School patronage

Knasher wrote: »

Then history would suggest that faith based eduction has been pretty inept at imparting that towards Christians.

Achieving unity by segregating kids must seem like an odd way of going about things, no?

We can but try.

i take your point on sperating kids, but, on balance, religious ethos schools can be part of the solution, much more than part of the problem.

Cabaal wrote: »

The right way is using the word of god, thats the bible.
There is no other way to teach the word of god,

How very fundamentalist of you. Good for you, I guess.

I (nor the RCC) believe that's true.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If you want to teach them that, fair enough. I don't think it's the right way to introduce kids to a loving God.

The right way is using the word of god, thats the bible.
There is no other way to teach the word of god,

Knasher

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'd suggest that no Christian, educated in the teachings of Jesus Christ would engage in hatred or violence with anyone else.

Then history would suggest that faith based eduction has been pretty inept at imparting that towards Christians.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Christians, of whatever denomination should be working towards unity and univeral peace.

Achieving unity by segregating kids must seem like an odd way of going about things, no?

robindch wrote: »

While I'm happy to hear that you don't like it, I didn't ask you whether you liked it.

I asked you whether you support the (alleged) right of people to tell kids that they will burn in hell.

If you want to teach them that, fair enough. I don't think it's the right way to introduce kids to a loving God.

robindch wrote: »

Are you aware of what the RCC instructs people to believe about gay men and women?

Yes - that they be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. And that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No, i wouldn't like that.

While I'm happy to hear that you don't like it, I didn't ask you whether you liked it.

I asked you whether you support the (alleged) right of people to tell kids that they will burn in hell.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

[...] welcoming to all [...]

Are you aware of what the RCC instructs people to believe about gay men and women?

robindch wrote: »

I'm trying to get you to say whether or not you support threatening kids will hellfire.

No, i wouldn't like that.

robindch wrote: »

It is a catholic belief promulgated by the RCC (unless you think it's one of those optional ones that can be dispensed with if one feels like it).

See - damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Cabaal wrote: »

But they don't welcome all,
The might use the words but the actions are not welcoming at all,

So to claim they welcome all is disingenuous and you know it,

Anyone is welcome to join the RCC, anytime, anywhere. It is a universal church. As I've said before it has many, many branches with a myriad of people of radically different ethnicity, races, political views, social classes, walks of life, nationalities, and (yes) sexuality.

It's not perfect, but it is, at its best, welcoming to all. At its worst (and this is true too) it goes out of its way to alienate people.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There are ways to impart the essence of Christian teaching (and RCC teaching) that does not require infants to be scared. That it happened in the past is a pity but don't pretend that children are being frightened by Zacchaeus in the tree. Fire and brimstone is not what is thought to children and I suspect that you know that.

I'm trying to get you to say whether or not you support threatening kids will hellfire.

It is a catholic belief promulgated by the RCC (unless you think it's one of those optional ones that can be dispensed with if one feels like it).

Knasher wrote: »

Hate to quote myself, but I asked this in another thread and I never got a response, as you are also a fan of sectarian segregating, as faith formation in school requires, I wonder what your take would be.

Don't recall seeing this but happy to give you my 2 cents.

I'd suggest that no Christian, educated in the teachings of Jesus Christ would engage in hatred or violence with anyone else. Christians, of whatever denomination should be working towards unity and univeral peace. Any Christian who uses violence, save in self defence, is codding him/herself in my view.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

it always comes down to this. The RCC are damned (if you'll pardon the expression) if they do and damned if they don't.

Damned if they are strict on the rules and damned as "watered down" if they're welcoming to all.

But they don't welcome all,
The might use the words but the actions are not welcoming at all,

So to claim they welcome all is disingenuous and you know it,

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If this isn't the case - then why is the church bothering with indoctrination, if they are going to peddle a watered down version of their faith?

it always comes down to this. The RCC are damned (if you'll pardon the expression) if they do and damned if they don't.

Damned if they are strict on the rules and damned as "watered down" if they're welcoming to all.

robindch wrote: »

But you're ok with your co-religionists telling young kids that they'll burn in hell if they don't believe the religious stories they're being told?Depth? I'd prefer kids to aim high, rather than descend to the fictional pits of hell for a light roasting.

There are ways to impart the essence of Christian teaching (and RCC teaching) that does not require infants to be scared. That it happened in the past is a pity but don't pretend that children are being frightened by Zacchaeus in the tree. Fire and brimstone is not what is thought to children and I suspect that you know that.

