Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?

MrPudding · 15-10-2017 08:18AM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah okay, so does that mean there is no fire and eternal suffering or they are just giving us the watered down version? And what does "absence of God" mean?

It means you don't have to spend eternity in sycophantic slavery to a needy, narcissistic mega-prick. Sounds like a win to me.

MrP

_Dara_ · 15-10-2017 08:22AM

beefburrito wrote: »

There's no such thing.
The Atheists made it all up.
I'm in my 40's now and didn't absorb religion in school.
I was too busy playing hurling,fishing down the local River, building forts with my friends.
Thinking about my next adventures...

Religion didn't come into it.

So I can't see how the children of today are experiencing indoctrination.

Well, that anecdote is a clearly a smoking gun. Close up the thread, nothing else needed.

Billy86 · 15-10-2017 08:23AM

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:

In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

MadDog76 · 15-10-2017 08:27AM

Billy86 wrote: »

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:

In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

And so, because of your religious "indoctrination" at school, I can safely assume you're now a devout church-going bible-bashing religious nut who aggressively spreads the word of Christian God on a daily basis .......... yes?

MrPudding · 15-10-2017 08:30AM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

MadDog76 wrote: »

State funded but owned by the Catholic Church ........ so it's a case of either buy them out or thank them for the use of their property.

Plenty of religious orders still owe the government money for the child rape they oversaw. Perhaps some of those properties could transfer to go some way to addressing the outstanding debt?

MrP

MadDog76 · 15-10-2017 08:35AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Plenty of religious orders still owe the government money for the child rape they oversaw. Perhaps some of those properties could transfer to go some way to addressing the outstanding debt?

MrP

I wasn't raped as a child so is it ok that my children get to continue going to their State funded Catholic owned school please? Don't worry, it won't affect the amount of Thanks your post craves gets ...........

Billy86 · 15-10-2017 08:38AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:

In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

And so, because of your religious "indoctrination" at school, I can safely assume you're now a devout church-going bible-bashing religious nut who aggressively spreads the word of Christian God on a daily basis .......... yes?

Unlike many who I went to school with, I am indeed not religious. A lot of that came from home though with neither of my parents being religious. And my older, severely handicapped sister suffering abuse at the hands of Catholic nuns who ran her school when I was young. I was a lost cause for that teacher before I even stepped foot in the classroom.

As I said earlier in the thread I'm fine with religion being taught in school, but not in the manner I was taught in secondary. It should cover all religions (and as someone else suggested, world cultures generally) as well as paganism and historical atheism, and use those as educational tools to help teach critical thinking and people's views on subjects can vary, etc. What I remember from school is it basically being "Christianity class".

andekwarhola · 15-10-2017 08:40AM

Looked like a crazy Saturday night in here alright.

The_Valeyard · 15-10-2017 09:12AM

Billy86 wrote: »

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:

In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

For you to have gone to an educate together school to a secons level school woild have to be a fairly recent thing. I refuse to believe a teacher or management would allow a student to be given detention for questioning a teacher about the historical nature of the bible. Seems made up to me...

Achasanai · 15-10-2017 09:16AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

For you to have gone to an educate together school to a secons level school woild have to be a fairly recent thing. I refuse to believe a teacher or management would allow a student to be given detention for questioning a teacher about the historical nature of the bible. Seems made up to me...

You can refuse to believe something, but happened in my school too. Detention for a friend of mine, was threatened with suspension until his parents got involved.

Billy86 · 15-10-2017 09:45AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

For you to have gone to an educate together school to a secons level school woild have to be a fairly recent thing. I refuse to believe a teacher or management would allow a student to be given detention for questioning a teacher about the historical nature of the bible. Seems made up to me...

It would have been back in the 90s when they were still under School Project (I didn't go to an ET/SP secondary school - quite sure the secondary ones only came later after the ET rebranding), the religion teacher I had would have been second year and I can't remember but possibly third as well so 2000-01, or 2000-02. I took fourth year out and switched schools for 5th/6th year so don't know what became of her at the time, but yes it absolutely was the case.

