nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Too much trash talk against Christianity

9de5q7tsr8u2im

MOD NOTE

Title edited seeing as this discussion isn't limited to just 'trash talk' on boards.ie

Original Title: 'Too much trash talk on boards.ie against Christianity'

Over the past few days i've seen so much debatable talks about Christianity as a whole, and i'm sick of it...

( primary school shouldn't have christian based ethos )
( census discussion about whether you are christian or not )
( non religious funerals )
( the good friday drinking ban )

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Marhay70

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote: »

I wasn't asked for a baptismal cert when I enrolled my son in an RC school last year. In fact 10% of students are not RC which for a relatively small school is a fair chunk.

We cater for non RC children by them either remaining in class or leaving the roomcand being supervised by another member of staff.
I'm also on the board of management, so so much for Catholic bias !!

I don't think this portrays the full extent of what happens when children are singled out like this. Children of five, six, seven years of age have no concept of religion and are just being told that they are different from the rest without really being able to understand why. This can have a traumatic effect on young children who are just starting to build relationships with their peers.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree with you that the whole area of the provision of education does need to be looked at, but personally, I think there are too many self-interested parties to actually bring about any real change in the status quo that would mean more choice for parents. I'm not just talking about the Catholic Bishops either who are the patron body of RC schools. They're just the biggest target, because they're the biggest patron body. But, they actually have very little influence in education at all really. It's more the pen pushers in Athlone you need to be looking at, and all the various union bodies, and some of the other management organisations (I forgot to include the ncse which would be another influential body, the ICI, or that other group that advocates on behalf of travellers, can't think of their name, and numerous children's advocacy groups, parents groups, etc), loads of different stakeholders in education in Ireland.

My comments were aimed at the government and the departments involved. I do not believe the Catholic Bishops have any obligation to act to remove themselves from education, but the public representatives have an obligation to remove them.

Anyway, yeah, the parents rights over their children's education are not absolute, and the State can, and does step in where necessary in the best interests of the children's welfare (that's what was passed by the children's referendum, to give the State that right). The State can not demand however, that the parents must send their child to an educational facility which would be in violation of their conscience.

That is a great theory, but if all the schools within reasonable distance are Catholic ethos, and this is given as the reason the children are being kept at home, it is hard to see how parents would be convinced to send their children further afield. This is a complex area and full of 'ifs' and 'what abouts', but the solution would be to have non-religious schools as the norm, and let religious schools be the exception.

Interesting case I read about in a HSE report last year (they're all up on the website in the public domain) about a child who was placed with a foster family, and the HSE gave them a red mark on their report card because they were not fostering the child's religious beliefs! It's an issue I was aware of with transcultural and transethnic adoption, but it was the first time I'd heard of it in relation to foster care!!

If a child was in foster care and the social workers had specified that the child's religious beliefs were to be maintained, then they were quite right to take issue. On the other hand it might have made more sense to make sure the child was placed with a more appropriate family. Surely in a country where such a high proportion of people identify as religious it would not have been too difficult to find a suitable family?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

My comments were aimed at the government and the departments involved. I do not believe the Catholic Bishops have any obligation to act to remove themselves from education, but the public representatives have an obligation to remove them.

I don't think public representatives actually have that power, even if they wanted to, the RCC would wave the Constitution in their faces and claim that no public representative has the power to over-ride the Constitution, that any change must be put to a referendum. The obligation would be on people themselves to vote to have the special protection given to religion (that would be any religion, not just the RCC) removed from the Constitution.

That is a great theory, but if all the schools within reasonable distance are Catholic ethos, and this is given as the reason the children are being kept at home, it is hard to see how parents would be convinced to send their children further afield. This is a complex area and full of 'ifs' and 'what abouts', but the solution would be to have non-religious schools as the norm, and let religious schools be the exception.

That would be the nuclear solution, not to mention the fact that you would then have to make alternative arrangements for parents who have children already in religious ethos schools. The State requires that children are given a mandatory minimum standard of education. The Constitution doesn't specify how that standard should be achieved, and the only obligation on the State is a reasonable and practicable one, though the Constitution doesn't specify how that should be measured either.

