# 2nd class & Communion - still a given?



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

Why does everyone automatically assume that a child will be doing communion when they go into 2nd class?

My daughter is attending a Catholic ethos school but we have opted out of communion along with several others parents. But every adult as soon as they hear my daughter is in 2nd class automatically assumes they will be 'enjoying' communion and then they look so glum when we tell them she wont be. It's not fair on our child.

This is 2012! Maybe just maybe some people have realised that the Roman Catholic Church does not put children's interests first and is a disfunctional organisation (I am being nice) and should possibly be avoided...


----------



## jhegarty (13 Sep 2012)

If you read the results of the last census you will find out why. Most people still think they are Catholic*.

* They just skip the boring bits like going to mass and believing in God.


----------



## Peter54 (13 Sep 2012)

Why send her to a Catholic School?


----------



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

Peter54 said:


> Why send her to a Catholic School?



No choice, nearest Educate Together is 18 miles away.
But thanks for asking.


----------



## TarfHead (13 Sep 2012)

What are you asking the question now, and not 4 years ago when you chose to put your child into that school ? The Catholic ethos and the time taken in second and sixth classes, to prepare the children for the scarament, were known then and implicitly agreed to by you.


----------



## liaconn (13 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Why does everyone automatically assume that a child will be doing communion when they go into 2nd class?
> 
> My daughter is attending a Catholic ethos school but we have opted out of communion along with several others parents. But every adult as soon as they hear my daughter is in 2nd class automatically assumes they will be 'enjoying' communion and then they look so glum when we tell them she wont be. It's not fair on our child.
> 
> This is 2012! Maybe just maybe some people have realised that the Roman Catholic Church does not put children's interests first and is a disfunctional organisation (I am being nice) and should possibly be avoided...


 
Children for generations and generations have been making their Communion once they reach 7 or 8 so it is only natural that people will assume it with your children. In the same way that I'm sure you assume that most people will celebrate Christmas or Easter regardless of their religious beliefs.

I do agree though that if people don't practice their religion or actively despise the Church it is hypocritical of them to continue to present their children for the sacrament.


----------



## Shawady (13 Sep 2012)

Birroc,
I posted a comment on another thread about this. I was also taken aback at how shocked some people were that our child would not be making communion. The difference in our case is that is not a catholic school.
There is arrangments with the local catholic school if parents want their children to do it and some are. The main reason given is they are afraid to tell the grandparents.
It's strange because the way I see it is, the grandparents are religious but the parents are not. But when the parents become grandparents themselves they won't be that bothered about the sacrments so the whole thing could die out (especially if it is done outside of school hours).


----------



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

TarfHead said:


> What are you asking the question now, and not 4 years ago when you chose to put your child into that school ? The Catholic ethos and the time taken in second and sixth classes, to prepare the children for the scarament, were known then and implicitly agreed to by you.



Its not the school - the school and teachers are fine. Quite a number of kids opting out for whatever reason.

I am talking about the general public continuing to think that communion is a given despite what the RCC have done, and continue to do.


----------



## TarfHead (13 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Its not the school - the school and teachers are fine. Quite a number of kids opting out for whatever reason.
> 
> I am talking about the general public continuing to think that communion is a given despite what the RCC have done, and continue to do.


 
Children making their first Holy Communion is the norm in families that are, if only nominally, Catholic. It is reasonable for others to assume that a child in second class will be making their Communion; either the sacrament, or being included in the day if not receiving.

I'm surprised that you're surprised.


----------



## Sunny (13 Sep 2012)

Was your child baptised? I doubt people are that shocked to be honest. They just made an assumption that proved to be incorrect. Are you saying people abused you or treated you or your child differently?


----------



## T McGibney (13 Sep 2012)

It's not unknown for children to demand of their parents that they be allowed to take part in the First Communion preparation and ceremonies, if only (presumably) to fit in with the majority of their peers.


----------



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Was your child baptised? I doubt people are that shocked to be honest. They just made an assumption that proved to be incorrect. Are you saying people abused you or treated you or your child differently?



Not baptised.

They are not mean/rude but it's often "Really? Seriously? Why not? Oh you will miss out on having a lovely white dress" and they always look so sad/forlorn etc. My child has only started 2nd class but does she have to endure a school year of that? I was brought up RC myself but the whole communion 'gig' kinda creeps me out now. 

One of the other girls in the class did say "My mammy says that children that don't do communion hate God". Not ideal.


----------



## Shawady (13 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Not baptised.


 
Was there much difficulty getting your child into a RC school?


----------



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

Shawady said:


> Was there much difficulty getting your child into a RC school?



Actually no it wasn't but we knew the principal. Sometimes they just assume it - I know people that were never asked for the baptismal cert.


----------



## blueband (13 Sep 2012)

you could always opt to live in a non catholic country, but is it really worth the bother! everything passes given enough time.


----------



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

blueband said:


> you could always opt to live in a non catholic country, but is it really worth the bother! everything passes given enough time.



Maybe you're right but the pace of change seems very slow.

Perhaps in 20-30 years time parents asking their children to eat the body and blood of a 2000 year old zombie might be the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## T McGibney (13 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Perhaps in 20-30 years time parents asking their children to eat the body and blood of a 2000 year old zombie might be the exception rather than the rule.



Give respect, get respect.


----------



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Give respect, get respect.



I know, I was joking.

But respect works both ways and I am not feeling it from the believers I meet!


----------



## T McGibney (13 Sep 2012)

Fair enough. 

That said, I wouldn't be taking at face value, schoolyard tittle tattle like "My mammy says that children that don't do communion hate God". Sadly, kids often go out of their way to way to be as cruel as they can to each other.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Give respect, get respect.



I thought respect was something that was earned?


----------



## Birroc (13 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> That said, I wouldn't be taking at face value, schoolyard tittle tattle like "My mammy says that children that don't do communion hate God". Sadly, kids often go out of their way to way to be as cruel as they can to each other.


 
Yeah maybe but it was Day #3 in 2nd class so we'll have to monitor that.
I know the mother and I am fairly convinced she said it alright - one of those front rowers at church on Sundays.


----------



## T McGibney (13 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Yeah maybe but it was Day #3 in 2nd class so we'll have to monitor that.
> I know the mother and I am fairly convinced she said it alright - one of those front rowers at church on Sundays.



I don't know about 'front rowers' but I would count as a nutcase, anyone who would say something like that to a child. That said, it may still be true.


----------



## MrMan (13 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Not baptised.
> 
> They are not mean/rude but it's often "Really? Seriously? Why not? Oh you will miss out on having a lovely white dress" and they always look so sad/forlorn etc. My child has only started 2nd class but does she have to endure a school year of that? I was brought up RC myself but the whole communion 'gig' kinda creeps me out now.
> 
> One of the other girls in the class did say "My mammy says that children that don't do communion hate God". Not ideal.


 
I presume you have told your child that there is no God, no heaven etc, so whats the problem?


----------



## Sunny (13 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> I presume you have told your child that there is no God, no heaven etc, so whats the problem?



Catholics aren't the only people who believe in those things. Just because you don't want to be Catholic doesn't mean you automatically have no faith.


----------



## ajapale (13 Sep 2012)

Whats wrong with simply going along with the whole FHC from a cultural/social perspective! I know lots of irreligious / areligious people who go for the full church wedding for the same reasons.


----------



## Peter54 (13 Sep 2012)

I'll probably be slapped down for saying this but I don't think your child should have been permitted into the school if she was not going to partake in its teachings. 