My blind, cerebral palsic, mentally disabled sister getting treatment like suffering numerous injuries including a broken arm from being shoved down a marble staircase by a nun to teach her that she "wasn't able" to walk down them on her own, which if memory serves was when she was about 12/13 so probably 1995/96, had already long since put me off religion though, so it didn't really have much of any impact on me apart from being kept back after school on a few occasions for "misbehaving" by questioning the validity of the bible being unquestionable fact, because only one person is going to win when it's a case of teacher's word vs student's word.

Gerrup Outta Dat! · 15-10-2017 11:05AM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

evolving_doors wrote: »

Most schools aren't oversubscribed so the baptism requirement doesn't kick in.
Where they are it can apply.

Example...

I'll pm you the school name if you like.

I'm a bit baffled by those who assert that 'it doesn't really happen that much'.
A wrong is still a wrong no matter how big or small.

WTF is a “Catholic” child?

That’s a disgrace ED.

The_Valeyard · 15-10-2017 11:28AM

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

WTF is a “Catholic” child? That’s a disgrace ED.

I feel a lot of your posts on boards are a disgrace.

Gerrup Outta Dat! · 15-10-2017 12:17PM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I feel a lot of your posts on boards are a disgrace.

Quote three posts that you feel are a disgrace.

SafeSurfer · 15-10-2017 12:30PM

MrPudding wrote: »

MadDog76 wrote: »

State funded but owned by the Catholic Church ........ so it's a case of either buy them out or thank them for the use of their property.

Plenty of religious orders still owe the government money for the child rape they oversaw. Perhaps some of those properties could transfer to go some way to addressing the outstanding debt?

MrP

The state indemnified the religious orders in 2002 because ultimately it was the state who oversaw the abuse.
The state allowed a compensation scheme for victims to become a free for all like the army deafness claims whereby one only had to prove attendance at an institution, not that any abuse took place.
What was estimated by the state to cost €250 million has cost over €1.25 billion due to state incompetence.
As usual it was a gravy train for solicitors who pocketed more than half of the investigating commissions total costs.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/q-a-what-is-the-redress-scheme-and-why-has-it-cost-so-much-1.3004438?mode=amp

The_Valeyard · 15-10-2017 12:31PM

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Quote three posts that you feel are a disgrace.

Well f*cking easy.

1) "Katie Ascough is beautiful. She can sit on my face and suck my fat hairy cock any day."

2) "Sue for every penny you can get, make up fake damaged to your child’s bladder and sue from a civil AND criminal case. Get as much cash as you can"

3) "Don't be a Jew."

4) "I'd let my son be bullied by the teachers into carrying big bags. Then sue the bejesus out of the teachers and principal for his "back injury"."

beefburrito · 15-10-2017 12:42PM

Achasanai wrote: »

Well, if you didn't experience it, then nobody else could have.

Did you not go to school? Did they not teach religion in the school?

Ah they were teaching religion in school.

But I didn't think about religion in school.

My grandmother who died in 1987 indoctrinated me into being a pagan,she was living off the land and thought the parish priest was a money grabbing vanker.....

I turned out ok I was far too clever in school to walk in the light...,so I spent religion doodling on my copybook.....

Thinking about when I get off school which pool I'll try for a seatrout....

beefburrito · 15-10-2017 12:45PM

VinLieger wrote: »

So in that case you would agree religion as a compulsory subject is a waste of time and we should get rid of it and replace it with something useful like more PE or coding classes?

Replace religion fck no,then kids like myself wouldn't be able to doodle and day dream.

Religion was the subject where we all feel asleep or felt like we weren't learning anything....

A class full of Messer's and rebels I came from.

Gerrup Outta Dat! · 15-10-2017 01:26PM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Well f*cking easy.

