School patronage

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No, I don't like that language. I think the RCC is slowly coming around to a more realistic view of human sexuality.

As before, I didn't ask whether you like the language or not, I asked whether you believe it's "just" to describe gay men and women as suffering from "an intrinsic disorder".

And if describing gay men and women in this way is "just", then how exactly do you square that kind of nasty, but official language with your belief that gay men and women should be treated with "respect, compassion and sensitivity"?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You lost me in all your assumptions and wild flights of fancy [...]

*cough*

Knasher wrote: »

On balance of what, exactly? It seems pretty obvious that enforcing segregation on children will encourage segregation in communities. What exactly are faith based schools doing that makes them part of the solution, when by their very nature they are part of this problem?

What the should be doing is teaching people to love their neighbour and that violence is unchristian.

robindch wrote: »

As before, I didn't ask whether you like the language or not, I asked whether you believe it's "just" to describe gay men and women as suffering from "an intrinsic disorder".

And if describing gay men and women in this way is "just", then how exactly do you square that kind of nasty, but official language with your belief that gay men and women should be treated with "respect, compassion and sensitivity"?

Sorry.

No, I don't think it's just. I'd liek to see that changed.

So would many gay people in my church.

robindch wrote: »

*cough*

Bless you.

Somewhere between "the word of god" and "bullying children" is where I fell off the comprehension wagon.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Do you really believe that primary school children emerge from sixth class thinking these things? Really?

So, do you Cabaal??

Do you think that kids emerge from primary school thought to hate gay people?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Do you really believe that primary school children emerge from sixth class thinking these things? Really?

Yes,
I've seen it happen,

If your going to teach kids that being gay is wrong what exactly do you expect to be the outcome? For them to welcome and love gay people? It won't happen with all kids sure, but it will happen to some.

We've only to look at Catholics in Iona and other Catholics to see what problems people have with gay people because of religion.

Its far better to remove such messages of hatred, given however this is a message from the catholic church what exactly do you propose they do?

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes,
I've seen it happen,

Fair enough,

The primary school teachers were teaching them to hate gay people, huh? Rough school.

The fact is, no one teaches hatred of gay people in any Irish primary school. It's pretty much nonsense to suggest it.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Fair enough,

The primary school teachers were teaching them to hate gay people, huh? Rough school.

No, the bible teaches them to hate gay people...you yourself said kids should be reading it, apparently its good for their english
:rolleyes:

The Vatican further reenforces this message that being gay is wrong

Nothing to do with a specific teacher

Cabaal wrote: »

No, the bible teaches them to hate gay people...you yourself said kids should be reading it, apparently its good for their english
:rolleyes:

The Vatican further reenforces this message that being gay is wrong

Nothing to do with a specific teacher

You and i both know that the above doesn't reflect the reality of what is taught in RCC schools. At least be honest and realistic about things - the RCC isn't the biggest fan of the gayness but it doesn't preach hate. And any negativity in theory never comes anywhere near a primary school religion class.

Brian Shanahan

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Religion provides the following benefits:

Salvation for ones immortal soul

Teaches about culture, history and traditions
Teaches about other languages and regions of the world regularly in the news
Can encourage kids to think about their own place in the world/universe
Touches on the classics - the bible is the only piece of classical literature many people will ever encounter
Can reinforce the message of loving ones neighbour - which should be pervasive in all schools
Explains what "that pointy building at the end of the street" is
Can be used to bolster confidence in children through song and performance

1) Thank **** you struck that unsupportable assertion out.
2) No it doesn't really. Most of the stuff that makes up a civilisation's culture &c. doesn't involve religion.
3) Most definitely no. It used be true you'd pick up a smattering of a dead language if you went to rcc school, but nowadays all religions teach in the vernacular.
4) No it doesn't, for example the bible explicitly says that men are above everything else apart from a mythical being. Physics teaches people where they are in relation to the universe, geography and biology teaches them how careful they need to be to stay there.
5) **** no! a) the bible is not a classical piece of literature, it is too disjointed and confused to be coherent enough, and is rewritten on a regular basis and b) most schools teach some of the major world stuff (I'm thinking Homer or Beowulf here) and quite a lot of the local stuff (I was taught both the Ulster and Fianna cycles by the age of six).
6) The message of christianity "love your neighbour except if he deviates from our rules by even one tiny thing then BURN HIM! And don't get me started on the sub-human wimmenz."
7) Strangely enough most children learn most of what a building is about by going into one. Churches are no different
8) Song and performance are used to bolster kid's confidence here, religion is superfluous.

marienbad

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You and i both know that the above doesn't reflect the reality of what is taught in RCC schools. At least be honest and realistic about things - the RCC isn't the biggest fan of the gayness but it doesn't preach hate. And any negativity in theory never comes anywhere near a primary school religion class.