If a child was in foster care and the social workers had specified that the child's religious beliefs were to be maintained, then they were quite right to take issue. On the other hand it might have made more sense to make sure the child was placed with a more appropriate family. Surely in a country where such a high proportion of people identify as religious it would not have been too difficult to find a suitable family?

It was an odd one alright, I didn't have access to the full details of the case, but I imagine they were the most suitable family could be found, apart from that one particular detail, which is why it stood out to me as so unusual.

looksee

I don't think public representatives actually have that power, even if they wanted to, the RCC would wave the Constitution in their faces and claim that no public representative has the power to over-ride the Constitution, that any change must be put to a referendum. The obligation would be on people themselves to vote to have the special protection given to religion (that would be any religion, not just the RCC) removed from the Constitution.

The same arguments applied to the marriage equality change to the constitution; that was set in motion by the government, and passed! And all other changes to the constitution have started with government action. For sure the only way for there to be a referendum is for the government to initiate the proceedings. I do think we are probably not quite ready for it yet and another couple of years would be advantageous to the non-religion faction.

As to the children who are already in religious schools, that could be solved by having an overlap period when children entering a state school did not have religious instruction but children already there would continue with the current situation as long as they were in the school. Or provision could be made for religious instruction to take place at the end of the school day for those who wish it, during the overlap.

uck51js9zml2yt

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Interesting... so what you're saying is that if you don't personally experience something, it didn't happen?

Fact is, that if a school year is oversubscribed by even one pupil, and the school has a policy of prioritising Catholics (which some do), then a non-Catholic child can be denied admission regardless of other criteria. As long as that is even a possible scenario, I'm not happy and neither should you be.

I never said I was happy with what you described but neither will I tarnish the whole system with the same brush.
Every school that is oversubscribed needs to have a criteria for enrollment.
What do you suggest they should be?

AtomicHorror

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote: »

I never said I was happy with what you described but neither will I tarnish the whole system with the same brush.
Every school that is oversubscribed needs to have a criteria for enrollment.
What do you suggest they should be?

Based on date of application, geography, previous enrolment of siblings? No combination will be perfect, though I would suggest that they need to be harmonised to prevent coverage gaps.

Anyway, as you yourself observed, plenty of schools already choose to ignore the religion element. All I am suggesting is that one criterion should be removed from the menu, for the same reason we would not allow race to be a criterion.

I'm not tarring the entire system- I know that there are schools that are progressive, but as long as the law allows such discrimination even the progressive schools could legally be made discriminatory.

Thinkingaboutit

I found a recent thread where someone was offended at the basic Christian concept of original sin, which was both funny and sad. Perhaps the priest explained it badly, and religious education in schools is a notable disaster.

AtomicHorror

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I found a recent thread where someone was offended at the basic Christian concept of original sin, which was both funny and sad. Perhaps the priest explained it badly, and religious education in schools is a notable disaster.

It's true that most people's understanding of original sin more closely resembles the reform church take on it, which is that sin or guilt, as well as sinfulness (and not sin itself) is inherited.

I assume you're Catholic- so your interpretation would be only that sinfulness is inherited?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

The same arguments applied to the marriage equality change to the constitution; that was set in motion by the government, and passed! And all other changes to the constitution have started with government action. For sure the only way for there to be a referendum is for the government to initiate the proceedings. I do think we are probably not quite ready for it yet and another couple of years would be advantageous to the non-religion faction.

Support for the marriage equality referendum was in the works for years before it ever gained popular support among the Irish people enough for the Government to call a referendum on the issue, and even then the Government didn't particularly want all that much to do with it because they knew it was a political hot potato.

I think education is another matter entirely because parents will be more invested in it than people who don't particularly care one way or the other. I imagine it would probably be the same turnout of the electorate as the children's referendum because children are literally at the mercy of adults to determine their future. If not enough adults actually care about the issue, I couldn't possibly predict the result of any referendum to amend the Constitution with regard to education.

I don't think though that it's time is the issue, but rather creating public awareness and informing people about their choices so that at least they can make an informed choice for themselves.

