Mary says YES!

looksee

What Atheist Ireland says/ advertises/ demands is as relevant to me as an atheist as a statement by the Orange Order is to the Pope (or vice versa). Because a small group goes off and tries to regiment or formalise atheism (how can simple non-belief be formalised?), it does not follow that they are the authority.

Individuals who refuse to consent to being controlled by a very specific belief system to which they do not subscribe will eventually remove the external effects of that belief system from secular society. It will be put back into the 'where two or three are gathered' sincere and modest form of private worship where it started.

On a slightly different tangent, there is ongoing bleating (though admittedly not as extreme as it used to be, a sense of self-confidence is emerging) about 800 years of domination while completely ignoring the fact that it was a Pope who first authorised the invasion of Ireland, (and an Irish chieftain who invited the invading army in). Now, a large swathe of the population is happy to have much of Irish society dictated and directed by a foreign power, a wealthy, fantasist, egotistical, sexist power that has caused considerable damage and shown itself many times to be acting only in its own imperial interests.

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

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

Yeah, it must be a massive media conspiracy
:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108349.stm

In a strongly-worded 12-page document signed by the Pope's chief theological adviser, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Church brands homosexual unions as immoral, unnatural and harmful.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the Vatican document says.

To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral
Vatican document "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

Yep, you're right. The Vatican have never ever ever suggested that being gay or having sex is unnatural
:rolleyes:

While you might like to rewrite the history of the catholic church by claiming they never said or did certain things, I'm afraid you can't get away with it.

and as we know Ratzinger went on to be pope so we can be damn sure about his views on gay people as pope,


[EDIT]
Oh look what Pope said....

http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-gay-marriage-pope-benedict-xvi-says-same-sex-marriage-unnatural-threat-justice-peace-942132

Pope Benedict XVI said in his World Day Of Peace 2013 address last week that gay marriage is a threat to “justice and peace” in the world. The 85-year-old religious leader even said that same-sex marriage is "unnatural” as any support of same-sex union offends the natural laws of faith and justice.

This was not the first time when Pope Benedict XVI has opposed gay marriage. His stance on same-sex marriage has largely been constant. Earlier, in September, the Pope said that gay people are not fully developed humans as they disobey Catholic law.

He was also quoted in the past saying that same-sex marriages are "insidious and dangerous" and a "threat to humanity."

Stop trying to re-write what the Vatican has said about gay people, its utterly pathetic.

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 ?

You're specifically talking about Atheist Ireland you know?

Just because somebody is an Atheist doesn't mean they subscribe to all viewpoints of Atheist Ireland...you really need to ask Atheist Ireland this question....perhaps you should drop them an e-mail?

Once again, I need to remind you that the only common thing among Atheists is a none belief in god or gods. There is nothing more that any atheist must agree with any other atheist. You seem to have a hard time understanding this, atheism isn't a religion you know.

As for an atheist class, in my view if it were able to happen then it would be a normal class that begins like this.

" Hey Kids, there's no such thing as god. Now stop worrying about sky fairy's and Jesus etc and enjoy your life and go out and play"

La Fenetre

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah, it must be a massive media conspiracy
:rolleyes:

Yep, you're right. The Vatican have never ever ever suggested that being gay or having sex is unnatural
:rolleyes:

While you might like to rewrite the history of the catholic church by claiming they never said or did certain things, I'm afraid you can't get away with it.

and as we know Ratzinger went on to be pope so we can be damn sure about his views on gay people as pope.

Just one snag, no where does your link say your previous red herring claim that the church "sees gay people as unnatural", but sure if you move the goalposts to cover it, no one might notice right ?

Cabaal wrote: »

You're specifically talking about Atheist Ireland you know?

Just because somebody is an Atheist doesn't mean they subscribe to all viewpoints of Atheist Ireland...you really need to ask Atheist Ireland this question....perhaps you should drop them an e-mail?