When mine were younger they attended the local COI school. There was constant tension from non believers who thought their attendence at the school would get them into better Universities etc ~rolls eyes~ Some even had the cheek not to want to attend service.

Call me old fashioned but I think if you don't go along with the rules then you don't have a place there.


----------



## The_Banker (13 Sep 2012)

Peter54 said:


> I'll probably be slapped down for saying this but I don't think your child should have been permitted into the school if she was not going to partake in its teachings.
> 
> When mine were younger they attended the local COI school. There was constant tension from non believers who thought their attendence at the school would get them into better Universities etc ~rolls eyes~ Some even had the cheek not to want to attend service.
> 
> Call me old fashioned but I think if you don't go along with the rules then you don't have a place there.



The problem is 98% of schools are Catholic (or there abouts ) so people have little choice.
What do you do if you live in a small town and the nearest non religious/ non catholic school is 50 miles away in the big city?

Catholic schools in Ireland receive state funding. Therefore in my opinion if a school is in reciept of state funds it must accommodate all citizens of the state.


----------



## The_Banker (13 Sep 2012)

ajapale said:


> Whats wrong with simply going along with the whole FHC from a cultural/social perspective! I know lots of irreligious / areligious people who go for the full church wedding for the same reasons.



I have no interest in my kid making his communion. But when the time comes and if he wants to make it "for the occasion" then I will get him the suit and bring him to the church and sit him next to me, away from the class if I have to.

After all, parents allow there kids dress up at Halloween and they don't believe in ghosts. Same principle.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Sep 2012)

Peter54 said:


> I'll probably be slapped down for saying this but I don't think your child should have been permitted into the school if she was not going to partake in its teachings.



Are there many choices for parents other than the tiny number of Educate Together schools though?


----------



## Leper (14 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Why does everyone automatically assume that a child will be doing communion when they go into 2nd class?
> 
> My daughter is attending a Catholic ethos school but we have opted out of communion along with several others parents. But every adult as soon as they hear my daughter is in 2nd class automatically assumes they will be 'enjoying' communion and then they look so glum when we tell them she wont be. It's not fair on our child.
> 
> This is 2012! Maybe just maybe some people have realised that the Roman Catholic Church does not put children's interests first and is a disfunctional organisation (I am being nice) and should possibly be avoided...


 
1. This is no big deal, if you want to opt out of First Communion, then do it, anything else for you to do would be hypocritical.

2. First Communion is a big deal for many parents and it would only be a friendly talking point concerning children in 2nd Class. Please dont do the "condemned martyr" thing.

3. If you have problems with the Catholic Church you are entitled to your beliefs. But, leave others to THEIR beliefs also.


----------



## Bronte (14 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Give respect, get respect.


 
Really, now let me see, Cardinal Brady, respect, I don't think so.  Bishop Kirby (no doubt in charge of many schools) and probably doing Confirmations, respect, no I don't think so either.


----------



## Bronte (14 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> They are not mean/rude but it's often "Really? Seriously? Why not? Oh you will miss out on having a lovely white dress" and they always look so sad/forlorn etc.


 
People really have their priorities right.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2012)

Bronte said:


> Really, now let me see, Cardinal Brady, respect, I don't think so. Bishop Kirby (no doubt in charge of many schools) and probably doing Confirmations, respect, no I don't think so either.


 
Nobody is asking you have respect for those individuals but you should have some respect for people who believe in God and might take offence at having him referred to as a 2000 year Zombie. Respect and tolerance for other peoples beliefs is not a one way thing.


----------



## Bronte (14 Sep 2012)

And what about freedom of speech Sunny? I've come though Catholic Ireland and it is those that believe in that institution that will have to earn my respect, not the other way around. 

I have no disrespect for people's beliefs by the way, I might think they are nuts, but that's not being disrespectful. In any case this is LOS so what's the problem with Birroc's comments. If one doesn't want contrary views one should subscribe to one of the RCC's magazine's the one's that are ever so carefully controlled as to what might be said. Take Brian D'arcy and other RC priests, they can only write after having their documents checked, do you think we should do that on AAM.

Anyway I'm best of leaving this subject (RCC) as it will only drive me nuts.


----------



## TarfHead (14 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Oh you will miss out on having a lovely white dress" and they always look so sad/forlorn etc.


 
In my experience (2 children, same school) that does not happen. When  my children made their fHC, no-one was excluded. Children of a different faith and of no faith were all included. Most, if not all, were kitted out in usual outfits, and parents, and were fully involved on the day. When the time came for each child to receive the sacrament, those who were not there to do so, received a blessing from the priest.



Birroc said:


> One of the other girls in the class did say "My mammy says that children that don't do communion hate God". Not ideal.


 
You get that kind of bullying nonsense from kids of that age about Premiership teams, choice of music, brand of runners, etc. It betrays the values of the parents involved, not faith.

And, FWIW, when at Mass, I'm a 'front-rower'. Not because I'm a zealot, but to keep an eye on my altar server son and hiss prompts to him when his attention wanders .


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2012)

Bronte said:


> And what about freedom of speech Sunny?


 
What about it? You can have freedom of speech. Doesn't mean you can't show respect. You can say you don't believe in God without ridiculing.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2012)

Bronte said:


> And what about freedom of speech Sunny? I've come though Catholic Ireland and it is those that believe in that institution that will have to earn my respect, not the other way around.
> 
> I have no disrespect for people's believes by the way, I might think they are nuts, but that's not being disrespectful.


 
We all came through Catholic Ireland.

You are being disrespectful by saying "_Perhaps in 20-30 years time parents asking their children to eat the body and blood of a 2000 year old zombie might be the exception rather than the rule_". It's their faith so why ridicule them for believing it.

I am not a practicing Catholic by the way. I don't have any time for any religion but doesn't mean I don't respect those that do.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2012)

Bronte said:


> I have no disrespect for people's beliefs by the way, I might think they are nuts, but that's not being disrespectful. In any case this is LOS so what's the problem with Birroc's comments. If one doesn't want contrary views one should subscribe to one of the RCC's magazine's the one's that are ever so carefully controlled as to what might be said. Take Brian D'arcy and other RC priests, they can only write after having their documents checked, do you think we should do that on AAM.


 
No-one had a problem with Birroc's comments.


----------



## Bronte (14 Sep 2012)

Chainged my mind about this post.  Too dangerous, it's about another religion, but actually it is way too dangerous to say anything.


----------



## orka (14 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> You are being disrespectful by saying "_Perhaps in 20-30 years time parents asking their children to eat the body and blood of a 2000 year old zombie might be the exception rather than the rule_".





Sunny said:


> No-one had a problem with Birroc's comments.


In fairness to Bronte, it was Birroc who made the original zombie comment - which I agree is unnecessarily offensive.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2012)

So it was. Apologies Bronte. Teach me to read the posts more clearly!


----------



## MrMan (14 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Catholics aren't the only people who believe in those things. Just because you don't want to be Catholic doesn't mean you automatically have no faith.



Ok, then tell them that the Catholic religion is incorrect, but maybe water down the 2000 year old zombie part.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Give respect, get respect.


 
That's the GAA coming out in you. 

(for ye non-believers in the one true faith (i.e. the GAA), "Give Respect, Get Respect" is an initiative to get people to stop abusing the ref ..... abusing the ref being one of the unofficial tenents/traditions of the GAA that most of us indulge in, to one extent or other)


----------



## T McGibney (14 Sep 2012)

betsy og said:


> that's the gaa coming out in you. :d
> 
> (for ye non-believers in the one true faith (i.e. The gaa), "give respect, get respect" is an initiative to get people to stop abusing the ref ..... Abusing the ref being one of the unofficial tenents/traditions of the gaa that most of us indulge in, to one extent or other)



Touché


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

orka said:


> In fairness to Bronte, it was Birroc who made the original zombie comment - which I agree is unnecessarily offensive.