As to the children who are already in religious schools, that could be solved by having an overlap period when children entering a state school did not have religious instruction but children already there would continue with the current situation as long as they were in the school. Or provision could be made for religious instruction to take place at the end of the school day for those who wish it, during the overlap.

I know you know it's far more complex than that, and no school with a religious ethos would allow for that, so you're talking about having children from the same family in two or even three different schools. That might also alleviate the past pupils and siblings criteria which comes into play in oversubscribed schools far more often than the religious criteria (actually I know a good many parents who send their children to particular schools based upon the fact that they and the staff participate in sports and clubs together).

I've heard of the idea of moving religious education classes to the end of the day, or the start of the day, but I don't know that that would actually suit many parents either to have to bring their children to school later or collect them earlier. I think that would apply though more to parents who don't want their children to participate in religious education, and with the new ERB curriculum being talked about, it may prove to be even more of a logistical nightmare for both parents who do not want their children exposed to religious education, and those parents who only want their child exposed to a particular religious education.

It all comes down to the gathering support among parents really before any action will be taken by Government.

Cabaal

Nola Microscopic Sucker wrote: »

I never said I was happy with what you described but neither will I tarnish the whole system with the same brush.
Every school that is oversubscribed needs to have a criteria for enrollment.
What do you suggest they should be?

Simple
Take the religious requirement out of it and work on the others, if the others are ruled out then work on a lottery system. Its the fairest way.

If you really wished to replace the religious ethos requirement with something then replace it with which kid lives closer to the school.

Claiming using religion is a fair acceptance requirement is like claiming having a "no ginger" policy is fair, its only a fair acceptance requirement if you're not ginger!
:rolleyes:

Galwayguy35

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Be the Jaysus. I don't want a religious funeral. That would be the final insult. Having a pedophile con artist saying some hokey and getting paid as they lower me in. Over me dead body, they will.

You basically said every priest was a nonce and no remarks was passed by anyone, if you said the same thing about a muslim or jew no doubt the ban hammer would have been down on you.

I've always been of the opinion it's open season on all things Catholic around here and posts like this do little to convince me otherwise.

Speedwell

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You basically said every priest was a nonce and no remarks was passed by anyone, if you said the same thing about a muslim or jew no doubt the ban hammer would have been down on you.

I've always been of the opinion it's open season on all things Catholic around here and posts like this do little to convince me otherwise.

Don't worry; God is big enough to withstand criticism.

I mean, he is, isn't he?

Marhay70

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You basically said every priest was a nonce and no remarks was passed by anyone, if you said the same thing about a muslim or jew no doubt the ban hammer would have been down on you.

I've always been of the opinion it's open season on all things Catholic around here and posts like this do little to convince me otherwise.

The RCC gets a bad press and frankly much of it is merited, not necessarily just for the actions of individual clerics but for the collective refusal to admit culpability and suppression of truth.
I'm not an adherent of any religion and I have met clergy of all persuasions whom I have liked and admired and others whom I thought did not really have a vocation but who were trapped by circumstance. No doubt this happens in all religions but is, I think, compounded in Catholicism by celibacy. This can lead to frustration, not just in the sexual sense but in day to day interaction with the world.
Roman Catholicism needs to step back and take a good look at itself, I often think it compares to political parties which put party before country. The RCC needs to decide are they Catholic first or Christian first, an internal reformation if you like. It's my opinion that, in the first and second world at least, failure to change will eventually lead to irrelevancy. Let's face it, if you had predicted fifty years ago that upwards of 90% of Catholics in Ireland, then possibly the most Catholic of countries, would not attend Mass on a Sunday, people would have said you were mad. Therein lies the future.

Delirium

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You basically said every priest was a nonce and no remarks was passed by anyone, if you said the same thing about a muslim or jew no doubt the ban hammer would have been down on you.

I've always been of the opinion it's open season on all things Catholic around here and posts like this do little to convince me otherwise.

MOD NOTE

Mods don't see every post, this is why it is helpful for posters to report problem posts.

The poster has now been carded for their 'colourful' title for priests.

Labarbapostiza

looksee wrote: »

As to the children who are already in religious schools, that could be solved by having an overlap period when children entering a state school did not have religious instruction but children already there would continue with the current situation as long as they were in the school.

