The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning
James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they
have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning
James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they
have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life
is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one
side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily representative of an entire religion.
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken
off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If
that was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't
think they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long
video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped
views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish
and at Shabbat school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught
that one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs
are cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are being taught
such hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then they will always be able to justify death and
cruelty, and it does indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps
that we only ever hear one side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers
of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't
necessarily representative of an entire religion.
On 23 Jul 2025 at 10:08:51 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning
James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they
have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not
just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life
is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one
side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
If it is true it is not an appalling antisemitic incident. But I still think that it was an unwise anecdote to publish in the present situation. I really doubt if it is a majority view among British Jews in general and it just panders to very real antisemitic forces. In fact it also tends to enable very valid criticism of Israeli policy to be easily dismissed as antisemitism.
So I think it was self-indulgent and unhelpful to tell the story now.
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning James O'Brien
and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and Israel, and are demanding that
James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that was true, maybe
it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they have quoted the offending
remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
"And of course it's not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford - 'I'm loving the show' -
thank you, Chris - 'and the high quality of callers today, but I do think it's worth
saying that these warped views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up
Jewish and at Shabbat school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one
Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and dehumanisation,
undoubtedly on both sides' - as Chris points out - 'then they will always be able to
justify death and cruelty, and it does indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps
that we only ever hear one side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes'."
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent school she was
taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of Christ. Things are said by
ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily representative of an entire religion.
On 23/07/2025 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 10:08:51 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning >>>> James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they >>>> have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video. >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not >>> just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life >>> is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one >>> side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
If it is true it is not an appalling antisemitic incident. But I still think >> that it was an unwise anecdote to publish in the present situation. I really >> doubt if it is a majority view among British Jews in general and it just
panders to very real antisemitic forces. In fact it also tends to enable very
valid criticism of Israeli policy to be easily dismissed as antisemitism.
So I think it was self-indulgent and unhelpful to tell the story now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ZoPA0-Hjc
On a live radio show, the presenter has to make decisions all the time
about whether to allow comments from listeners, many of those comments
being very pro-Israel, some of them being pro-Hamas (which O'Brien
swiftly condemned very forcefully and I think rightly) and it seems that
in quoting the message from Chris and not knowing that there was no such thing as a Shabbas School, he allowed an offensive slur against,
presumably, one anonymous Jewish school.
I don't know what he said immediately after the anecdote but he should
have said that it is just one anecdote, possibly unreliable and probably
not representative of the British Jewish community.
The pro-Israel lobby will seize on this as proof that the entire two
hours of O'Brien's show can be disregarded as part of an antisemitic and anti-Israel propaganda exercise. Manna from heaven.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken
off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If
that was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't
think they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long
video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of
callers today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped
views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish
and at Shabbat school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught
that one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs
are cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are being taught
such hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris
points out – ‘then they will always be able to justify death and
cruelty, and it does indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps
that we only ever hear one side of the dehumanisation and propaganda
processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers
of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't
necessarily representative of an entire religion.
A more comprehensive report here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/23/james-obrien-lbc-israel-caller-zionism/
On 23/07/2025 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Jul 2025 at 10:08:51 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning >>>> James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they >>>> have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video. >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not >>> just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life >>> is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one >>> side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
If it is true it is not an appalling antisemitic incident. But I
still think that it was an unwise anecdote to publish in the present
situation. I really doubt if it is a majority view among British Jews
in general and it just panders to very real antisemitic forces. In
fact it also tends to enable very valid criticism of Israeli policy
to be easily dismissed as antisemitism.
So I think it was self-indulgent and unhelpful to tell the story now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ZoPA0-Hjc
On a live radio show, the presenter has to make decisions all the time
about whether to allow comments from listeners, many of those comments
being very pro-Israel, some of them being pro-Hamas (which O'Brien
swiftly condemned very forcefully and I think rightly) and it seems that
in quoting the message from Chris and not knowing that there was no such thing as a Shabbas School, he allowed an offensive slur against,
presumably, one anonymous Jewish school.
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning
James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they
have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off
the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think
they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life
is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one
side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily representative of an entire religion.