Why is it offensive?


----------



## liaconn (14 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Nobody is asking you have respect for those individuals but you should have some respect for people who believe in God and might take offence at having him referred to as a 2000 year Zombie. Respect and tolerance for other peoples beliefs is not a one way thing.


 
I totally agree with this. Some of your posts Birroc have been really offensive and you seem to have started this thread to have a go at the Catholic Church while disguising it as a discussion about your child not making their First Holy Communion.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2012)

TarfHead said:


> In my experience (2 children, same school) that does not happen. When  my children made their fHC, no-one was excluded. Children of a different faith and of no faith were all included. Most, if not all, were kitted out in usual outfits, and parents, and were fully involved on the day. When the time came for each child to receive the sacrament, those who were not there to do so, received a blessing from the priest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That's my experience as well. I don't believe in God but I have no major problem with RC teaching on the ground; most priests I know are good open-minded people who spend their time doing good and helping people. I detest and despise the hierarchy of the RC Church and in particular the man who  runs it. 



The_Banker said:


> After all, parents allow there kids dress up at Halloween and they don't believe in ghosts. Same principle.


  I like that. I fully intend to use it!


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I like that. I fully intend to use it!



Can someone explain to me why comparing religious belief to believing in ghosts does not seem to be seen as offensive, but comparing a man who rose from the dead to a zombie is


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Can someone explain to me why comparing religious belief to believing in ghosts does not seem to be seen as offensive, but comparing a man who rose from the dead to a zombie is



Because one is a general comment and the other is a specific reference.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> Because one is a general comment and the other is a specific reference.



Eh, are you saying that general comments cannot be offensive - I can make an offensive general comment if you like?


----------



## orka (14 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Why is it offensive?


Seriously?  You wonder why it might be offensive to a Catholic to refer to their god as a zombie?  Saying anything derogatory about someone’s god is bound to be offensive but answering your specific question, the belief is that This post will be deleted if not edited immediately returned from the dead fully functioning – not as an animated corpse capable of movement but no conscious thought and most likely controlled by some nefarious power for evil doings (know any ‘good zombie’ stories?).  
I personally think the Church of Ireland view on the bread and wine as representing the body and blood (as opposed to actually being the body and blood) is a far more reasonable proposition but again, the comment here is offensively phrased, probably for shock value.
I am pretty far lapsed from the Catholic Church as I hate the unnecessary rules and need to control people’s lives (and I’m with Purple on the hierarchy) but I do miss the sense of community and belonging so if I ever return to religion (hedging my bets later in life...), it will probably be to the Church of Ireland which has the same basic beliefs but seems to seek less control over individuals lives.
I think a lot of the vitriol on here is directed at the Catholic Church for some of its many failings over the years – many people are justifiably angry and have turned their backs on the church – but the comment would be offensive to most Christians who don’t view their god as a 2,000 year old zombie...


----------



## Birroc (14 Sep 2012)

Thanks for your comments folks. Apologies for the zombie comment, I was being silly and I dont want to challenge other people's beliefs. Live and let live.

I am not anti-RCC on this issue and I have no problems with the School who were very understanding and accepting. I just want people to appreciate that some children will take part in Catholic rituals and some wont. It shouldn't be a complete unheard of surprise which seems to apply to most people over 40. I don't want my child feeling like some kind of outcast missing out on something wonderful.


----------



## PMU (14 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> "My mammy says that children that don't do communion hate God".


.  This is atrocious grammar, even for schoolkid, and demonstrates poor knowledge of pronouns.  You should have words with the English teacher.


----------



## MrMan (14 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Thanks for your comments folks. Apologies for the zombie comment, I was being silly and I dont want to challenge other people's beliefs. Live and let live.
> 
> I am not anti-RCC on this issue and I have no problems with the School who were very understanding and accepting. I just want people to appreciate that some children will take part in Catholic rituals and some wont. It shouldn't be a complete unheard of surprise which seems to apply to most people over 40. I don't want my child feeling like some kind of outcast missing out on something wonderful.



When something is the norm for so long, then it is a surprise when someone doesn't just go along with it. When your kids are parents things may have changed, but it really is going against the grain at the moment. Your child probably will feel like they are missing out, but you could always plan something for that day and let them have that to look forward to instead.


----------



## Shawady (14 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> but you could always plan something for that day and let them have that to look forward to instead.


 
The whole communion thing was discussued in the Times a few months ago and there was a parent in exactly the same position as Birroc, and this is exactly what the principal of the school recommended.


----------



## Birroc (14 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> but you could always plan something for that day and let them have that to look forward to instead.



Yes we are planning a few days away and a nice new dress (may not be white - probably red with horns on top )


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

orka said:


> Seriously?  You wonder why it might be offensive to a Catholic to refer to their god as a zombie?  Saying anything derogatory about someone’s god is bound to be offensive but answering your specific question, the belief is that This post will be deleted if not edited immediately returned from the dead fully functioning – not as an animated corpse capable of movement but no conscious thought and most likely controlled by some nefarious power for evil doings (know any ‘good zombie’ stories?).



Im sorry, I dont see any offense in *jokingly* comparing one supernatural being with another. 

What I do find offensive is non evidential matters of opinion on supernatural beings being taught alongside maths and language as matters of fact to children who are too young to have developed the critical thinking necessary to distinguish what is real from what is not.


----------



## TarfHead (14 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> What I do find offensive is non evidential matters of opinion on supernatural beings being taught alongside maths and language as matters of fact to children who are too young to have developed the critical thinking necessary to distinguish what is real from what is not.


 
Christmas Day must be some craic in your house .

"_Sorry kids. You're only allowed to believe in things that are evidentially true_"


----------



## DrMoriarty (14 Sep 2012)

Here's another angle. If a person hasn't been baptised, as far as I'm aware, (s)he is not _entitled _to receive any of the other six sacraments. This is why a priest must first baptise a dying non-Catholic before administering Extreme Unction, for example (and he'd better bring a few strong lads with him if he tries it on me).

So tell the shocked parents that, regrettably, the Catholic Church's own rules would make it a mortal sin on your part to allow your daughter to participate in FHC or Confirmation, and that the thought of her parents burning in Hell unto all eternity has put her off joining in the joyous event.

Simples.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

TarfHead said:


> "_Sorry kids. You're only allowed to believe in things that are evidentially true_"



What would you think if you met an adult who believed in Santa?


----------



## blueband (14 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Im sorry, I dont see any offense in *jokingly* comparing one supernatural being with another.
> 
> What I do find offensive is non evidential matters of opinion on supernatural beings being taught alongside maths and language as matters of fact to children who are too young to have developed the critical thinking necessary to distinguish what is real from what is not.


but sure as they grow older they will have plenty of time to decide wheather its for them or not!...thats what most of us do in the end.


----------



## TarfHead (14 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> What would you think if you met an adult who believed in Santa?


 
First thought "_Seriously ?_"

Second thought "_Your parents did some number on you_"


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2012)

blueband said:


> but sure as they grow older they will have plenty of time to decide wheather its for them or not!...thats what most of us do in the end.