Knasher

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But faith formation in schools is fine, as far as it goes.

Hate to quote myself, but I asked this in another thread and I never got a response, as you are also a fan of sectarian segregating, as faith formation in school requires, I wonder what your take would be.

Knasher wrote: »

In a country that has seen so much sectarian violence, I'm not sure segregating the schools on a sectarian basis is a good idea. Nor do I think it is a good idea in a county that is becoming increasingly pluralistic. I grew up in a town with a Protestant school and the Catholic school which I attended, and there was always a hell of a lot of anti-Protestant rhetoric in that school. Not that I think a single kid there could have told you the difference between the two, nor was my area a place of a lot of sectarian violence to give root to this attitude. Maybe the kids simply knew that they were separated and invented reasons why, or maybe they hear something at home and were simply repeating it in a mono cultured echo chamber. Either way it makes sense that if we are to build a cohesive society, separating children along religious lines isn't a good place to start.

eyescreamcone

In religious ethos schools where they also have some local non believer/minority religion kids doing a bit of colouring down the back - is it taught that the lads doing the colouring in are heading straight to the Hell??

If this is the case is it not discrimination?

If this isn't the case - then why is the church bothering with indoctrination, if they are going to peddle a watered down version of their faith?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

So unbelievers burning in hell is one of these optional catholic things?

I prefer to focus on the fact that God is very merciful and that even a bad-guy like me might be saved.

But you're ok with your co-religionists telling young kids that they'll burn in hell if they don't believe the religious stories they're being told?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Just a thought, but what about keeping schools for education and churches for indoctrination?

Good start. But what about church-run schools to add depth?

Depth? I'd prefer kids to aim high, rather than descend to the fictional pits of hell for a light roasting.

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There are some things it's good to learn as a child:

Look both ways crossing the road
Walls are not for writing on
How to swim
That God exists and loves you.

That's more appropriate in the relevant temple/church etc.

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There are some things it's good to learn as a child:

Look both ways crossing the road
Walls are not for writing on
How to swim
That God exists and loves you.

Unless you're gay.

PS No evidence that any gods love you, or that any gods exist

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There are some things it's good to learn as a child:

Look both ways crossing the road
Walls are not for writing on
How to swim
That God exists and loves you. You've gotten rid of your imaginary friend, so here's another one who will always judge you and will hate you if you;'re gay

Nice!

Cabaal wrote: »

So you're happy with get them while their young eh?

Isn't indoctrination great!

There are some things it's good to learn as a child:

Look both ways crossing the road
Walls are not for writing on
How to swim
That God exists and loves you.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That was my point.

So you're happy with get them while their young eh?

Isn't indoctrination great!

Amirani

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Good start. But what about church-run schools to add depth?

Why not have state-run schools that teach religion? Surely that's even better?

robindch wrote: »

So unbelievers burning in hell is one of these optional catholic things?

I prefer to focus on the fact that God is very merciful and that even a bad-guy like me might be saved.

robindch wrote: »

Just a thought, but what about keeping schools for education and churches for indoctrination?

Good start. But what about church-run schools to add depth?

kylith

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm sure many won't agree with me but I've always thought it a major failure in imagination to suggest that the teaching of religion (in primary schools) cannot be made to have great benefits to other aspects of education.

It's akin to suggesting that learning from a history book doesn't improve a child's reading ability. Or that learing about nature doesn't improve one's spelling and vocabulary. Or that memorising the names of the 12 apostles or the 10 commandments doesn't improve memory skills.

People may be entirely against it for other reasons, but suggesting that 2.5 hours per week on religion is somehow "wasted" or dead-time is wrong.

What literacy improvements could be made in a religious class that couldn't be made by using the time for more English classes, or classes which teach about all religions?

There is no justification using 2.5 hours a week teaching about Ikkle Baby Jesus when so many young people are leaving school with insufficient numeracy skills.

Cabaal wrote: »

Primary education sets the building blocks for a child's future education, its pretty important."

That was my point.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

robindch wrote:

So you think it's good to tell self-serving lies to kids under threat of burning in hell for eternity?

It's good to teach children about the christian faith.

So unbelievers burning in hell is one of these optional catholic things?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's good that religious communities have the right to educate their children in an ethos they want.

Just a thought, but what about keeping schools for education and churches for indoctrination?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Only if you consider primary education to be equivalent and as fundamental as university education.

Primary education sets the building blocks for a child's future education, its pretty important.

How a kid interacts in primary school can have a long lasting impact on their later life and education, of course you know that so thats why you are all for "get them while their young"