On 2025-07-23, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken
off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If
that was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't
think they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long
video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of
callers today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped
views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish
and at Shabbat school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught
that one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs
are cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are being taught
such hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris >>> points out – ‘then they will always be able to justify death and
cruelty, and it does indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps
that we only ever hear one side of the dehumanisation and propaganda
processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers
of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't
necessarily representative of an entire religion.
A more comprehensive report here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/23/james-obrien-lbc-israel-caller-zionism/
I'd take that report with a large pinch of salt, because it says:
"My wife was brought up Jewish and at shabbat school in a leafy
Hertfordshire town..." his message continued. Let's press pause
again there.
For one thing, it just sounded phony. "My wife was brought up
Jewish"? Yeah, right. But the mention of a "shabbat school" was
hilarious. There is, of course, no such thing. Jews do not go to
school on the sabbath.
There most certainly is a thing which could be described as "shabbat
school". It's presumably the Jewish equivalent of "Sunday School",
and takes place at the synagogue, a place Jews certainly do go to on
the sabbath.
I have no idea what happens at these lessons, of course, but it looks
to me like the Telegraph article is not written in good faith.
Examples:
https://www.westminstersynagogue.org/or-shabbat.html https://synagogue.org.uk/services/kikar-kids/ http://www.ealingliberalsynagogue.org.uk/education.html https://heichalleah.co.uk/shabbat-for-kids/
On 23/07/2025 10:08 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off
the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think
they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-
about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not
just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life
is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one
side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Whatever she said, she was NOT taught that at a Catholic school.
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
What I find hard to believe is that an experienced broadcaster and his production staff were taken in by such an obvious fiction. This raises
the far more interesting possibility that, even though they knew or
suspected it was a lie, they broadcast it anyway.
How could they have known it was a lie? Well, for a start, is it really likely that a school in the UK would teach that Arabs are cockroaches
etc? More to the point, if that did happen, is it likely that the first they'd hear about it would be an anonymous message sent by 'Chris'.
Somebody would have been bound to have spilled the beans sooner or later.
Besides that, nearly all the references to "shabbat school" on Google
and Bing refer to Christian establishments - mostly Seventh Day Adventists.
The broadcaster and his producer are shrewd guys. Are we really supposed
to believe they didn't know exactly what they were doing?
As to motivation, maybe it's something to do with listening figures? According to Guido Fawkes, O'Brien was in a neck and neck competition
with Nick Ferrari (with Ferrari gaining a slight lead).
https://order-order.com/2024/02/01/obrien-falls-behind-ferrari-as-gb- news-surges/
Perhaps, Hanlon's razor ought to be applied ...
On 23/07/2025 12:40, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:08 AM, The Todal wrote:What a presumptuous comment for you to make.
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off >>>> the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think
they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video. >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-
about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not >>> just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life >>> is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one >>> side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Whatever she said, she was NOT taught that at a Catholic school.
She was at a convent school.
She remembers what the nuns said to her.
Were you there? At
every convent school? Why are you so assiduous in defending the
reputation of a handful of batty, bigoted old nuns who should never have
been employed as teachers?
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 23/07/2025 12:40, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:08 AM, The Todal wrote:What a presumptuous comment for you to make.
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off >>>>> the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that >>>>> was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think
they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long
video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-
about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not >>>> just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish
life
is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be >>>> crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – >>>> ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear
one
side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Whatever she said, she was NOT taught that at a Catholic school.
Not in the slightest.
She was at a convent school.
I too was at a Catholic schools (more than one, at various ages).
She remembers what the nuns said to her.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) said
to all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said, by
someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Were you there? At
every convent school? Why are you so assiduous in defending the
reputation of a handful of batty, bigoted old nuns who should never have
been employed as teachers?
LOL!
Not that you're prejudiced or anything!
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) said to all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
On 23/07/2025 in message <105qar9$9dic$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
The Jewish Education Project says:
The Shabbat School Experience allows learners to experience Shabbat in a variety of ways: a monthly Friday night experience; a monthly Shabbat
morning with families; and two Shabbatot during which children learn
Torah through different lenses such as art and nature.
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
Just to be clear, you have no way of knowing that it is a lie, so it is futile to call it a lie.
It might be a bigoted comment from one teacher, or school employee. It
might be an inaccurate recollection of a conversation. It certainly
might not be true, but to call it a "lie" implies a deliberate invention designed to defame Jews. Which I find implausible.
