| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Religious meetings at the Natural Cafe | |
| Posted by: | Alan Duffy | |
| Date/Time: | 30/05/07 09:58:00 |
| I don't intend to patronise but obviously if someone fails to understand your point initially you have to explain it again more simply. Obviously I wasn't comparing Julie Matcham to a balaclava wearing provo or a bowler hatted Orangeman. The point was that her rhetorical style (and less so Lucille Grant's) and total inability to see another point of view were reminiscent of the way these people operate. The casually offensive use of provocative terminology and phrase combined with the mouthing of platitudes are common to both. She says "I don't go around trying to convince people of my views on religion knowing I may offend". Trying to read through the mangled sentence structure I presume she is telling us it isn't her intention to offend people. This either means she does really understand the real meaning of the phrase 'brain-washing' or she is being duplicitous. This is obviously a deeply offensive term to use not just to parents and teachers but also the children themselves. To any one with a basic understanding of children the idea that you can brainwash the current generation is laughable. They are subject to so many different streams of information that to try and make them think in a particular way is impossible. I've outlined my personal experience in this regard and yet she continues with this mantra. Like the Orangeman and the Provo the mind closes when prejudices are challenged. The apparently rational question about telling little children unproven stories is laden with dangerous possibilites. Parents tell their children what they believe and although this may not be your truth or mine it would be an abomination if we tried to interfere in the passing on of belief and values between generations. For people with religious faith there is no clear divide between their belief and their values so to say that the state should take responsibility for one and parents for the other reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Perhaps the best way to make you understand this point is to turn the tables and ask how would we feel if the Church said that we were brainwashing our kids with our faithless ideas and they should take responsibility for their education to protect them. |