Once again, I need to remind you that the only common thing among Atheists is a none belief in god or gods. There is nothing more that any atheist must agree with any other atheist. You seem to have a hard time understanding this, atheism isn't a religion you know.

The contradicts the point and agenda's of atheist ireland, do they represent atheists or not ?, if they don't who or what are they representing exactly ?

Cabaal wrote: »

As for an atheist class, in my view if it were able to happen then it would be a normal class that begins like this.

" Hey Kids, there's no such thing as god.

But that's actually teaching a belief, not an established fact, or can you not see that ?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

It's certainly not taught as fact, it's taught as part of faith formation. Story time involving reading fairy tales to children is neither taught as fact, nor faith formation.

Should we ban fairy tales because they might cause children to think it's acceptable to break into people's homes and eat their porridge and sleep in their beds?

I would say no, because that would be silly, unreasonable, and unnecessary. Just like I didn't entertain silly, unreasonable, and unnecessary arguments against marriage equality on the basis of idiot claims that it might lead to the potential for a child to be sexually abused.

Can you see at all why I personally would object to anyone using the sexual abuse of children to shore up arguments to further their own particular agenda?

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

Just one snag, no where does that support your previous red herring claim that the church "sees gay people as unnatural", but sure if you move the goalposts to cover it, no one might notice right ?

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:

The contradicts the point and agenda's of atheist Ireland, do they represent atheists or not ?, if they don't who or what are they representing exactly ?

I don't know, ask them.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

La Fenetre

Cabaal wrote: »

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:

You haven't posted anything that says that anywhere.

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't know, ask them.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

If that's true, maybe someone from atheist.ie can enlighten us as to who they actually represent, what the membership requirements are, why they feel atheism is not just a lack of belief in gods. If they don't represent atheists such as yourself, who do they claim to represent ?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's certainly not taught as fact, it's taught as part of faith formation. Story time involving reading fairy tales to children is neither taught as fact, nor faith formation.

Way to go to give a non answer. The question was is it taught as a fairy tale, or is it taught as being true?

Why do you need so desperately to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question?

Should we ban fairy tales because they might cause children to think it's acceptable to break into people's homes and eat their porridge and sleep in their beds?

Are you really claiming that religion classes teach the annunciation to 6 year olds as being made up stories, like the Hans Christian Andersen ones? Who do they tell the children wrote these stories?

Can you see at all why I personally would object to anyone using the sexual abuse of children to shore up arguments to further their own particular agenda?

That's exactly the argument made to dismiss accusations about clerical sex abuse, until it became impossible to ignore them.

Instead of alleging that other people are being untruthful because of their supposed agendas, maybe you need to be a bit more truthful yourself about your own.

You have brought exactly no evidence that there is no risk to giving children the message that it's a good thing to "say yes" to something that they feel afraid about. So perhaps you think a small risk is acceptable in this case (but again, no proof of how small - nor why the need for it at all?).

You've posted quite a few inaccuracies and misleading statements, and no evidence of your claims. So I don't need to speculate on reasons for you to act as you are doing, that's your own problem, I don't have to justify your actions, you do. And you haven't, just cast aspersions on others.

looksee

La Fenetre wrote: »

The contradicts the point and agenda's of atheist ireland, do they represent atheists or not ?, if they don't who or what are they representing exactly ?

It has been said several times in this thread and numerous times in this forum, atheists do not need any sort of organisation. They have only one, single, negative reason for having even a name, not a very sound basis for an organisation.

They do not represent me; they can have all the agendas and points they like, it is nothing to do with me. If they succeed in hijacking and mis-using the word atheist, then I shall find a different word to describe myself. As it is they are a noisy irrelevance.

If a group of people want to get together and organise a secular education system, or any other government service, that is a different matter and could include both religious and atheists and all shades in between.

La Fenetre

looksee wrote: »

It has been said several times in this thread and numerous times in this forum, atheists do not need any sort of organisation.