What I find hard to believe is that an experienced broadcaster and his
production staff were taken in by such an obvious fiction. This raises
the far more interesting possibility that, even though they knew or
suspected it was a lie, they broadcast it anyway.
How much thought did the presenter and his producer give to this text
(or email) before quoting it? I'd guess no more than half a minute.
Which was probably remiss of them, but excusable.
How could they have known it was a lie? Well, for a start, is it
really likely that a school in the UK would teach that Arabs are
cockroaches etc? More to the point, if that did happen, is it likely
that the first they'd hear about it would be an anonymous message sent
by 'Chris'. Somebody would have been bound to have spilled the beans
sooner or later.
I think it was in effect an invitation to other people, Jews, to
contribute to the debate either by confirming the story or by rebutting
it. But I doubt if anyone did so.
Besides that, nearly all the references to "shabbat school" on Google
and Bing refer to Christian establishments - mostly Seventh Day
Adventists.
The broadcaster and his producer are shrewd guys. Are we really
supposed to believe they didn't know exactly what they were doing?
Am I supposed to understand what you are alleging? Are you suggesting a devious plot to defame British Jews?
Or are you willing to consider a
momentary lapse in editorial standards, which, one could argue, is
trivial when looking at the bigger picture. The point made by Chris,
whoever he is, was that both sides (presumably Jews and Arabs/
Palestinians) are encouraged by their culture to regard the other side
as inhuman and unworthy of respect. It's a fair point, even if the
anecdote was dubious.
As to motivation, maybe it's something to do with listening figures?
According to Guido Fawkes, O'Brien was in a neck and neck competition
with Nick Ferrari (with Ferrari gaining a slight lead).
https://order-order.com/2024/02/01/obrien-falls-behind-ferrari-as-gb-
news-surges/
Perhaps, Hanlon's razor ought to be applied ...
Perhaps that's the least plausible explanation, unworthy of serious consideration.
On 23 Jul 2025 at 10:08:51 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Bloody Catholics, breed like rabbits. At least, that's what I was toldReminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ.
On 23/07/2025 10:43, billy bookcase wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
I've never come across this, in practice.
Jeff Gaines wrote:The page (created in 2017) has been deleted some time since 21/01/2025,
The Jewish Education Project says:
The Shabbat School Experience allows learners to experience Shabbat in
a variety of ways: a monthly Friday night experience; a monthly
Shabbat morning with families; and two Shabbatot during which children
learn Torah through different lenses such as art and nature.
That doesn't seem to be on their website. Do you have a link?
On 23/07/2025 12:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/07/2025 in message <105qar9$9dic$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
The Jewish Education Project says:
The Shabbat School Experience allows learners to experience Shabbat in a >>variety of ways: a monthly Friday night experience; a monthly Shabbat >>morning with families; and two Shabbatot during which children learn
Torah through different lenses such as art and nature.
That doesn't seem to be on their website. Do you have a link?
On 23/07/2025 12:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/07/2025 in message <105qar9$9dic$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
The Jewish Education Project says:
The Shabbat School Experience allows learners to experience Shabbat in a >>variety of ways: a monthly Friday night experience; a monthly Shabbat >>morning with families; and two Shabbatot during which children learn
Torah through different lenses such as art and nature.
That doesn't seem to be on their website. Do you have a link?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >representative of an entire religion.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:38:58 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message >>news:mec7t5Fq8roU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>>> representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) said to >>> all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a >>belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against >>Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians
who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a >>platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration
known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for Jesus's >>crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finally
renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
That was not a change in teraching teaching, it was simply a
clarification of existing teaching that *all mankind* were responsible
fo Christ's suffering and death. From the Catechism of the Council of
Trent, published in 1566:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:105rfeh$e6sk$3@dont-email.me...
On 23/07/2025 10:43, billy bookcase wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
I've never come across this, in practice.
While the relevant "Jewish Education Project" pages seem to have been
taken down.....the quoted passage featured elsewhere remains
available on Google
There are however plenty of links to other Shabbat Schools on Google;
linking to live pages
Just Google "Shabbat School"; they are further down the page
Given that a proportion of unorthodox Jewish children must go to secular
or Christian denominational schools - Michael Winner went to a Quaker
School until he was expelled - I would have thought there would certainly
be a demand for such a facility. Not that MW attended one AFAIR
although maybe the late Guardian columnist Michele Hansen, did.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
On 23/07/2025 13:22, The Todal wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
Just to be clear, you have no way of knowing that it is a lie, so it
is futile to call it a lie.