I wouldn't be too sure about that, there are many ways children are thought,and not just on gay issues. Having a well liked teacher dismissed over an affair or children being in used as messengers for political campaigning are other examples, and teachers bring intimated into allowing it..

And these type incidents just show the mindset that still think these things are ok.

Genuine secular choice is going to come sooner or later, but as an interim arrangement would you accept the RE only to be thought is RE class and that class to be the last of the day and to be optional ?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You and i both know that the above doesn't reflect the reality of what is taught in RCC schools. At least be honest and realistic about things - the RCC isn't the biggest fan of the gayness but it doesn't preach hate. And any negativity in theory never comes anywhere near a primary school religion class.

I experienced such messages of hate when I was in school,

So you think its ok for the RCC to have a message of hatred against gay people, just as long as they don't preach it in primary schools? Seriously?

Corkfeen

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Religion provides the following benefits:

Salvation for ones immortal soul

Touches on the classics - the bible is the only piece of classical literature many people will ever encounter

By the time I'd finished school. From school alone, I had read Brian Friel, Shakespeare and John Steinbeck. Read plenty more outside of school and it wasn't the bible that gave me the passion for reading.

The books were studied and one was free to criticise and read their own feelings into the meaning of them.(Granted,not to same extent as university level). However do you want to know what the big difference was, we were neither expected to view it as a completely factual account or taught tales such as 'Doubting Thomas' to emphasise why one should read it unquestioningly.

It is not read as literary text in school, it is used for the purpose of indoctrinating beliefs that one would be far less likely to believe if taught in later life. It takes advantage of childhood innocence.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Somewhere between "the word of god" and "bullying children" is where I fell off the comprehension wagon.

I agree entirely -- to help you connect the dots, why not imagine how you might feel if the church decided to describe you as "intrinsically disordered" for something that you had no control over.

Then how much worse you'd feel if the church (ab)used all of its power over schools to teach this nakedly prejudicial crap to kids.

kylith

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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.

How can a plethora of different school all teaching that they have the only real truth and that all the others are not only wrong but doomed be part of the solution?

jank

I don’t understand the concept that Atheists think they can define what religion is to people who are religious. People can be religious by not thinking Holy Book x,y,z is meant to be taken literally or that everyone must fundamentally obey the whims of the heads of whatever church they belong to. To be honest it’s an overzealous look at the thin edge of the wedge.

No group, or people 100% agree on everything all the time, not even atheists yet you expect this robotic behaviour from religious people?

Banbh

So are we to have separate schools for those who believe that their holy book is true, and another one for those who take it less literally and another one for every shade of every religion.

In practice, what the religious want is state-run schools that allow them full control over the nation's children.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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, please stop beating about the bush its just silly,

We are talking about the Vatican run Roman Catholic Church here, the one that operates the majority of schools in Ireland.

It does not have many branches, it has one and one set of rules set down by the Vatican.
The RCC does not welcome gay men or women who have sex, Bishops have been very clear about this.

Again, you continue to be disingenuous about the RCC by trying to claim it is something it is not.

Banbh

It is also based on foolishness - that the world and every individual in it is under the control of a super being who was always in existence and if we 'worship' him (constantly repeat meaningless words of love and adoration) we will live forever in bliss and if we don't we will suffer unimaginable torture forever. Now isn't that worth surrendering all your critical faculties and intelligence for?

Peregrinus

Interesting juxtaposition of posts:

Cabaal wrote: »

We are talking about the Vatican run Roman Catholic Church here, the one that operates the majority of schools in Ireland . . . Again, you continue to be disingenuous about the RCC by trying to claim it is something it is not.

Banbh wrote: »

It is also based on foolishness - that the world and every individual in it is under the control of a super being who was always in existence and if we 'worship' him (constantly repeat meaningless words of love and adoration) we will live forever in bliss and if we don't we will suffer unimaginable torture forever.

Seems to me that Cabaal's advice could be addressed to more than just I Heart Internet!

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

I agree entirely -- to help you connect the dots, why not imagine how you might feel if the church decided to describe you as "intrinsically disordered" for something that you had no control over.

Then how much worse you'd feel if the church (ab)used all of its power over schools to teach this nakedly prejudicial crap to kids.

The church doesn't even need to teach anything at all regarding homosexuality in primary schools, it just needs to get the message across that the church has moral authority. Once that bit of damage is done, the kids grow up in such a way as to be open to the church's more overt messaging about homosexuality being disordered.