So why do they have one ? And if there is so many atheists at pains to point out atheist.ie don't represent them, how many atheists do they actually represent ?

Mark Tapley

La Fenetre wrote: »

You haven't posted anything that says that anywhere.





If that's true, maybe someone from atheist.ie can enlighten us as to who they actually represent, what the membership requirements are, why they feel atheism is not just a lack of belief in gods. If they don't represent atheists such as yourself, who do they claim to represent ?

I think they want the pope defenestrated.

La Fenetre

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I think they want the pope defenestrated.

I like that word ! Word of the day, thank you !

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:

It's as though you think The Vatican cannot change it's various decrees? More people understand that when the Vatican refers to homosexuality as unnatural, that they are referring to homosexual acts, and not to the person themselves. Of course you could pull up the Ratzinger letter from 50 years ago that refers to homosexuality as disordered, but for it's time, that wasn't just a view held by the Vatican, but by society in general. We know better now though, because we have a better understanding of homosexuality, and so the Vatican has moved it's position.

I don't know, ask them.

I really do wish more people in society would be able to admit something like this, when they aren't sure of something, they should be encouraged to ask people, rather than assume things about people based upon their own prejudices.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

There are many, many people who identify as Roman Catholic, and consider themselves members of the Roman Catholic Church, who fundamentally disagree with many of the rules and dogma of the RCC Hierarchy. In that respect, they are no different to people who identify as atheist who fundamentally disagree with the rules and requirements that Atheist Ireland have in order for someone to become a member of their organisation.

Not for a minute would I ever assume that Atheist Ireland represents the views of all people in Ireland who identify as atheist, but then I would never suggest that the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, represents the views of all people in Ireland who identify as Roman Catholic either.

Like you, I don't presume to know either, so I prefer to ask. I think that shows more respect to individuals as human beings, rather than assuming their position on various social issues based upon my own prejudices and biases.

_Whimsical_

volchitsa wrote: »

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]

I was responding to a post that discussed it in the context of a fairytale that needed to be adapted to suit younger children.It was clear I was not "claiming" anything,just responding to the particular point made in that initial post.

Cabaal

La Fenetre wrote: »

So why do they have one ? And if there is so many atheists at pains to point out atheist.ie don't represent them, how many atheists do they actually represent ?

Cause somebody decided to start one?

If you want numbers etc, again contact atheist Ireland.



If I start a group and call it for example "Catholics Of the Republic Of Ireland", if the group then announces that we believe the pope is actually secretly gay...does that mean all Catholics think the pope is gay?

Should all Catholics have to state that my group doesn't represent them?

Does Lolek Ltd represent your views?
If it doesn't do you tell everyone this?

Fleawuss

Just came across this thread recently. Appalled at the mixed message being presented in schools. Control of education is going to have to be sorted out. Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit so that God the son could be born human to be offered as a sacrifice to God the father to make up for the sins of humanity and so that God the spirit would raise him from the dead and she remained a virgin throughout and after her death her body was assumed into heaven....blah blah blah. How on earth do we tolerate this stuff in schools? On I know, property rights and parents want it. Of course they do.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I was responding to a post that discussed it in the context of a fairytale that needed to be adapted to suit younger children.It was clear I was not "claiming" anything,just responding to the particular point made in that initial post.[/QUOTE]

I don't imagine the poster concerned thinks his/her analogy is 100% identical, do you? He/she was making a point, and you chose one aspect where the fairly tale and the religious story are fundamentally different (ie whether children are expected to actually believe they are "true stories" or not) and made that a major part of your reply. Odd, that.

Do you agree that unlike fairly tales, children of 6 are generally expected to believe the different stories about Jesus that their teachers teach them in school?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Way to go to give a non answer. The question was is it taught as a fairy tale, or is it taught as being true?

I answered that question already only a few posts up in the thread -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Why do you need so desperately to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question?

I don't feel any need to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. If people are going to equate religion with fairy tales as to how they are imparted in the classroom, then I'm only pointing out the fact that they are not at all imparted in the same way with the same intent.

