2nd class & Communion - still a given?

+1 thats a very good post.
 

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?
 

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.
 
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.
 
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???
 
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.
 
i agree, but its the job of the government to provide such schools if they feel there is enough demand for them.
 
blueband said:
i agree, but its the job of the government to provide such schools if they feel there is enough demand for them.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
Betsy Og said:
A lot of baloney about "indoctrination" on here
Click to expand...

+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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
Betsy Og said:
Truthseeker - as they might say in an American film - "Is that so wrong?".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

Some of the world's top scientists probably consider themselves spirtitual. Why are they mutually exclusive?
 
truthseeker said:
I dont like a religion dictating social or medical policy (abortion, symphysiotomy, contraception etc).
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register