Sweet Jesus. The first “God” talk with a child.

jaykay74 wrote: »

Which one ?

But there must have been a first one? All these Gods didn't arrive at the same time, did they?

Nathalie Short Guitar wrote: »

... was invented to scare the ****e out of people, control them and take their money.

Yeah but then the kid will move on to ask about global warming or Brexit stuff and you find yourself in an endless game of whack-a-mole.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Together with children from various religious backgrounds. But you know this. Let’s skip to the bit where you make your point.

So, the poster I quoted originally, is sending his child to a school for many religions, to avoid questions of religion?

That's sounds like the wrong choice to me.

beejee wrote: »

So, the poster I quoted originally, is sending his child to a school for many religions, to avoid questions of religion?

That's sounds like the wrong choice to me.

Yeah, ET schools have students from many religious backgrounds in them, but they don’t teach religion in school. So it’s a perfectly fine choice for people who either don’t want to teach their children religion, or who want to do the teaching about religion themselves. This suits a lot of people, religious and non religious.

Maybe you misunderstood what ET schools were about?

beejee wrote: »

So its a school for people of many religions, but where no religion is taught.

And I think it would be fair to say that some other non-Catholic religions are far more extreme in their beliefs.

So, whether the non-religious school for all religions that doesn't teach religion...may not officially teach or instruct upon religion, the child is going to be surrounded by fellow students from more "hardcore" religions, with a huge amount of contradiction.

So to go back to the point, it would appear that these educate together schools would be the poorest choice if a parent wanted to avoid religious questioning from their children.

Unless the stated purpose of these schools is a load of hogwash, of course, and it means something else entirely.

I guess some people think that being around people of other religions isn’t a big deal. Maybe you think differently, your point isn’t very clear.

Edit: oh sorry, I see your point at the end. ET is hogwash. Fair enough. I guess it’s the best choice that people currently have for separating religious education from academic education, for whatever reason they would want to do that.

beejee wrote: »

So, the poster I quoted originally, is sending his child to a school for many religions, to avoid questions of religion?

That's sounds like the wrong choice to me.

What's wrong with it?

I've no problem with my children learning about religion - which they do in educate together - but I'm not religious so why would I want my child being indoctrinated into the Catholic faith? Would it be "wrong" in your opinion to refuse to send my child to a Jewish or Islamic school too or is that okay because they aren't Catholicism?

beejee wrote: »

So being around different religions isn't a big deal. But being around one religion is a big deal.

That seems to be the crux of it. And it doesn't make sense.

Why would a person dislike their child to be surrounded by a, by all accounts, relatively mild religion but prefer a surrounding of relatively hardcore religions instead?

Specific teaching or not, that's the environmental choice you are choosing for the child.

So in truth, are these educate together schools not really about educating together, but about seeking an atheistic/agnostic environment? (An environment, I may add, that is LESS likely to achieve that aim)

I think the bit you’re missing is the difference between being surrounded by people of a religion (or many religions), and being taught a specific religion.

beejee wrote: »

I see your edit now. Yes, that's my point.

But further to that point, by trying to evade ALL religion, by purposefully sending your child to a school of, probably, more hardcore multiple religions....this is the worst choice you could make?

It really doesn’t get more hardcore than being able to make one religion the raison d’etre of the school, as opposed to a school where many religions are barely touched upon and the children get minimum exposure to each religion, whereas the children in the religious ethos school? The school is completely focused on indoctrination in a religious education in an environment specifically designed for the purpose.

I do see what you mean though, that the child could pick up on the ideas of many religions as opposed to just one, making a number of different ideas much more difficult to work against than just the one single idea. It sounds good in theory, but people are going to believe what they want to believe, and children are no different in that respect.

A parent could drive themselves demented trying to work the ideas out of their children that they don’t like, but that often tends to have the opposite effect :pac:

beejee wrote: »

But other posters were just saying that these schools purposefully do NOT teach religion. The whole thing sounds like a mess.

Last question I'll raise and I have to go. You might refuse to send your child to an Islamic school, but considering the supposed ethos of educate together schools, aren't you far more likely to be surrounded by Islamic families there....rather than elsewhere (considering there are few actual 100% Islamic schools)?

My whole point hinges on the extremes of different religions, and that if you want to avoid religion, then surely avoiding the more hardcore religions is a better direction.

Anyway good luck, im off

No, they teach a class where children learn about all faiths and none but no one religion is promoted as the right one. There are no religious celebrations and no religious services.

There are Muslim children in the school of course but so what? They are children, they are like every other child. What do you think they do or say that would make them "hardcore"?

Do you think 8 and 9 year olds are preaching in the playground now? My son and his friends talk about Pokemon and cartoons and toys same as children in a Catholic school I'd imagine....

sondagefaux wrote: »

Hardcore religions? Like the one that decided that moving clergy men who raped children around the country, where they were free to rape yet more children, rather than calling in the authorities was the right thing to do?

You have a pretty selective view there of what constitutes hardcore a leanbh.

Hardcore religions? Like the one that stones people to death, cuts peoples hands off and generally has state sanctioned murder, like the one that tried to declare an entire conquest of all people through brutal rape and violence via a war that's still raging, encouraging people to explode themselves amongst as many people as possible?

You have a pretty selective view there of what constitutes hardcore a buachaill beag