I share Truthseeker's concern on that issue. Logical critical thinking is an essential skill for anyone working in science or engineering. Anything that says "you must believe this orthodoxy because your parents believe it and because it's the accepted norm and you are forbidden from questioning the orthodoxy” is bad. The ability to question norms and orthodoxies is that has brought us from the dark ages to this age of science and reason. It is the fundamental skill that drives science and progress. Religion curtails the development of critical thinking, it stunts the growth of our ability to think and therefore question with precision. That’s why I don’t like it.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

TarfHead said:


> First thought "_Seriously ?_"
> 
> Second thought "_Your parents did some number on you_"



Id like to nominate this as post of the day.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2012)

Ah here, even Scientists believed in Santa at some stage in their life. Are we now saying that we shouldn't tell our children about God's, Santa, witches, wizards, fairytales etc etc because it might damage their ability to develop the skills necessary to become the engineers and scientists of tomorrow.


----------



## TarfHead (14 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Id like to nominate this as post of the day.


 
Post of the day ? Well, if that's what you believe to be true, who am I to tell you your belief is misplaced  ?


----------



## TarfHead (14 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> That’s why I don’t like it.


 
Science <> faith.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Ah here, even Scientists believed in Santa at some stage in their life. Are we now saying that we shouldn't tell our children about God's, Santa, witches, wizards, fairytales etc etc because it might damage their ability to develop the skills necessary to become the engineers and scientists of tomorrow.



The difference is, we tell kids that there isnt *really* a Santa when they are old enough (but to pretend for the young un's cos its fun).


----------



## The_Banker (14 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I share Truthseeker's concern on that issue. Logical critical thinking is an essential skill for anyone working in science or engineering. Anything that says "you must believe this orthodoxy because your parents believe it and because it's the accepted norm and you are forbidden from questioning the orthodoxy” is bad. The ability to question norms and orthodoxies is that has brought us from the dark ages to this age of science and reason. It is the fundamental skill that drives science and progress. Religion curtails the development of critical thinking, it stunts the growth of our ability to think and therefore question with precision. That’s why I don’t like it.


 
Excellent post


----------



## Teatime (14 Sep 2012)

purple said:


> i share truthseeker's concern on that issue. Logical critical thinking is an essential skill for anyone working in science or engineering. Anything that says "you must believe this orthodoxy because your parents believe it and because it's the accepted norm and you are forbidden from questioning the orthodoxy” is bad. The ability to question norms and orthodoxies is that has brought us from the dark ages to this age of science and reason. It is the fundamental skill that drives science and progress. Religion curtails the development of critical thinking, it stunts the growth of our ability to think and therefore question with precision. That’s why i don’t like it.



+1


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> The difference is, we tell kids that there isnt *really* a Santa when they are old enough (but to pretend for the young un's cos its fun).



I think kids figure these things out for themselves. I was baptised, had a communion and confirmation. Didn't do me any harm. Simply decided when I was old enough that I didn't want anything to do with organised religion. 

If people don't want their children to learn religion, then fair enough but lets not suggest that kids that do believe and partake are somehow inferior in their ability to critically analyse what they hear.


----------



## blueband (14 Sep 2012)

that the view i would take on it too.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> *I think kids figure these things out for themselves. *I was baptised, had a communion and confirmation. Didn't do me any harm. Simply decided when I was old enough that I didn't want anything to do with organised religion.



Some do, but as long as we all agree to keep calm and carry on, thats what allows the church to claim numbers beyond its genuine membership and this allows it to have the influence it has. 

I would agree that we go along with it if I didnt think it did any harm but I think the RCC has done massive amounts of harm in this country (and in others).


----------



## orka (14 Sep 2012)

I agree with Sunny and blueband. Even though I am no longer religious, I don’t regret having been brought up that way. In a way, religion may be the first time a child starts to question something – and so long as they are not slapped down with ‘because it just is’, it can help the learning experience. I also think a religious upbringing is useful in forming moral behaviour – starting life with an unquestioning message that god expects you to be well-behaved, respectful and kind to your fellow man can be more compelling than your boring old parents (who you throw tantrums at/disobey regularly anyway) telling you that they expect the same thing. Sure, you’ll eventually start questioning and making up your own mind about what you believe but the moral framework should last longer. 

That said, the religious foundation doesn't have to be Catholic - I think some of the other Christian religions have a less rigid approach to their people – with the church guiding and being there to help people decide and interpret for themselves rather than imposing rules on an all-or-nothing basis. It is a bit sad that people see the choice as Catholic (which many have major issues with now) or nothing - even when religion has been very important to them. My mother is still hanging in with the Catholic church but my father is very disillusioned and wants little to do with it anymore - despite being religious all his life, believing the core beliefs and still wanting something like that in his life. If some of the protestant religions were run more like businesses, they could probably increase their memberships dramatically at the moment!

It would be nice if religion in school could be broadly christian in nature (continuing what they will have picked up at home - baptism of siblings, communion, mass/church, Christmas, Easter etc.) to give children the foundation to continue with it or question and leave it. Faith-specific instruction (communion/confirmation preparation) could be done out of school hours.


----------



## Teatime (14 Sep 2012)

I wonder though that if non practicing or even unbelieving parents continue to sign their kids up to the Roman Catholic church, despite their treatment of members in the past, that the same church will be less likely or very slow to change for the better? It is obviously a flawed religious organisation with many outdated beliefs and practices (for example - women priests, the treatment of gay people, respecting state laws) and I would consider a drop-off in numbers possiblly the only way shake things up and get some real improvements.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> I think kids figure these things out for themselves. I was baptised, had a communion and confirmation. Didn't do me any harm. Simply decided when I was old enough that I didn't want anything to do with organised religion.
> 
> If people don't want their children to learn religion, then fair enough but lets not suggest that kids that do believe and partake are somehow inferior in their ability to critically analyse what they hear.


I agree with you but the religion I learned as a child and the foundation that my parents gave me went alongside an exposure to the wonders of the world and universe around us. When my father talked to me about astronomy and the universe he didn't contextualise it in Christian dogma. When the contradictions between Christian teaching and science  became apparent it was religious teaching that was pushed aside. 
The problem is that's not what religions teach. The current Pope has even rolled back on the modest advances in accepting evolution that his predecessor made. 
Examining the facts and drawing a conclusion based only on the facts, without any preconceptions and bias, makes things like racism, sexism, snobbery and general bigotry almost impossible because they are not based on full evidential deduction but on ignorance and cultural preconception. In other words there is no logical basis for holding such beliefs. 
Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hostility. Dogmatic beliefs and orthodoxies get in the way of understanding and acceptance. Those beliefs and orthodoxies don’t just have to be religious; socialism, communism, right-wing fundamentalism, etc, they all pre-suppose that groups of people will think and behave in a particular way. Just as modern Catholic priests are usually open minded and enlightened people most socialists don’t think that business owners are hell-bent on exploiting the working masses but there is a tinge of the old dogma in the narrative of the left just as there is a tinge of the anti-scientific to the narrative of the RC Church.

The place that I see this at its worst is in how development charities operate in the poorest countries in the world. Because the root causes and long term solutions to the problems the poorest countries face are so complex and multifaceted NGO’s nearly always resort to a default position based on the political and economic views of the people who run them. Therefore they waste most of the money they get taregting things that are not root causes. A book like “The Bottom Billion” exposes exactly what happens in the absence of critical thinking and it’s almost a metaphor for what’s  wrong with thinking that starts with preconceptions. 
It’s easier to see flawed thinking in the developed world because facts are more readily available and people are more educated in those facts. A good example of this is how AIDS patients were treated in the West in the 1980’s in comparison to how they are treated here now. Compare that to how they are treated in most of Africa.  Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hostility.