It might be a bigoted comment from one teacher, or school employee. It
might be an inaccurate recollection of a conversation. It certainly
might not be true, but to call it a "lie" implies a deliberate
invention designed to defame Jews. Which I find implausible.
Okay, perhaps this anonymous "Chris" was simply mistaken.
What I find hard to believe is that an experienced broadcaster and
his production staff were taken in by such an obvious fiction. This
raises the far more interesting possibility that, even though they
knew or suspected it was a lie, they broadcast it anyway.
How much thought did the presenter and his producer give to this text
(or email) before quoting it? I'd guess no more than half a minute.
Which was probably remiss of them, but excusable.
You are very forgiving, all of a sudden. You must be having a good day. :)
How could they have known it was a lie? Well, for a start, is it
really likely that a school in the UK would teach that Arabs are
cockroaches etc? More to the point, if that did happen, is it likely
that the first they'd hear about it would be an anonymous message
sent by 'Chris'. Somebody would have been bound to have spilled the
beans sooner or later.
I think it was in effect an invitation to other people, Jews, to
contribute to the debate either by confirming the story or by
rebutting it. But I doubt if anyone did so.
Are you really saying it's okay to broadcast obvious untruths (see, I've taken it on board that maybe "Chris" was not malicious), because that stimulates debate?
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are contemptible.
On 23/07/2025 23:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:105rfeh$e6sk$3@dont-email.me...
On 23/07/2025 10:43, billy bookcase wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday;
for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
I've never come across this, in practice.
While the relevant "Jewish Education Project" pages seem to have been
taken down.....the quoted passage featured elsewhere remains
available on Google
That website belongs to the Jewish Reconstructionist movement, which is
a somewhat obscure branch (twig?) off the US Conservative Jewish
movement. They don't exist in the UK, let alone in leafy Hertfordshire
as 'Chris' maintained.
There are however plenty of links to other Shabbat Schools on Google;
linking to live pages
Just Google "Shabbat School"; they are further down the page
Given that a proportion of unorthodox Jewish children must go to secular
or Christian denominational schools - Michael Winner went to a Quaker
School until he was expelled - I would have thought there would certainly
be a demand for such a facility. Not that MW attended one AFAIR
although maybe the late Guardian columnist Michele Hansen, did.
There is a demand for Jewish education for the many Jewish kids who go
to secular schools. But, it is universally done on a Sunday in this
country, not the sabbath.
On 24/07/2025 11:43, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their
faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
There you go again. It didn't happen to you and therefore it didn't
happen to anyone.
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful
person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying.
There are people (theists) who believe (or claim to believe) in
palpable nonsense.
Nothing they say /should/ be relevant, but they often have power
and wealth.
On 2025-07-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 23:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:105rfeh$e6sk$3@dont-email.me...
On 23/07/2025 10:43, billy bookcase wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday; >>>>> for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
I've never come across this, in practice.
While the relevant "Jewish Education Project" pages seem to have been
taken down.....the quoted passage featured elsewhere remains
available on Google
That website belongs to the Jewish Reconstructionist movement, which is
a somewhat obscure branch (twig?) off the US Conservative Jewish
movement. They don't exist in the UK, let alone in leafy Hertfordshire
as 'Chris' maintained.
There are however plenty of links to other Shabbat Schools on Google;
linking to live pages
Just Google "Shabbat School"; they are further down the page
Given that a proportion of unorthodox Jewish children must go to secular >>> or Christian denominational schools - Michael Winner went to a Quaker
School until he was expelled - I would have thought there would certainly >>> be a demand for such a facility. Not that MW attended one AFAIR
although maybe the late Guardian columnist Michele Hansen, did.
There is a demand for Jewish education for the many Jewish kids who go
to secular schools. But, it is universally done on a Sunday in this
country, not the sabbath.
Try looking at my post in this thread from yesterday at 11:02:26 where
I listed four examples of what could be reasonably described as "Shabbat Schools" in this country.