Are you really claiming that religion classes teach the annunciation to 6 year olds as being made up stories, like the Hans Christian Andersen ones? Who do they tell the children wrote these stories?

No, I'm not claiming that, nor have I ever claimed that.

That's exactly the argument made to dismiss accusations about clerical sex abuse, until it became impossible to ignore them.

Way to avoid answering my question.

Instead of alleging that other people are being untruthful because of their supposed agendas, maybe you need to be a bit more truthful yourself about your own.

I'm not sure how much clearer you need me to be here? I would object to anyone using the sexual abuse of children to further their own agenda. If they can't make their arguments without resorting to scaremongering and "won't somebody please think of the children?", then I see no reason to entertain such nonsense.

You have brought exactly no evidence that there is no risk to giving children the message that it's a good thing to "say yes" to something that they feel afraid about. So perhaps you think a small risk is acceptable in this case (but again, no proof of how small - nor why the need for it at all?).

How can I bring evidence of something that I don't believe exists? It's up to you to provide evidence that this story would lead to more children being sexually abused. It's up to you to provide evidence that the risk to children of telling them this story and discussing it with them is so great, that they should not hear this story and they should not be encouraged to discuss it and discuss a time when they felt the same way as Mary did in that situation.

You've posted quite a few inaccuracies and misleading statements, and no evidence of your claims. So I don't need to speculate on reasons for you to act as you are doing, that's your own problem, I don't have to justify your actions, you do. And you haven't, just cast aspersions on others.

Seriously, at first you claimed I identified as atheist, when I have never, ever made any such claim. I didn't ask you for evidence of your claim because I already know that no such evidence exists. I just wasn't going to be a dick about it and attempt to humiliate you by asking you to provide evidence for your claim that I ever claimed I was atheist. I understood why you might have thought I was atheist, given my views on many social issues. If you're going to claim I was casting aspersions on others, well, I'm going to suggest you remove the beam from your own eye first.

I don't have any issue with the story or how it is imparted to children. I understand where you're coming from in relation to telling children to do something when they are afraid, but your linking that to sexual abuse is what I object to as a very manipulative tactic in an attempt to rewrite the intention of the narrative based upon your own subjective interpretation.

It appears to me that where we disagree here is simply based upon our own perception, which is based upon our differing perspectives. Seeing as I don't have a problem with the story, and given that it has been imparted to children for the last 2,000 years, I would suggest that if you want to look for evidence of how it could cause children to be abused, you should look at the motivations of those people who choose to sexually abuse children, rather than trying to ban a story that you claim might lead children to see it as acceptable that they should allow themselves to be sexually abused.

volchitsa

So you don't see a difference between replying yes or no to a factual question, and refusing to speculate about someone else's motives for doing something?

Seriously?

(And no you didn't actually reply, you sort of admitted it was correct, but then added a nonsensical rider about other people's truths which pretty much negated your admission on the first place.)

ABC101

Cabaal wrote: »

You honestly believe that the Vatican don't see gay people as unnatural even though this is a common viewpoint of cardinals and a previous pope. Seriously?
:rolleyes:




I don't know, ask them.

I'm sure they represent some atheists, but as I've pointed out unlike the Catholic church which has rules and dogma to be a catholic....atheists don't have this requirement other then one very simple common lack of belief in god.

If I may point out.... it is not that the RC Church sees 'Homosexual' people as unnatural.

AFAIK.... the teaching of the RC Church sees it as a intrinsic disorder, i.e. the sexual orientation of the person.

It is the act of homosexuality which is seen as unnatural.

For the purpose of a honest debate it is important to give recognition to the RC Churchs perspective......and recognise the difference between the person.... and the act.

Anyway we are going OT now!

La Fenetre

ABC101 wrote: »

AFAIK.... the teaching of the RC Church sees it as a intrinsic disorder, i.e. the sexual orientation of the person.

