about atheism ?

and what on earth is society's morals ? and is moral indoctrination ok or not ?

The Randy Riverbeast

La Fenetre wrote: »

It doesn't, but if you repeat a lie often enough and all that . . .



I said nothing about atheism having any morals, but if it is nothing other than a lack of belief what is this from atheist.ie :

"Please donate to our education fund to produce our "learning about atheism curriculum" for schools. About our education about atheism course"

And if "secular" schools are not allowed to teach religion why would they be teaching about atheism ?

and what on earth is society's morals ? and is moral indoctrination ok or not ?

Isn't their curriculum more about teaching that atheists aren't sacrificing children to the blood God and murdering people all of the time rather than yelling at kids that there is no god?

There is a difference between teaching about a religion or belief and teaching that a religion or belief is a fact and everyone else is wrong.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

What is the wrong message though? As you're considering it as a fairytale we may as well leave out the validity argument.

Are you really claiming the story of the annunciation is told as a fairly tale to children in infants' class?

Because that's what we're discussing here - how it's taught to small children.[/QUOTE]