The idea that the letter from "Chris" is inherently implausible because describing someone as being "brought up Jewish" is ridiculous or that
there are not and never were any things that could be described as
"Shabbat Schools" is clearly false, so I don't know why The Telegraph
decided to attack O'Brien on that basis, except inasmuch as that paper
no longer appears to concern itself with logic, reason, or reality.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
Mark
On 2025-07-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 23:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:105rfeh$e6sk$3@dont-email.me...
On 23/07/2025 10:43, billy bookcase wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday; >>>>> for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
I've never come across this, in practice.
While the relevant "Jewish Education Project" pages seem to have been
taken down.....the quoted passage featured elsewhere remains
available on Google
That website belongs to the Jewish Reconstructionist movement, which is
a somewhat obscure branch (twig?) off the US Conservative Jewish
movement. They don't exist in the UK, let alone in leafy Hertfordshire
as 'Chris' maintained.
There are however plenty of links to other Shabbat Schools on Google;
linking to live pages
Just Google "Shabbat School"; they are further down the page
Given that a proportion of unorthodox Jewish children must go to secular >>> or Christian denominational schools - Michael Winner went to a Quaker
School until he was expelled - I would have thought there would certainly >>> be a demand for such a facility. Not that MW attended one AFAIR
although maybe the late Guardian columnist Michele Hansen, did.
There is a demand for Jewish education for the many Jewish kids who go
to secular schools. But, it is universally done on a Sunday in this
country, not the sabbath.
Try looking at my post in this thread from yesterday at 11:02:26 where
I listed four examples of what could be reasonably described as "Shabbat Schools" in this country.
The idea that the letter from "Chris" is inherently implausible because describing someone as being "brought up Jewish" is ridiculous or that
there are not and never were any things that could be described as
"Shabbat Schools" is clearly false, so I don't know why The Telegraph
decided to attack O'Brien on that basis, except inasmuch as that paper
no longer appears to concern itself with logic, reason, or reality.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:49:27 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:dip38k54crh9e0nd0b3hv7vvtab28llq9u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:38:58 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:mec7t5Fq8roU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>>>>> representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) said to
all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a >>>>belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against >>>>Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians >>>>who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a >>>>platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration >>>>known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for Jesus's >>>>crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finally
renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
That was not a change in teraching teaching, it was simply a
clarification of existing teaching that *all mankind* were responsible
fo Christ's suffering and death. From the Catechism of the Council of
Trent, published in 1566:
snippage
But only made 20 years after the Holocaust* I note; rather than say in the >>1930's.
So either its all just a bit of a coincidence; or simply a very unfortunate >>case of bad timing.
If you are referring to "Nostra Aetate", then I would suggest that
there was nothing coincidental about it; so much rubbish had been
promulgated about the Catholic Church's attitude to the Jews that the
Pope felt a need to remind people of the *actual* attitude.
Steel toecapped boots are to be recommended.
On 23/07/2025 20:52, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:22, The Todal wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
Just to be clear, you have no way of knowing that it is a lie, so it
is futile to call it a lie.
It might be a bigoted comment from one teacher, or school employee.
It might be an inaccurate recollection of a conversation. It
certainly might not be true, but to call it a "lie" implies a
deliberate invention designed to defame Jews. Which I find implausible.
Okay, perhaps this anonymous "Chris" was simply mistaken.
What I find hard to believe is that an experienced broadcaster and
his production staff were taken in by such an obvious fiction. This
raises the far more interesting possibility that, even though they
knew or suspected it was a lie, they broadcast it anyway.
How much thought did the presenter and his producer give to this text
(or email) before quoting it? I'd guess no more than half a minute.
Which was probably remiss of them, but excusable.
You are very forgiving, all of a sudden. You must be having a good
day. :)
I don't think I am particularly forgiving in general. But I admire the
James O'Brien episode on the day in question for its thoughtful and well argued approach to the slaughter in Gaza, and I think it sly and devious
of the Board of Deputies and the Campaign Against Antisemitism to seize
upon one error, magnify it enormously and ignore all the rest of the
points made in the broadcast.
How could they have known it was a lie? Well, for a start, is it
really likely that a school in the UK would teach that Arabs are
cockroaches etc? More to the point, if that did happen, is it likely
that the first they'd hear about it would be an anonymous message
sent by 'Chris'. Somebody would have been bound to have spilled the
beans sooner or later.