No, again it sees the actual act as disordered, not sexual orientation. It also sees the acts of masturbation and heterosexual sex outside marriage as intrinsically disordered to the common good. But it's only homosexual sex that the media is interested in.

ABC101 wrote: »

For the purpose of a honest debate it is important to give recognition to the RC Churchs perspective......and recognise the difference between the person.... and the act.

Exactly, getting the facts of the situation correct is important, that does not mean you have to agree with their views.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So you don't see a difference between replying yes or no to a factual question, and refusing to speculate about someone else's motives for doing something?

Seriously?

I don't understand what you mean by "a factual question". Isn't the whole point of asking a question, to determine whether a claim can be established as fact or a false claim? That's not a rhetorical question btw, I'd genuinely appreciate an answer as I'm unsure of what you mean by "a factual question".

If I'm asking you to speculate on someone else's motives for doing something, that means I'm asking you to speculate on someone else's motives for doing something.

I detest people who engage in all sorts of cute hoorism and weasel wording to try and point score in a discussion, so I don't do it myself, and I've never done it. If you think I am avoiding or giving evasive or weasel worded answers to your questions, I can only assure you I'm not.

I may identify as Roman Catholic and all, but that has fcuk all to do with my opinion on the issue of child sexual abuse and how to prevent children from being abused.

Children aren't sexually abused for what they do or don't believe. Children are sexually abused because someone chooses to commit sexual abuse against them.

volchitsa wrote: »

(And no you didn't actually reply, you sort of admitted it was correct, but then added a nonsensical rider about other people's truths which pretty much negated your admission on the first place.)

I did reply, and I didn't "sort of" admit anything, I stated as a fact that it IS correct, that religious beliefs are taught as truth in Roman Catholic ethos schools as part of faith formation and religious education.

That "nonsensical rider" was exactly to point out that what matters as truth, can vary from person to person, depending upon whom you ask. Facts aren't so elastic.

My explanation in no way contradicted what is known as fact. It contradicts what is perpetuated by some people as a truth, predicated upon either a misunderstanding, or more likely - a deliberate falsehood.

Absolam

Given that this is a lesson that will be imparted by teachers, does anyone actually think a teacher will present it in such a way as to leave a child thinking they should say yes to sexual predators?

ABC101

La Fenetre wrote: »

No, again it sees the actual act as disordered, not sexual orientation. It also sees the acts of masturbation and heterosexual sex outside marriage as intrinsically disordered to the common good. But it's only homosexual sex that the media is interested in.



Exactly, getting the facts of the situation correct is important, that does not mean you have to agree with their views.

We seem to have different understandings of the words..."intrinsic disorder"

If I could post this link... explains it better than I could..

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/what-the-church-teaches-about-homosexual-inclinations/

ABC101

Absolam wrote: »

Given that this is a lesson that will be imparted by teachers, does anyone actually think a teacher will present it in such a way as to leave a child thinking they should say yes to sexual predators?

It would appear that the ADMIN poster on the teachdon'tpreach has concerns, in addition some posters...Kiwi in ie are also concerned.....

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by "a factual question". Isn't the whole point of asking a question, to determine whether a claim can be established as fact or a false claim? That's not a rhetorical question btw, I'd genuinely appreciate an answer as I'm unsure of what you mean by "a factual question".

Simple : a question about a fact. Do you support Ireland or Argentina?
As opposed to a speculative question : do you think I support Ireland or Argentina?

You refused to reply to a simple question, instead dodging like mad about "faith vs truth" when you know well - if you are honest - that children in Infants' class are taught the stories about Jesus and Mary as being facts. That you try to dilute that with a spell about "other people's truths" just shows you're not being honest, no matter how you deny it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I'm asking you to speculate on someone else's motives for doing something, that means I'm asking you to speculate on someone else's motives for doing something.