----------



## Leper (15 Sep 2012)

This all started by somebody being somewhat offended by being asked about a child's First Communion in school's 2nd Class. Suddenly, it has exploded into a huge issue with doctrines, beliefs, teachings, and God knows what else being discussed.

Loosen up, take it easy, and keep to the subject.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2012)

The discussion developed. This is LOS. Relax.


----------



## Teatime (15 Sep 2012)

Is confession part of the 1st communion ceremony? I think it is. I have to say that I always thought confession was always a little disturbing for little kids and I doubt its an healthy emotional experience even if the parents are just getting the kids to take part in the communion event so as not to miss out. Do they still have kids going into dark cubicles to admit all their 'sins' to the old cross priest who subsequently judges them and decides their penance? Oh dear I will have nightmares tonight!


----------



## MrMan (15 Sep 2012)

Purple said:


> I share Truthseeker's concern on that issue. Logical critical thinking is an essential skill for anyone working in science or engineering. Anything that says "you must believe this orthodoxy because your parents believe it and because it's the accepted norm and you are forbidden from questioning the orthodoxy” is bad. The ability to question norms and orthodoxies is that has brought us from the dark ages to this age of science and reason. It is the fundamental skill that drives science and progress. Religion curtails the development of critical thinking, it stunts the growth of our ability to think and therefore question with precision. That’s why I don’t like it.



I always asked questions regarding religion, there were typically more questions than answers, just as there is in the world of science. Your view on religion stunting the ability to think and question with precision is questionable to say the least. If we remove religion from the debate entirely, we can see that today people most often just accept the findings of new scientific breakthroughs, and if someone questions them, they are often labeled as conspiracy theorists etc.


----------



## blueband (15 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> I always asked questions regarding religion, there were typically more questions than answers, just as there is in the world of science. Your view on religion stunting the ability to think and question with precision is questionable to say the least. If we remove religion from the debate entirely, we can see that today people most often just accept the findings of new scientific breakthroughs, and if someone questions them, they are often labeled as conspiracy theorists etc.


+1 thats a very good post.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> I always asked questions regarding religion, there were typically more questions than answers, just as there is in the world of science. Your view on religion stunting the ability to think and question with precision is questionable to say the least. If we remove religion from the debate entirely, we can see that today people most often just accept the findings of new scientific breakthroughs, and if someone questions them, they are often labeled as conspiracy theorists etc.



The whole point of doctrine is that it is unquestionable. The practice of teaching that its correct not to question is the issue. There are not typically more questions than answers in science and that is a naive view of the subject, there are many questions to which we have *not yet* found answers, but that is a different matter to there not being an answer except to accept dogma.

As far as science goes Ive never heard of anyone being labelled as a conspiracy theorist for questioning scientific breakthroughs - it is wholly encouraged in the scientific world that your results are published, peer reviewed and repeatable before any kind of breakthrough can be announced. In fact, you wouldnt be taken seriously in academia if you didnt ask questions. You would be dismissed as a crackpot if you just questioned published peer reviewed research without something to back it up. 

Can you give some examples of this conspiracy theorist label in relation to scientific breakthrough, as I am not aware of it?


----------



## Teatime (15 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> I always asked questions regarding religion, there were typically more questions than answers, just as there is in the world of science. Your view on religion stunting the ability to think and question with precision is questionable to say the least. If we remove religion from the debate entirely, we can see that today people most often just accept the findings of new scientific breakthroughs, and if someone questions them, they are often labeled as conspiracy theorists etc.


 
I normally love reading your posts MrMan but did you give up on this one half way through? I just dont get your reply to Purple.


----------



## Teatime (15 Sep 2012)

blueband said:


> +1 thats a very good post.


 
Seriously?


----------



## gabsdot (15 Sep 2012)

My son is in 3rd class now but last year when he was in 2nd class he was asked loads of time was he going to make his communion. 
He would just answer no I'm not Catholic, No big deal.


----------



## blueband (16 Sep 2012)

heres the thing i dont get, we live in a catholic country, we send our children to schools run mainly by the catholic chruch, and then some people complain because the catholic faith is thought in these schools!..strange.
what religon would expect to be thought in a chatolic school???


----------



## Diziet (16 Sep 2012)

Given that the vast majority of schools in this country are catholic, there isn't a lot of choice for non-catholics or non-practising catholics.


----------



## blueband (16 Sep 2012)

i agree, but its the job of the government to provide such schools if they feel there is enough demand for them.


----------



## The_Banker (16 Sep 2012)

blueband said:


> i agree, but its the job of the government to provide such schools if they feel there is enough demand for them.



I am a taxpayer. My taxes help run these catholic schools. 

When my child goes to a catholic school (because I have no choice due to location) I will ensure he isn't indoctrinated and will opt out.
He will make up his own mind when he is older with regards to faith.

As a tax payer I demand and deserve an option when the school is in receipt of tax payers money.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Sep 2012)

blueband said:


> i agree, but its the job of the government to provide such schools if they feel there is enough demand for them.



And as long as people keep ticking 'Catholic' on the census form because they identify culturally with being a Catholic - the government will feel there is not enough demand for alternatives.

Its a vicious circle. People enroll their children in Catholic schools because there are no practical alternatives. The children are exposed to Catholic indoctrination. They make the communion and confirmation because the parents dont want them to feel left out (and they think - Ill let them make their own decision when they are older). They get older, they dont really believe, but when it comes to getting married, they do it in a church because it will please mammy, the photos will look better, the bride wants to walk down a nice long aisle in a beautiful building..... They promise to bring any children up Catholic. They have children. They get the child baptised because its expected. It comes to schooling, they enrol the child in a Catholic school (sure its all they know and there are no practical alternatives!) - and so it continues. Meanwhile they have filled out 3 different census forms as 'Catholic'. 

The government examines the numbers of Catholics in the country compared to the number of atheists etc and decides there is an overwhelming Catholic majority so no need to change anything - and the cycle continues.


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Sep 2012)

Truthseeker - as they might say in an American film - "Is that so wrong?". If the parents in the example werent interested or motivated enough to find some faith more satisfying to them, then being nominally catholic is no great problem as far as I can see. TBH I think this "let them decide when they're big" guarantees they'll have no interest in religion of any sort - at least if they are nominally catholic they will have the basic ideas of christianity, if thats not for them and they want something else well at least they have something to compare it to. A lot of baloney about "indoctrination" on here - when was the last time you met someone under 30 "indoctrinated"??

I know a lot of people have no time for the Catholic Church - and I can see that point of view - but in expressing their views they are making it out to be this uber-indoctrination-machine. The 50's are long gone folks, mass attendances are very small (hardly anyone between 13 and 35), so in terms of "grasp of the popoulation" the church has never been weaker - yet so many on here are afraid the big bad church is out to brainwash their darling. As I said before its the National Teachers of Ireland you are really talking about in terms of communion and confirmation, not too many of them are "indoctrinators" in the 1950's brainwashing mindset as feared on this site.


----------



## TarfHead (17 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> A lot of baloney about "indoctrination" on here


 
+1

When I read those posts I'm reminded of that scene in Father Ted when a younger Father Jack is terrorising kids with stories of Hell and damnation.

That was parody. This is 2012.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> I normally love reading your posts MrMan but did you give up on this one half way through? I just dont get your reply to Purple.



Purple said *'Religion curtails the development of critical thinking, it stunts the  growth of our ability to think and therefore question with precision.  That’s why I don’t like it.'
*My response was in disagreement with that sentance, because I believe that children tend to question everything, even the existance of God. There then comes a point in time when most get fed up with the lack of real answers and decide to either denounce the idea of God, and others choose to accept that they need to have faith, and the rest just carry on regardless. Being told that there is a God even though there is no tangible proof to back it up does not stunt a childs ability to question or think.