1) "Katie Ascough is beautiful. She can sit on my face and suck my fat hairy cock any day."

2) "Sue for every penny you can get, make up fake damaged to your child’s bladder and sue from a civil AND criminal case. Get as much cash as you can"

3) "Don't be a Jew."

4) "I'd let my son be bullied by the teachers into carrying big bags. Then sue the bejesus out of the teachers and principal for his "back injury"."

You know where the report button is then. You’re not a moderator.

MadDog76 · 15-10-2017 09:59PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I feel a lot of your posts on boards are a disgrace.

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Quote three posts that you feel are a disgrace.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Well f*cking easy.

1) "Katie Ascough is beautiful. She can sit on my face and suck my fat hairy cock any day."

2) "Sue for every penny you can get, make up fake damaged to your child’s bladder and sue from a civil AND criminal case. Get as much cash as you can"

3) "Don't be a Jew."

4) "I'd let my son be bullied by the teachers into carrying big bags. Then sue the bejesus out of the teachers and principal for his "back injury"."

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

You know where the report button is then. You’re not a moderator.

Oooooooo ........... I think you hit a nerve Valeyard!!

Geuze · 15-10-2017 10:43PM

Given that mass-going is in free fall, the suggested "indoctrination" isn't working very well.

feargale · 15-10-2017 10:48PM

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

You know where the report button is then. You’re not a moderator.

Look, you issued a challenge to Valeyard. He responded, magnificently in my opinion. Now, according to you, that's not right either. I think you should fold your tent. You've been called out and found out.

Geuze · 15-10-2017 10:48PM

beefburrito wrote: »

There's no such thing.
The Atheists made it all up.
I'm in my 40's now and didn't absorb religion in school.
I was too busy playing hurling,fishing down the local River, building forts with my friends.
Thinking about my next adventures...

Religion didn't come into it.

So I can't see how the children of today are experiencing indoctrination.

Same goes for me.

Went to school in 1980s/1990s.

Yes, there were religion classes, and weekly mass-going, but to suggest that "indoctrination" was happening is utterly mistaken.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-10-2017 03:53PM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

RobertKK wrote: »

Religion can help people...but maybe helping people should be illegal.

Beating some people around the head with a baseball bat "can" help people too. If someone has an infection in their arm then cutting off their arm "can" help them.

The question should never be whether something "can" help. The questions should be A) Are the side effects of the particular help worth the cost and

Are there better ways to attain the same level of help.

And when you consider religion in THAT light it comes out looking a little less rosy than you just painted it.

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Using language like "indoctrination" isn't exactly impartial. I think you just have a confirmation bias.

That might be a valid point if the choice of word was somehow inaccurate. But I think if you look up the definition of the word yourself you will find that the only bias in play is that of using the correct word, in the correct place, for the correct reasons.

Which is, quite often, a damn fine bias to have.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-10-2017 03:54PM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I love the dismissal of the sky fairy when not one of us has the first clue where the universe came from

Our knowledge is definitely FAR from complete. But it is not insignificant either.

And the trend so far is that ZERO PERCENT of that evidence so far tells us that whatever the explanation for our universe is, that it lies in the actions of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

So yea, I love dismissal of ENTIRELY unsubstantiated claims too. Glad we agree. Lets have more of it shall we?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Religious societies made one or two scientific discoveries did they not? Is it possible that sky fairy believers have made more scientific discoveries which were beneficial to mankind than non sky fairy believers?

It is also possible that in the meat producing industry that more chickens have been plucked by believers in unsubstantiated nonsense than by entirely rational people. What is your point?

What you will find is that the religious people who have progressed science did so by effectively leaving their religion at the door of the lab and going in without it.

I doubt however there is much in the way of scientific discovery that was done based on religious premises.

And as a man greater than I once pointed out the discourse between religion and science is only going in one direction.