Just because primary schools might teach a very wishy-washy "God Loves You and Mammy and Daddy, and God made all the flowers and the stars in the sky" doesn't reduce this - in fact it can make it more effective in winning over the kids at an early age.

jank wrote: »

I don’t understand the concept that Atheists think they can define what religion is to people who are religious. People can be religious by not thinking Holy Book x,y,z is meant to be taken literally or that everyone must fundamentally obey the whims of the heads of whatever church they belong to. To be honest it’s an overzealous look at the thin edge of the wedge.

No group, or people 100% agree on everything all the time, not even atheists yet you expect this robotic behaviour from religious people?

Jank, it's much easier to foster dislike of a group of people and build a concrete case of animosity against everything they do if one can usefully describe them as one monolithic entity, with no variation in thought or message, no room for greys and nothing but the most fundamentalist of view points.

It would be harder to paint the RCC as evil, if one dwelt upon the reality of what children learn in their primary schools, so better to make it up instead.

It's essentially what the very worst Christian fundamentalists do - paint those they disagree with as hopeless cases, that can do no good and always have the worst of intentions.

swampgas

jank wrote: »

I don’t understand the concept that Atheists think they can define what religion is to people who are religious. People can be religious by not thinking Holy Book x,y,z is meant to be taken literally or that everyone must fundamentally obey the whims of the heads of whatever church they belong to. To be honest it’s an overzealous look at the thin edge of the wedge.

No group, or people 100% agree on everything all the time, not even atheists yet you expect this robotic behaviour from religious people?

Yet religious people demand that their religion be "respected". However if we ask for some clarification as to what their religion actually is, they cannot provide a coherent answer, or they refuse to. So it's a demand for the state, and other people, to "respect" their religion, a religion for which no two people seem to have the same definition?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It would be harder to paint the RCC as evil, if one dwelt upon the reality of what children learn in their primary schools, so better to make it up instead.

So everybody here is lying about the RCC and what it does?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

[...] no room for greys and nothing but the most fundamentalist of view points [...]

Pots and kettles, there heart.

Can you please justify your broad insult with some evidence that everybody here is telling lies about the RCC? It would help your case if you took specific posts and pointed out the lies directly.

If you don't, or can't, then people are free to assume that you're being a bit dishonest yourself.

Sarky

Intrinsically disordered towards evil. Threat to society. Against nature. These are the words of popes down through the years. Popes FFS.

Don't tell me your church doesn't preach hate.

gaynorvader

jank wrote: »

I don’t understand the concept that Atheists think they can define what religion is to people who are religious. People can be religious by not thinking Holy Book x,y,z is meant to be taken literally or that everyone must fundamentally obey the whims of the heads of whatever church they belong to. To be honest it’s an overzealous look at the thin edge of the wedge.

No group, or people 100% agree on everything all the time, not even atheists yet you expect this robotic behaviour from religious people?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Jank, it's much easier to foster dislike of a group of people and build a concrete case of animosity against everything they do if one can usefully describe them as one monolithic entity, with no variation in thought or message, no room for greys and nothing but the most fundamentalist of view points.

It would be harder to paint the RCC as evil, if one dwelt upon the reality of what children learn in their primary schools, so better to make it up instead.

It's essentially what the very worst Christian fundamentalists do - paint those they disagree with as hopeless cases, that can do no good and always have the worst of intentions.

The RCC is an organisation. Everything it does in the public domain is viewable by everyone. Members and non-members have an equal view on it, though members are likely to be more blinkered or biased than non-members.
Having said that, when a criticism is levelled at the organisation, it in no way encompasses all of its members.
To godwin this thread, if I were to agree with the Nazi party of Germany that the Germans were a super race, but disagreed on their anti-Semitism and warmongering, that might not make me a bad person, but the Nazi party would still be an evil organisation and criticisms against it would not be automatically applied to me.

robindch wrote: »

So everybody here is lying about the RCC and what it does?Pots and kettles, there heart.

People are certainly mistaken in their understanding of what it taught to primary school children in RCC primary schools.

Some are also claiming that all people are not welcome in the RCC, which is entirely untrue.

Cabaal wrote: »

I experienced such messages of hate when I was in school,

So you think its ok for the RCC to have a message of hatred against gay people, just as long as they don't preach it in primary schools? Seriously?

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,

It is wrong to state that the RCC does not welcome every single person, and is not open to every single person in the world, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, political views, class, etc.

The RCC does not preach hatred of gay people (or anyone else).

RCC Primary schools do not teach hatred of gay people (pr anyone else).

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The RCC does not preach hatred of gay people (or anyone else). RCC Primary schools do not teach hatred of gay people (pr anyone else).

You've said yourself that the RCC's fundamental doctrinal statement about gay men and women, that they are "intrinsically disordered", is "unjust".

But you're now saying that what they say is just?

Which is it?