I'm not sure what you don't get about my reply, but if you can be specific then I will try to articulate my point to more effect.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (17 Sep 2012)

I haven't read all the posts here, but just wanted to add my experiance.  My child goes to an Educate Together school, and I was quite surprised last year to find that 66% of her class made their FHC.  I would have expected the percantage to be a lot lower. 

I have only been caught once, asking if someone was making their FHC, and I didn't know what to say.  Since I saw them at mass most Sundays and knew what classes their children were in it seemed like a reasonable question.  Appart from that I wouldn't really ask.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> The whole point of doctrine is that it is unquestionable. The practice of teaching that its correct not to question is the issue. There are not typically more questions than answers in science and that is a naive view of the subject, there are many questions to which we have *not yet* found answers, but that is a different matter to there not being an answer except to accept dogma.
> 
> As far as science goes Ive never heard of anyone being labelled as a conspiracy theorist for questioning scientific breakthroughs - it is wholly encouraged in the scientific world that your results are published, peer reviewed and repeatable before any kind of breakthrough can be announced. In fact, you wouldnt be taken seriously in academia if you didnt ask questions. You would be dismissed as a crackpot if you just questioned published peer reviewed research without something to back it up.
> 
> Can you give some examples of this conspiracy theorist label in relation to scientific breakthrough, as I am not aware of it?



As far as science goes Ive never heard of anyone being labelled as a  conspiracy theorist for questioning scientific breakthroughs - it is  wholly encouraged in the scientific world that your results are  published, peer reviewed and repeatable before any kind of breakthrough  can be announced. In fact, you wouldnt be taken seriously in academia if  you didnt ask questions. You would be dismissed as a crackpot if you  just questioned published peer reviewed research without something to  back it up. 

Can you give some examples of this conspiracy theorist label in relation  to scientific breakthrough, as I am not aware of it?[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been busy looking for a definition of naive that my post fell under.
Science hasn't found all of the answers *yet* - you can't beat blind faith.

You  say that scientific breakthroughs are reviewed and questioned in the  'scientific world', but it's the real world that I'm talking about. Most  people have read about Higgs Boson, medical advancements, discoveries  on Mars etc, but we just turn the page without giving it much further  thought. We accept the press releases, and the footage as being real,  but whose to say that we are receiving all of the information? 

with  regard to conspiracy theorists, we have the Moon landing (was it real),  was AIDS created as population control, Fluoridation to benefit drug  companies.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> Truthseeker - as they might say in an American film - "Is that so wrong?".



There are a number of reasons why I think it is so wrong. I dont like a religion dictating social or medical policy (abortion, symphysiotomy, contraception etc).

Nor do I like children (or adults) being taught dogma about supernatural beings as fact.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been busy looking for a definition of naive that my post fell under.
> Science hasn't found all of the answers *yet* - you can't beat blind faith.



Where is the blind faith? Science will provide answers as more and more becomes known about the world. Will everything ever be known? Probably not, more answers will bring more questions. Will some questions turn out to be the wrong questions? Definitely. Science goes through major paradigm shifts where the entire way of looking at things changes. Its not blind faith to say that science hasnt found all of the answers yet. Its a statement of fact. It probably never will, but there may be a time where all of todays questions are answered, but by then there will be a whole new set of questions built on newer knowledge. There is simply no comparison between scientific advancement and religious dogma and to assume so is naive.



MrMan said:


> You  say that scientific breakthroughs are reviewed and questioned in the  'scientific world', but it's the real world that I'm talking about. Most  people have read about Higgs Boson, medical advancements, discoveries  on Mars etc, but we just turn the page without giving it much further  thought. We accept the press releases, and the footage as being real,  but whose to say that we are receiving all of the information?



Thats quite a paranoid way of viewing scientific advancement. It really depends where you read things. If you are reading the National Enquirer then you could be reading rubbish, but if you are reading National Geographic then its probably true. 



MrMan said:


> with  regard to conspiracy theorists, we have the Moon landing (was it real),  was AIDS created as population control, Fluoridation to benefit drug  companies.



You said originally that if people questioned scientific breakthrough they were labelled as conspiracy theorists. I didnt realise you were referring to uninformed paranoid people spouting ignorant rubbish. 

Im not sure what point you are trying to make, but there is a difference between questioning scientific breakthrough in an informed and educated manner and the above.


----------



## dereko1969 (17 Sep 2012)

blueband said:


> heres the thing i dont get, we live in a catholic country, we send our children to schools run mainly by the catholic chruch, and then some people complain because the catholic faith is thought in these schools!..strange.
> what religon would expect to be thought in a chatolic school???


 
We live, supposedly, in a Republic that should cherish all the people. The State should be educating its people not sub-contracting it out to religious entities.

Religious education should take place outside the school and not be funded by the State.


----------



## Sunny (17 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Where is the blind faith? Science will provide answers as more and more becomes known about the world. Will everything ever be known? Probably not, more answers will bring more questions. Will some questions turn out to be the wrong questions? Definitely. Science goes through major paradigm shifts where the entire way of looking at things changes. Its not blind faith to say that science hasnt found all of the answers yet. Its a statement of fact. It probably never will, but there may be a time where all of todays questions are answered, but by then there will be a whole new set of questions built on newer knowledge. There is simply no comparison between scientific advancement and religious dogma and to assume so is naive.


 
Some of the world's top scientists probably consider themselves spirtitual. Why are they mutually exclusive?


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont like a religion dictating social or medical policy (abortion, symphysiotomy, contraception etc).


 
That has nothing to do with school and making FHC or not, nor are they subjects covered in primary school so no indoctrination of kids into views on those topics. 

Again the days of dictation are long gone. Contraception is readily available, symphysiotomy (AFAIK) was a problem associated with a particular surgeon in a particular hospital, abortion has been voted on by the Irish public on a few occasion and will be once again with all shades of opinion having their views heard. 

So there isnt this all-pervasive malign influence of the CC that is feared. 

Have to say I do agree with the idea of Sunday school and taking it out of primary schools from the point of view of easier choice for all, accomodating kids whose school mighnt be in the parish of their 'home' church, and probably making kids think a bit more about it, together of course with freeing up class time for more worldly matters.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> Some of the world's top scientists probably consider themselves spirtitual. Why are they mutually exclusive?



Im all for spirituality! But not religious dogma.

I personally dont know how someone can marry those two aspects within themselves - some kind of compartmentalisation I suppose, the mind is a fascinating thing.

There is a great story (Im sure Ive posted it here before) from when Carl Sagan met the Dalai Lama:



			
				 Carl Sagan said:
			
		

> …in theological discussions with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative or fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change. Even, I asked, if it’s a really central tenet, like reincarnation? Even then, he answered. However, he added with a twinkle – it’s going to be hard to disprove reincarnation.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> That has nothing to do with school and making FHC or not, nor are they subjects covered in primary school so no indoctrination of kids into views on those topics.



Blueband said the government should provide non catholic schools.
I said there was a vicious circle problem.
You asked me directly was that so wrong.
I said why I thought it was.

Where did I say that any of the above has anything to do with what subjects are covered in school? We were on a side issue that we were brought to from the main thread - but we were not specifically discussing subjects covered in primary school, first communion or indoctrination or did I misunderstand your direct question a couple of posts back?