That is to say there is no question thus far for which we had a science based answer for which we now have an even better answer from religion.

Consider the opposite however. Our development is REPLETE with examples of questions that were once answered using religious nonsense, for which science has now provided actual answers. From crop failures to storms to epileptic fits and the germ theory of disease. Religious answers and narratives to explain away our ignorance have been dropping like flies.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-10-2017 03:54PM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

pone2012 wrote: »

You realise this topic is done to death and nobody cares about militant atheists point of view?

You realize that YOU not being interested in something does not mean anyone else shares that position/opinion too?

pone2012 wrote: »

Its literally worse than a militant religious opinion because the militant atheists go around babbling on about how religion tells people what to do....yet they are very vocal on what people should and shouldn't do

There is a difference between PEOPLE saying what other people should and should not do, and a RELIGION doing it. So the hypocrisy you imagine being there exists solely because you have falsely made too very different things equivalent in your head.

Morality and ethics are, to my mind, a conversation. An ongoing discourse. They are not set down in stone, they are not in the material of the universe. They are in us, and in our on going discussion about how we want to live with one another.

And that is a GOOD thing. Discourse on morality and ethics should be ongoing and evolving and growing with us, with our viscosity, with our technology, and being molded by the hammer blows of modernity.

It should not be couched in the opinions of illiterate and relatively ignorant bronze aged peasants.

So you can pocket the sarcastic clapping, as really only your own post warrants it.

pone2012 wrote: »

You use science to attempt to explain things...but science is a man made construct. its incredibly open to interpretation,and more importantly bias and agenda...so it explains little if nothing really

Your ongoing hatred and denigration of science on yours posts on this forum do not make the fantasies you invent about it magically turn true.

While scientists are only human, and therefore open to bias and agenda, science itself is not so open to it. It is entirely constructed on methodologies designed to minimize the impact of human bias and hubris and agenda.

Show me for example a well done double blind experiment, with scientifically modern methodologies and then show me how it is open to bias and agenda. I seriously doubt you can do it. Not only because it is massively difficult to do, but also because your own blatantly lay knowledge of science likely does not equip you with the tools to do so.

In fact I gave you an example of the opposite before. (Think it was you, or just on a thread you were also on) Sam Parnia someone HEAVILY biased towards finding evidence of an after life..........

He did experiments and studies on OBE. And his methodology was such that his bias was ENTIRELY negated. It did not matter how biased he was towards a positive result..... the construction of his methodology was such that it was IMPOSSIBLE for his bias to affect the results.

THAT is what science is. THAT is what science does. Your own biases and agendas are causing you to invent them for others as projection.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-10-2017 03:58PM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

beauf wrote: »

You'd think people would be so outraged they'd build their own schools everywhere.

You can't just build a school and then insist the Dept of Education fund it. They will only fund a new school where unmet demand exists in an area - that's unmet demand for school places AT ALL not a particular type of school place.

In mature areas with little population growth, no new schools will be built, end of.
Often even when there is population growth, the Dept Education will just expand the existing religious schools rather than building (or allowing to be built) an ET

So are you now suggesting that non-catholics should not only pay to build a school themselves, they should pay to run it too, meanwhile their taxes pay for building and running the catholic schools that discriminate against their kids? Yeah that's perfectly fine :rolleyes:

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

Nobody teaches children that they will burn in hell.

They very much did when I was in school. How can you state with any confidence that there is not a single teacher in Ireland who does this today?

Lt Dan · 16-10-2017 04:09PM

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Indoctrinating a child is the same as indoctrinating a mentally-disabled adult. It should be illegal. The child spends his or her childhood attending (a usually Catholic) school with little or no alternative choice.

I am 26 years old, and when I was growing up there was little or no other choices in my vicinity having grown up in a small-ish town on the outskirts of Dublin. The Roman Catholic Church has autonomy over most schools in Ireland.religion

An over-subscribed school often uses religion as a filtering process to filter out candidates. A horrific process if you ask me.