I think it was in effect an invitation to other people, Jews, to
contribute to the debate either by confirming the story or by
rebutting it. But I doubt if anyone did so.
Are you really saying it's okay to broadcast obvious untruths (see,
I've taken it on board that maybe "Chris" was not malicious), because
that stimulates debate?
Why do you say "obvious untruths" when it might have been a genuine and accurate anecdote?
If you were satisfied that Chris's anecdote was an accurate one, would
you say that such anecdotes must be suppressed and kept secret for fear
of encouraging antisemitism in the nation?
And would you say that one remark about Arabs being scum, unworthy of
respect (and I did hear it from Jewish friends in my school, probably retailing what their parents had told them) would make the nation
dislike all British Jews and attribute such attitudes to all British Jews?
The best way to respond to the anecdote is to issue statements in
support of Arabs (as they are called by many Jews) or Palestinians,
showing that the Board of Deputies does respect them and their valid grievances. But I think they prefer not to adopt that option. Blood
libel! Heads must roll! Pogrom imminent! Pack your suitcases!
On 24/07/2025 11:43, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their
faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
There you go again. It didn't happen to you and therefore it didn't
happen to anyone.
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful
person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying.
On 24/07/2025 11:57, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 23:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:105rfeh$e6sk$3@dont-email.me...
On 23/07/2025 10:43, billy bookcase wrote:
* Presumably the equivalent of Sunday School except held on Saturday; >>>>>> for the benefit of children attending secular schools.
I've never come across this, in practice.
While the relevant "Jewish Education Project" pages seem to have been
taken down.....the quoted passage featured elsewhere remains
available on Google
That website belongs to the Jewish Reconstructionist movement, which is
a somewhat obscure branch (twig?) off the US Conservative Jewish
movement. They don't exist in the UK, let alone in leafy Hertfordshire
as 'Chris' maintained.
There are however plenty of links to other Shabbat Schools on Google;
linking to live pages
Just Google "Shabbat School"; they are further down the page
Given that a proportion of unorthodox Jewish children must go to secular >>>> or Christian denominational schools - Michael Winner went to a Quaker
School until he was expelled - I would have thought there would certainly >>>> be a demand for such a facility. Not that MW attended one AFAIR
although maybe the late Guardian columnist Michele Hansen, did.
There is a demand for Jewish education for the many Jewish kids who go
to secular schools. But, it is universally done on a Sunday in this
country, not the sabbath.
Try looking at my post in this thread from yesterday at 11:02:26 where
I listed four examples of what could be reasonably described as "Shabbat
Schools" in this country.
The idea that the letter from "Chris" is inherently implausible because
describing someone as being "brought up Jewish" is ridiculous or that
there are not and never were any things that could be described as
"Shabbat Schools" is clearly false, so I don't know why The Telegraph
decided to attack O'Brien on that basis, except inasmuch as that paper
no longer appears to concern itself with logic, reason, or reality.
I don't see anything wrong with the phrase 'brought up Jewish'. It's not something I'd say, but I can imagine some people might say it, and I
think I know very roughly what they would mean by it!
You gave some examples of 'shabbat schools' in the post you referred to.
Examples:
https://www.westminstersynagogue.org/or-shabbat.html https://synagogue.org.uk/services/kikar-kids/ http://www.ealingliberalsynagogue.org.uk/education.html https://heichalleah.co.uk/shabbat-for-kids/
Most of those are just separate services for the kids, with extra explanations, discussions, etc. Most synagogues have those, but they
wouldn't be called school at all. (Probably, the only ones that don't
have a children's service are some of the ageing congregations, where
there aren't enough kids, or grandkids, to make it worthwhile.)
On 24/07/2025 11:47, The Todal wrote:
On 24/07/2025 11:43, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the
murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>> representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the >>>> things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of
their faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people
are contemptible.
There you go again. It didn't happen to you and therefore it didn't
happen to anyone.
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful
person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying.
I still remember my English teacher (an Irishman, called Good) saying
"Using a condom is like washing your feet with your socks on.".
I don't think it was part of the curriculum.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning
James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they
have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:47:05 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 24/07/2025 11:43, JNugent wrote:
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>> representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the >>>> things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their
faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
There you go again. It didn't happen to you and therefore it didn't
happen to anyone.