And what's the point in that? I have no way of knowing, which was the distinction I was making about factual vs speculative questions.
So my opinion is worth very little in this case, and I don't see why you put so much importance on hearing what it might be. Possibly because you're hoping to be able to object to it, and maybe even get me banned for speculating about your motives? (But of course that's purely speculative too, and therefore worth very little either)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I detest people who engage in all sorts of cute hoorism and weasel wording to try and point score in a discussion, so I don't do it myself, and I've never done it. If you think I am avoiding or giving evasive or weasel worded answers to your questions, I can only assure you I'm not.

And yet you are. You continue to insist that catechism classes don't teach New Testament stories as true, when you know they do. You attempt a dodge about "faith" but you can hardly fail to know that children of 6 are not taipught about Jesus' conception, birth and life in anything like the way they learn about Old Tetament stories.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I may identify as Roman Catholic and all, but that has fcuk all to do with my opinion on the issue of child sexual abuse and how to prevent children from being abused.

Children aren't sexually abused for what they do or don't believe. Children are sexually abused because someone chooses to commit sexual abuse.

Irrelevant, because I didn't say they were abused for what they believed, I said that sending this sort of message of passivity when being asked to do something worrying by a trusted adult is unfortunate, given that abusers use exactly this sort of technique when grooming their future victims.

Absolam

ABC101 wrote: »

It would appear that the ADMIN poster on the teachdon'tpreach has concerns, in addition some posters...Kiwi in ie are also concerned.....

Neither seems to have said anything about the teachers; only about their own interpretation of what message could be taken from the lesson. A message I find it difficult to imagine a teacher steering children towards. Even if they did it seems children are already being provided with contrary messaging which would cause them to raise the issue with parents?
Not that I want to portray primary school teachers as being likely to opportunistically groom children for sexual predators via bible lessons but if they were.

ABC101

Absolam wrote: »

Neither seems to have said anything about the teachers; only about their own interpretation of what message could be taken from the lesson. A message I find it difficult to imagine a teacher steering children towards. Even if they did it seems children are already being provided with contrary messaging which would cause them to raise the issue with parents?
Not that I want to portray primary school teachers as being likely to opportunistically groom children for sexual predators via bible lessons but if they were.

Personally I would find it very difficult to believe that a primary teacher would use this story to groom children to be open to abuse.

looksee

ABC101 wrote: »

Personally I would find it very difficult to believe that a primary teacher would use this story to groom children to be open to abuse.

Where is there any suggestion that they might?

The suggestion is that grooming could be assisted by the taught suggestion that it is virtuous to put aside personal doubt in order to conform to authority.

Those stretching arguments might well now say, so should a child be taught to spell a word a particular way even though they think it is wrong, just because they are told to. Please don't bother.

ABC101

looksee wrote: »

Where is there any suggestion that they might?

The suggestion is that grooming could be assisted by the taught suggestion that it is virtuous to put aside personal doubt in order to conform to authority.

Those stretching arguments might well now say, so should a child be taught to spell a word a particular way even though they think it is wrong, just because they are told to. Please don't bother.

From the teachdontpreach site written by ADMIN..

"This is an extraordinary and dangerous message to give to young children. ‘SAY YES’!, even if you are afraid and confused. Just trust someone that comes to your bed in the night."

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Where is there any suggestion that they might?

The suggestion is that grooming could be assisted by the taught suggestion that it is virtuous to put aside personal doubt in order to conform to authority.

Those stretching arguments might well now say, so should a child be taught to spell a word a particular way even though they think it is wrong, just because they are told to. Please don't bother.

You did open the can of worms though. If you saying submitting to all potential authority figures equally regardless of what's being taught,then yes, you're binding yourself to your silly example.

If you accept that children are capable of understanding that different authority figures have different degrees of authority, in different spheres and circumstances, you're probably a little closer to what children are capable of understanding. I don't think even the most religiously fervent child is likely to confuse GOD telling them to do something with a person telling them to do something; those that might are probably at risk regardless of participating in this lesson, and I suspect someone will have noticed long before they get to it.