In my opinion, any school that receives even a penny of state funds should be forbidden from subscribing to any particular religion and religion should only be taught as a general subject for a minimal amount of time (from a neutral cultural education point of view). No class time should be wasted on Communion or Confirmation or first confession. If the parents really feel so strongly about religion, then they should bring their own kids to make their first confession, Communion and get confirmed.

Bringing up a kid to believe in a God is a horrid form of abuse.

Take your mammy and daddy issues up with someone else. History of "abuse"? Contact Tulsa or the Garda
"from a neutral cultural education point of view"

What on earth does that mean? EVERY BASIC HUMAN RIGHT was recognised first by religion, in Europe, predominately Christianity . Never heard of "natural law"? You don't just wash 200-300 years of culture just like that

"Abuse"? Perhaps when you grow up and cope the hell on you will understand what that term actually means .

Atheist by the way

"Indoctrinating a child is the same as indoctrinating a mentally-disabled adult"

Indoctrinating them with what? Indoctrinate them with hate? Love? Kindness? Culture? Do's and Don't?

You even know what that word means?

You have issues with religion, fine, move on, because not everyone agrees with you strongly enough (boards polls are irrelevant) Ruairi Quinn's crusade over schools did not go too well.

"An over-subscribed school often uses religion as a filtering process to filter out candidates. A horrific process if you ask me."

Genuine question, how many children within the catchment area get refused entry to their local school? How many get refused despite having siblings previously or currently in the school?

"In my opinion, any school that receives even a penny of state funds"

Enlighten us as to where the State is going to come up with land for facilitate many of the schools ? Buy out the Church? What if they saw no and they were in existence before this State?

" No class time should be wasted on Communion or Confirmation or first confession"

Religion is expressly part of the definition of education by the Irish Courts. Families seem to deem the school the appropriate place for teaching the sacraments

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2017 05:50AM

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

Lt Dan wrote: »

What on earth does that mean? EVERY BASIC HUMAN RIGHT was recognised first by religion, in Europe, predominately Christianity.

Be interesting to see the evidence for this claim and how you come to make it. Could you start by listing "every" basic human right. Then show how they were "recognized first" by religion.

Lt Dan wrote: »

"Abuse"? Perhaps when you grow up and cope the hell on you will understand what that term actually means .

Rather than fling petty insults at people from some pedestal of supreme knowledge that you are imagining for yourself, you might instead move to make it a two way conversation rather than an abuse fest. Start by explaining what YOU think "abuse" means, what you think the other user thinks it means, and what the differences are.

Lt Dan wrote: »

Indoctrinating them with what? Indoctrinate them with hate? Love? Kindness? Culture? Do's and Don't?

You even know what that word means?

Do you? I would say if you want to know what the user means you might consider the context. We are talking about religious indoctrination on this thread. So I would say it would be a very safe guess to assume that is what the user is talking about.

Let us help you along with your linguistic issues and look at a couple of definitions of indoctrination. One dictionary describes it as "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." while another says "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view."

I would suggest that the negative connotations of the word are based around using schools and parental authority to inculcate a set of beliefs for which there is no supporting arguments, evidence, data, reasoning or other substantiation.

Lt Dan wrote: »

You have issues with religion, fine, move on

Make us. If you have issues with our issues with it YOU can move on if you wish. However there is absolutely ZERO onus on us to do so in a discourse based democracy. Rather there is every right for us to express our issues, educate, debate, campaign, vote, protest and more. You are more than welcome to "move on" but you will not find us trying to silence you. Perhaps you might consider offering the same level of decorum in return.

Lt Dan wrote: »

Families seem to deem the school the appropriate place for teaching the sacraments

Do they? How many of them do? Where are you getting your data of their opinions from? I am not seeing a source cited by you at all.

branie2 · 17-10-2017 09:41AM

It should be up to the parents

Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?

Comments