A lot has changed in religious instruction since I were a child. I was talking to a young primary school teacher recently. Not only was the religious instruction I had received radically different from what her children were receiving, her religious instruction had been radically different from mine. Nowadays it's a very airy fairy doing good deeds and being kind to each other. It's a far cry from the crazy stuff I had to been fed during my time at a Mercy convent school. Where telling a lie was driving a nail into the hand of Jesus, and the memorization of strange Mercy nun articles of faith, that are in fact heresies, and not in fact Kosher Catholicism. The distinction between mortal and venal sins, and where they'd land you in the next life. That unbaptised children ended up in limbo, for all eternity. We were even told that in an emergency we could baptise children to save them from purgatory. Young teachers can't even teach this kind of stuff anymore, because they were never taught it themselves, they have no idea what joyful mystery is, let alone the fact you're not allowed question what one is.

I'm sure they still teach Noah and the Ark. And probably Jonah and the Whale. Timeless classics of children's literature. But the bit where God said to Abraham, kill me a son.....that's where it starts getting murky, a God asking for child sacrifice, that's kind of messed up. If instruction has been reduced to a tale of loving sky fairies, and elements of the self esteem movement, can you really say it's religious instruction at all.

Now I must bow out of this discussion. As I have been warned for breaking safe space rules and inflicting microaggressions. Please accept my apologies for any inadvertent harm I may have caused. I really had no idea how triggering my statements had been.

Baggy Trousers

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

Over the past few days i've seen so much debatable talks about Christianity as a whole, and i'm sick of it...

( primary school shouldn't have christian based ethos )
( census discussion about whether you are christian or not )
( non religious funerals )
( the good friday drinking ban )

A lot of very bad things were done in the name of "Christianity" in this country in the last 100 years. People are angry at having been duped for so long. I think it's payback time.

I am convinced that the current generation of kids will be more enlightened/informed about religion and less frightened by religion and will cast it to the scrapheap.

Safehands

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

A lot of very bad things were done in the name of "Christianity" in this country in the last 100 years. People are angry at having been duped for so long. I think it's payback time.
I am convinced that the current generation of kids will be more enlightened/informed about religion and less frightened by religion and will cast it to the scrapheap.

You know, part of me agrees with you. There is no doubt that evil stalked the corridors of the Catholic church throughout the last century. It wasn't only the last century though. I believe that God and any semblance of goodness, completely abandoned the church for long periods of the middle ages. They are changing, but very, very slowly.
Recently a close relative died in St Francis hospice. I attended a memorial, organised by the Capuchins, for the relatives of those who died in the past year. It was absolutely terrific. If the young people you speak of, could witness that side of the church, I think they would not want to see it completely tossed onto the scrapheap. I came away thinking that there is a role for the church in society, but they really must get back to the basics and abandon the pomp and nonsense that infuriates so many people.

mcennis

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

Over the past few days i've seen so much debatable talks about Christianity as a whole, and i'm sick of it...

( primary school shouldn't have christian based ethos )
( census discussion about whether you are christian or not )
( non religious funerals )
( the good friday drinking ban )

Well maybe some peoples beliefs shouldn't impact the lives of other people with different beliefs or no beliefs?

El_Duderino 09

Safehands wrote:

You know, part of me agrees with you. There is no doubt that evil stalked the corridors of the Catholic church throughout the last century. It wasn't only the last century though. I believe that God and any semblance of goodness, completely abandoned the church for long periods of the middle ages. They are changing, but very, very slowly. Recently a close relative died in St Francis hospice. I attended a memorial, organised by the Capuchins, for the relatives of those who died in the past year. It was absolutely terrific. If the young people you speak of, could witness that side of the church, I think they would not want to see it completely tossed onto the scrapheap. I came away thinking that there is a role for the church in society, but they really must get back to the basics and abandon the pomp and nonsense that infuriates so many people.

You're talking about people taking care of other people and being kind to them in a time of need. That has nothing to do with a god. The god business gets in the way of people being kind and often mandates unkind behaviour in the name of adhering to religious doctrine. I get that doctrine is important to keeping religions going but religious are are only good in so far as they encourage bad people behave well because most good people will behave well due to normal social pressure.