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful
person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying.
I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement condemning >>James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza conflict and
Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that was >>true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think they have >>quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – >‘I’m loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high
quality of callers today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these >warped views are not just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up
Jewish and at Shabbat school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught >that one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are >cockroaches to be crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such
hatred and dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris
points out – ‘then they will always be able to justify death and
cruelty, and it does indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we >only ever hear one side of the dehumanisation and propaganda
processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent school
she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of Christ. >Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
My point is that the question is not "do synagogues frequently hold
sessions on Saturday mornings which they call 'Shabbat School'?",
it is "is it plausible that this non-Jewish person's wife remembers
going to Saturday morning religious educational sessions at the
synagogue as a child, which either she or he therefore describes,
many years later, as 'Shabbat School'?" and the obvious answer is
"yes, it is entirely plausible".
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
life experience.
The issue is that rather than condemning the event where a teacher has
said, "one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs
are cockroaches to be crushed" the act of reporting is condemned instead.
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
life experience.
The issue is that rather than condemning the event where a teacher has
said, "one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs
are cockroaches to be crushed" the act of reporting is condemned instead.
I presume it may have been an isolated event/incident but it's more
telling that no deputy has criticised the teaching itself as being
untrue even if it might have been said at a shabbat school.
It's a bit like a Catholic saying that their church is above reproach
and call anyone bringing claim of paedophilia or abuse to priests and
nuns; liars.
This just appeared on Facebook:
!In a tense phone call this morning, Israel's Ambassador to the US
Yechiel Leiter urged Minister Eliyahu to retract his statements "The government is rushing to erase Gaza,
and thank God we are erasing this evil. All of Gaza will be Jewish"
saying, "They harm our relations with supporters in the White House, Congress, the Senate, and Christian communities in the US.""
It seems the sentiment exists even if the actual wording is a bit different.
Op 24/07/2025 om 10:43 schreef Mark Goodge:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
Which church? Because the Catholic Church hasn't been antisemitic for ages.
On 24/07/2025 19:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My point is that the question is not "do synagogues frequently hold
sessions on Saturday mornings which they call 'Shabbat School'?",
it is "is it plausible that this non-Jewish person's wife remembers
going to Saturday morning religious educational sessions at the
synagogue as a child, which either she or he therefore describes,
many years later, as 'Shabbat School'?" and the obvious answer is
"yes, it is entirely plausible".
How does 'entirely plausible' differ from 'plausible'? 'Shabbat school'
is very unusual, but I agree you've made your point.
When I was at school, the woodwork teacher once said "Be careful with
that wood, boy. It doesn't grow on trees, you know." I remember that
because, well, you would, wouldn't you.
I think I'd remember if a teacher had ever said anything as obnoxious
as Chris claims. So, if it's true, why has nobody come forward to
corroborate his story? Not even his wife?
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their >faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are >contemptible.
On 2025-07-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 19:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My point is that the question is not "do synagogues frequently hold
sessions on Saturday mornings which they call 'Shabbat School'?",
it is "is it plausible that this non-Jewish person's wife remembers
going to Saturday morning religious educational sessions at the
synagogue as a child, which either she or he therefore describes,
many years later, as 'Shabbat School'?" and the obvious answer is
"yes, it is entirely plausible".
How does 'entirely plausible' differ from 'plausible'? 'Shabbat school'
is very unusual, but I agree you've made your point.
When I was at school, the woodwork teacher once said "Be careful with
that wood, boy. It doesn't grow on trees, you know." I remember that
because, well, you would, wouldn't you.
I had a teacher like that. They thought they were funny.
I think I'd remember if a teacher had ever said anything as obnoxious
as Chris claims. So, if it's true, why has nobody come forward to
corroborate his story? Not even his wife?
Imagine you are Chris. As far as I'm aware, his identity is not public,
and is not likely to become so based upon the publicly available info of "he's called Chris, his wife has a Jewish background and she grew up in Hertfordshire". Given the media furore calling him a liar, would you
(a) dive headfirst into the tempest and out yourself so that the media
can find more and more personal things to attack you with, or (b) keep
a very fucking low profile indeed? Assume for the sake of this argument
that you are not insane.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:43:47 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their
faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
I think, unfortunately, that you would be wrong in that assumption.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 14:57:11 +0100, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 24/07/2025 om 10:43 schreef Mark Goodge:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
Which church? Because the Catholic Church hasn't been antisemitic for ages.