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> *1*Where is the blind faith? Science  will provide answers as more and more becomes known about the world.  Will everything ever be known? Probably not, more answers will bring  more questions. Will some questions turn out to be the wrong questions?  Definitely. Science goes through major paradigm shifts where the entire  way of looking at things changes. Its not blind faith to say that  science hasnt found all of the answers yet. Its a statement of fact. It  probably never will, but there may be a time where all of todays  questions are answered, but by then there will be a whole new set of  questions built on newer knowledge. There is simply no comparison  between scientific advancement and religious dogma and to assume so is  naive.
> 
> *2*Thats quite a paranoid way of viewing scientific advancement. It  really depends where you read things. If you are reading the National  Enquirer then you could be reading rubbish, but if you are reading  National Geographic then its probably true.
> 
> ...



Your blind faith is when you say  that Science hasn't found all of the answers yet, you saying with  certainty that science will prevail in all its quests, without facts to  back up such bold certainty. why is that so hard to understand?

*1.*  My point that you keep trying to undermine by calling me naive was that  people don't always question scientific announcements and it was in  response to Purples statement about religion stunting the ability to  think. 

*2.* It's a paranoid view! Are you trying to prove my point!

*3.* See above. I mean seriously, paranoid, uninformed, ignorant rubbish. And you think that the Church is dogmatic.


----------



## Teatime (17 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> Have to say I do agree with the idea of Sunday school and taking it out of primary schools from the point of view of easier choice for all, accomodating kids whose school mighnt be in the parish of their 'home' church, and probably making kids think a bit more about it, together of course with freeing up class time for more worldly matters.



My understanding is that the Educate Together schools have an 'Ethics and Religion' subject where they teach kids about the beliefs and background of every major religion. Very healthy idea too rather than being brought up to fear other religions like say Islam.
Anyway, if kids in ET schools want to do communion (or whatever religious ritual), they need to do all the preparation work outside school hours and their parents have to help out or be more involved. Makes a lot of sense.

My guess is that if Catholic parents were given tasks to do outside school hours to help their child through the communion sacrament, the majority would soon drop the idea like a stone! Much easier to buy a dress and rent the bouncy castle or horse drawn carriage.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> Your blind faith is when you say  that Science hasn't found all of the answers yet, you saying with  certainty that science will prevail in all its quests, without facts to  back up such bold certainty. why is that so hard to understand?



I didnt say science will prevail in all its quests?



MrMan said:


> *1.*  My point that you keep trying to undermine by calling me naive was that  people don't always question scientific announcements and it was in  response to Purples statement about religion stunting the ability to  think.



Im not calling you naive. I stated it was a naive view that there were more questions than answers in science. There are as many answers. We may not know the answers but they are there. I am sorry you feel undermined.



MrMan said:


> *2.* It's a paranoid view! Are you trying to prove my point!



You said said that people accept press releases etc but who is to say we are receiving all of the information. That is a paranoid view to take. There is absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else verifying scientific advancements/breakthroughs. You can go to a library or university and request the relevant academic papers to read for yourself. If you really wanted to, you could attend the public talks that go on all the time in various subjects (I myself attended a public talk on the Higgs Boson particle given by the director of Cern recently). 

Would you not agree that claiming you are not being given all the information is a paranoid view when the information is there for anyone who wishes to pursue it? Seriously?



MrMan said:


> *3.* See above. I mean seriously, paranoid, uninformed, ignorant rubbish. And you think that the Church is dogmatic.



I wasnt saying you were uniformed or ignorant - I was saying that people who dismiss science with the conspiracy theories you presented are. Every one of those conspiracy theories can be disproven with fact, research and information. To say (for example) that Aids was created as population control is simply uninformed rubbish.

Im really not clear where you are going with any of this so I will leave it here as its not relevant to the main thread, we seem to have gone off down some weird road where I am defending the worldwide accepted scientific method of inquiry and you are determined to take offence for some reason. I dont see how it relates to anything relevant to the thread.


----------



## Shawady (17 Sep 2012)

terrysgirl33 said:


> I haven't read all the posts here, but just wanted to add my experiance. My child goes to an Educate Together school, and I was quite surprised last year to find that 66% of her class made their FHC. I would have expected the percantage to be a lot lower.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Do you know how often they had to attend religion classes to make their first communion? Was it once a week?
> Do they have to do religion outside of school for the full 8 years or just the year they make communion/confirmation?


----------



## terrysgirl33 (17 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> My understanding is that the Educate Together schools have an 'Ethics and Religion' subject where they teach kids about the beliefs and background of every major religion. Very healthy idea too rather than being brought up to fear other religions like say Islam.
> Anyway, if kids in ET schools want to do communion (or whatever religious ritual), they need to do all the preparation work outside school hours and their parents have to help out or be more involved. Makes a lot of sense.
> 
> My guess is that if Catholic parents were given tasks to do outside school hours to help their child through the communion sacrament, the majority would soon drop the idea like a stone! Much easier to buy a dress and rent the bouncy castle or horse drawn carriage.




This is the situation in our school, and 66% of the children made their FHC.  The classes are once a week for most of the school year, and the kids are expected to attend from half way through Senior Infants to 6th class.  The priest expects them to attend religion classes every year they are available in order to be eligible for the sacraments.

In the FHC and confirmation year the children are expected to attand mass once a month (this is the same in all parishes) as well.


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Sep 2012)

Truthseeker - basically you described 'cultural catholicism' and then made out that it was part of a vicious circle that "dictated" policy on a number of controversial areas and led to children being "taught dogma". 

My point was that dictation is a thing of the distant distant past, and that 'dogma' such as it is as presented to primary school kids wouldnt cover any of the aforementioned topics. So maybe letting your kids slide into cultural catholicism might not be the moral abyss, and that a general slide into cultural catholicism will not lead to the ruination of the country as a 'priest ridden' state.

My parting words, as like Yeats I feel all I can do is emunerate old themes, is that ye must either have gone to very hard line catholic schools or didnt go to such schools but imagine that such schools are the norm. From my 1980's education I can honesty say that what we were taught were 'normal' christian ideas that did some good to those of us who paid heed, nothing sinister, nothing indoctrinating, nothing that stunted our thinking, nothing that left us unable to discern what was right or wrong, & credible or incredible.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> My parting words, as like Yeats I feel all I can do is remunerate old themes, is that ye must either have gone to *very hard line catholic schools* or didnt go to such schools but imagine that such schools are the norm.



I did actually. Beatings were normal. I was once beaten til I lost control of my bladder, then beaten further for being a 'dirty little girl'. I was under 7 at the time. The original beating was because when asked if Id gone to mass the previous Sunday I replied 'no, we were in the pub'. It was the truth but the nun thought I was making fun of mass.

My brother had it even worse in the christian brothers where beatings with a hurl were the norm. He had a stress related medical condition that magically disappeared when we were both changed into non religious orders schools after moving house.


----------



## Shawady (17 Sep 2012)

Anyone know why the sacrements are taken in 2nd and 6th class?
Many adults convert to catholisicm so it mustn't be an absolute requirment to do them so young.
I think it would make more sense for children to do them at an older age when they can understand better.


----------



## MrMan (17 Sep 2012)

*I didnt say science will prevail in all its quests?*

You're right, you said that science didn't have all the answers, yet - which infered that science will produce all the answers. We will agree to disagree as mind mind cant keep up with all the twists in that particular argument.