Christianity isn't being unfairly treated as such, it's just being held to the same standard as any other code of conduct. It was immune to that kind of scrutiny in the past and now it isn't.

Marhay70

Safehands wrote: »

You know, part of me agrees with you. There is no doubt that evil stalked the corridors of the Catholic church throughout the last century.

Really, only in the last century? The Catholic Church has been guilty of evil over the whole course of its existence.
That is not to say that there are no genuinely good people in all positions throughout the church, there are and always have been. It is the church as an institution that is the problem, successive hierarchies have abandoned the principles of love, tolerance and forgiveness as preached by Jesus, in favour of a totalitarian system which demands obedience and conformity in all cases.

Safehands

Marhay70 wrote: »

Really, only in the last century? The Catholic Church has been guilty of evil over the whole course of its existence.
That is not to say that there are no genuinely good people in all positions throughout the church, there are and always have been. It is the church as an institution that is the problem, successive hierarchies have abandoned the principles of love, tolerance and forgiveness as preached by Jesus, in favour of a totalitarian system which demands obedience and conformity in all cases.

I agree with you. That tolerance and love you speak of is what they need to get back to. Give up the nonsense that they go on with. I believe that the young people will then identiify more with them. They don't identify with the type of things the church preaches right now.
There is a place for that tolerance and love message in all sectors of society, particularly with the young.

love humanity

Bashing of Christianity is encouraged in the media (especially USA media which we get a lot of here) and the people bashing follow what they are fed by them.

Speedwell

love humanity wrote: »

Bashing of Christianity is encouraged in the media (especially USA media which we get a lot of here) and the people bashing follow what they are fed by them.

"Let me be clear as I can be: In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not keeping it real or telling it like it is. It’s not challenging political correctness… that’s just not knowing what you’re talking about.... The rejection of facts, the rejection of reason and science — that is the path to decline. It calls to mind the words of Carl Sagan, who graduated high school here in New Jersey, he said: 'We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depths of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.'" - President Obama, Rutgers University Commencement

That US media Christian bashing?

love humanity

Speedwell wrote: »

"Let me be clear as I can be: In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not keeping it real or telling it like it is. It’s not challenging political correctness… that’s just not knowing what you’re talking about.... The rejection of facts, the rejection of reason and science — that is the path to decline. It calls to mind the words of Carl Sagan, who graduated high school here in New Jersey, he said: 'We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depths of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.'" - President Obama, Rutgers University Commencement

That US media Christian bashing?

No that is a quote from an American president. I am talking of the mass media and entertainment industry.

Speedwell

love humanity wrote: »

No that is a quote from an American president. I am talking of the mass media and entertainment industry.

Regardless, reality doesn't care how people spin it or who preaches whatever to the contrary. Reality just is.

love humanity

Speedwell wrote: »

Regardless, reality doesn't care how people spin it or who preaches whatever to the contrary. Reality just is.

Everyone filters their own realities. Your reality and my reality are different as is everyone's. We control it, it is not autonomous as you suggest.

There is an anti Christian rhetoric in the USA and it's being exported to Europe, Ireland now included.

Timberrrrrrrr

love humanity wrote: »

Bashing of Christianity is encouraged in the media (especially USA media which we get a lot of here) and the people bashing follow what they are fed by them.

You're right of course, Christianity bashing is getting way out of hand, I think all religions should be bashed equally seeing as they are all as bad as each other.

love humanity

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're right of course, Christianity bashing is getting way out of hand, I think all religions should be bashed equally seeing as they are all as bad as each other.

No religion should be bashed , nor should atheism or agnosticism.

Baggy Trousers

love humanity wrote: »

Everyone filters their own realities.

They sure do. Everyone seems to wear very narrow blinkers as far as organised religion is concerned.

Speedwell

love humanity wrote: »

Everyone filters their own realities. Your reality and my reality are different as is everyone's. We control it, it is not autonomous as you suggest.

Great, you try your own personal math and physics and let me know how it works out for you.