*Im not calling you naive. I stated it was a naive view that there were  more questions than answers in science. There are as many answers. We  may not know the answers but they are there. I am sorry you feel  undermined.*

Ok, I sjhouldn't have risen to the bait and I won't again this time. This notion that there are as many answers  as there are questions again points to your belief that science will always provide facts; when you cannot say that with any authority.
*
You said said that people accept press releases etc but who is to say we  are receiving all of the information. That is a paranoid view to take.  There is absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else verifying  scientific advancements/breakthroughs. You can go to a library or  university and request the relevant academic papers to read for  yourself. If you really wanted to, you could attend the public talks  that go on all the time in various subjects (I myself attended a public  talk on the Higgs Boson particle given by the director of Cern  recently). 

Would you not agree that claiming you are not being given all the  information is a paranoid view when the information is there for anyone  who wishes to pursue it? Seriously?* 

I initially said that those who disagreed with scientific findings were considered crackpots etc, and now your retort is that you must be paranoid if you don't accept that the information given to the public is all there is to a story!
I couldn't care less about higgs boson etc, but if I did why should I have to accept the writte word of the science brethern? Can you not see the parralells with having to just accept the word as written or be chastised for questioning it?


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2012)

@MrMan - if you do not wish to accept the word of experts in a subject you are more than entitled to go and educate yourself in the subject and do your own investigations and come to your own conclusions, publish your results and await the peer reviewing.

I feel ridiculous defending a widely accepted view of scientific inquiry and explaining why it differs from religious dogma. Its self evident to me.


----------



## MrMan (18 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> @MrMan - if you do not wish to accept the word of experts in a subject you are more than entitled to go and educate yourself in the subject and do your own investigations and come to your own conclusions, publish your results and await the peer reviewing.
> 
> I feel ridiculous defending a widely accepted view of scientific inquiry and explaining why it differs from religious dogma. Its self evident to me.



It might take awhile to educate myself on everything, sure only God knows everything. I'm not comparing scientific evidence with religious dogma, I'm merely saying that the assertion that one must accept scientific evidence is akin to ........ I'm weary, I either can't articulate my point, or you can't comprehend it, either way there is never going to be a conclusion to this. 

I'm actually not a bible basher, I just feel that the arguments against faith are often patronising and snide, and I feel the need the counter the often dismissive nature of the comments. This has lead to a debate that I can't even remember the start of, and like a lot of debates on AAM, the gist of each comment is often missed or ignored.


----------



## Teatime (18 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> My parting words, as like Yeats I feel all I can do is emunerate old themes, is that ye must either have gone to very hard line catholic schools or didnt go to such schools but imagine that such schools are the norm. From my 1980's education I can honesty say that what we were taught were 'normal' christian ideas that did some good to those of us who paid heed, nothing sinister, nothing indoctrinating, nothing that stunted our thinking, nothing that left us unable to discern what was right or wrong, & credible or incredible.



I went to a CBS in 1970s and 1980s and I do feel that I was made to feel guilty and bad. Especially around confession time. We were certainly afraid to question or even discuss any aspect of religion for fear of the 'leather'. It wasn't healthy. There were 2 brothers abusing children too, I think people knew at the time (we knew) but nothing was done until long after I left.

Things are different now but I still don't think kids need to be taught rubbish like original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins etc.


----------



## Sunny (18 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> I went to a CBS in 1970s and 1980s and I do feel that I was made to feel guilty and bad. Especially around confession time. We were certainly afraid to question or even discuss any aspect of religion for fear of the 'leather'. It wasn't healthy. There were 2 brothers abusing children too, I think people knew at the time (we knew) but nothing was done until long after I left.
> 
> Things are different now but I still don't think kids need to be taught rubbish like original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins etc.


 
I think you will find that they don't teach any of those things. Here is the leaving cert syllabus. Hardly brainwashing.

[broken link removed]

And as can be seen they deal with the Religions V Science debate in a very sensible manner. They don't call scientists evil and indeed a large part of the syllabus is teaching Children to question and critically analyse.


----------



## Teatime (18 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> I think you will find that they don't teach any of those things. Here is the leaving cert syllabus. Hardly brainwashing.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> And as can be seen they deal with the Religions V Science debate in a very sensible manner. They don't call scientists evil and indeed a large part of the syllabus is teaching Children to question and critically analyse.



Are you saying that children will finish 13 years of religion (primary + secondary) classes and never have heard of any of these concepts: original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins??


----------



## Betsy Og (18 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> Are you saying that children will finish 13 years of religion (primary + secondary) classes and never have heard of any of these concepts: original sin [FIANNA FAIL], hell [BANK SHAREHOLDERS], purgatory [THE COPING CLASSES], eternal damnation[NEGATIVE EQUITY], mortal sins[SEANIE FITZ]??


 
Sure look, arent the papers full of them every day (see above), do we really need to prove the derivation of the theory!!!


----------



## Sunny (18 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> Are you saying that children will finish 13 years of religion (primary + secondary) classes and never have heard of any of these concepts: original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins??



They might hear of them but they are not taught to live in fear of them. Do you think lay teachers spend their time scaring 7 year old kids with stories about eternal damnation in hell? And teenagers would simply laugh if they were told about it.


----------



## Teatime (18 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> I think you will find that they don't teach any of those things.


 
So this statement was a mistake then? 

In my opinion discussing/teaching any of the concepts I mentioned ("original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins") isn't healthy no matter how you spin it or at what age but as you say they can just laugh them off...so thats alright then...


----------



## Sunny (19 Sep 2012)

Teatime said:


> So this statement was a mistake then?
> 
> In my opinion discussing/teaching any of the concepts I mentioned ("original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins") isn't healthy no matter how you spin it or at what age but as you say they can just laugh them off...so thats alright then...



I don't even know if they do teach or discuss them. Do you? I said they would probably hear the terms just like they hear terms like rape, murder or Islamic terrorist. Or are you saying that kids should grow up with a limited vocabulary to protect them from the scary stuff?


----------



## truthseeker (19 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> I said they would probably hear the terms just like they hear terms like rape, murder or Islamic terrorist.



I know I heard and had explained all the terms like limbo (gone now), original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, venial sins (are they still about?) and mortal sins. 

I dont think giving explaining the meaning of these things to a child is wrong at all. But presenting them as though they are real is wrong. Up to the age of first communion when I was going to be absolved of my sins I was terrified of ending up in purgatory actually, we had it drummed into us how awful it was.

Confession was another disgraceful thing to put a child through. To be sent into a small dark place with an old man and have to confess to sins. What sins did any of us have as children? I used to make them up - Im sure everyone did. "I was bold in school, I spoke back to my mammy, I coveted a doll my friend has". Perfectly ordinary children made to feel guilty over nothing. From a mental health perspective it cant be right.


----------



## Teatime (19 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> I don't even know if they do teach or discuss them. Do you? I said they would probably hear the terms just like they hear terms like rape, murder or Islamic terrorist. Or are you saying that kids should grow up with a limited vocabulary to protect them from the scary stuff?



C'mon you're being silly now and making us go in circles. You said quite smugly "*I think you will find that they don't teach any of those things*". I maintain that it would be difficult to have 13 years of religion without any of these concepts coming up in religion class ("original sin, hell, purgatory, eternal damnation, mortal sins").


----------



## Teatime (19 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Perfectly ordinary children made to feel guilty over nothing. From a mental health perspective it cant be right.



Completely agree Truthseeker. I was trying to make this point to Sunny. There are so many other positive things we could teach our kids.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Sep 2012)

Birroc said:


> Why does everyone automatically assume that a child will be doing communion when they go into 2nd class?



Folks

This is the original topic. Please stick to this topic. Start a new thread for other issues.

Brendan


----------