The Church Universal. Not any particular denomination. And no, no 21st century mainstream church hierarchy or doctrine is officially antisemitic. But still, it rears its ugly head among the grassroots and clergy every now and then.
On 25/07/2025 11:10, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
life experience.
Boring to repeat the same discussion, so I won't.
You have to feel sorry for poor Chris, though. There he is, being
vilified in the press for telling the truth. You'd think his lovely wife would come to his rescue, and she'd be confirming her own experience and filling in the details. What about the other kids in the class?
Why have none of them come forward to exonerate poor Chris?
No one has actually said it is untrue. One does wonder how many GazansThe issue is that rather than condemning the event where a teacher has
said, "one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that
Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed" the act of reporting is condemned
instead.
Do you think that, if the statement is untrue, then repeating it is wrong?
On 25/07/2025 11:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
life experience.
The issue is that rather than condemning the event where a teacher has
said, "one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs
are cockroaches to be crushed" the act of reporting is condemned instead.
I presume it may have been an isolated event/incident but it's more
telling that no deputy has criticised the teaching itself as being
untrue even if it might have been said at a shabbat school.
What is a "deputy" in this context?
It's a bit like a Catholic saying that their church is above reproach
and call anyone bringing claim of paedophilia or abuse to priests and
nuns; liars.
Are you aware of the differences and distinctions between an
organisation and any of its members / supporters?
On 25/07/2025 23:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 19:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My point is that the question is not "do synagogues frequently hold
sessions on Saturday mornings which they call 'Shabbat School'?",
it is "is it plausible that this non-Jewish person's wife remembers
going to Saturday morning religious educational sessions at the
synagogue as a child, which either she or he therefore describes,
many years later, as 'Shabbat School'?" and the obvious answer is
"yes, it is entirely plausible".
How does 'entirely plausible' differ from 'plausible'? 'Shabbat school'
is very unusual, but I agree you've made your point.
When I was at school, the woodwork teacher once said "Be careful with
that wood, boy. It doesn't grow on trees, you know." I remember that
because, well, you would, wouldn't you.
I had a teacher like that. They thought they were funny.
I think I'd remember if a teacher had ever said anything as obnoxious
as Chris claims. So, if it's true, why has nobody come forward to
corroborate his story? Not even his wife?
Imagine you are Chris. As far as I'm aware, his identity is not public,
and is not likely to become so based upon the publicly available info of
"he's called Chris, his wife has a Jewish background and she grew up in
Hertfordshire". Given the media furore calling him a liar, would you
(a) dive headfirst into the tempest and out yourself so that the media
can find more and more personal things to attack you with, or (b) keep
a very fucking low profile indeed? Assume for the sake of this argument
that you are not insane.
Good point, but his lady wife's classmates could entirely safely say
"I'm not married to anyone called Chris, but actually this did happen. "
Not one has, though.
Plus, can you imagine little Jonnie goes home and says "Mummy, guess
what I was taught in 'shabbat school' today ..." There'd have been a
right stink.
I'll just remind you that the dictionary definition of plausible is
"seeming reasonable or probable". So, Chris's story is implausible,
although not completely impossible.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 14:57:11 +0100, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 24/07/2025 om 10:43 schreef Mark Goodge:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the
things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
Which church? Because the Catholic Church hasn't been antisemitic for ages.
The Church Universal. Not any particular denomination. And no, no 21st century mainstream church hierarchy or doctrine is officially antisemitic.
On 25/07/2025 10:44 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:43:47 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>> representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the >>>> things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their
faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
I think, unfortunately, that you would be wrong in that assumption.
What?
IN a SCHOOL (as part of the curricular RE teaching)?
Within living memory?
I don't think so.
Op 25/07/2025 om 22:50 schreef Mark Goodge:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 14:57:11 +0100, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 24/07/2025 om 10:43 schreef Mark Goodge:The Church Universal. Not any particular denomination. And no, no 21st
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>> representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the >>>> things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
Which church? Because the Catholic Church hasn't been antisemitic for ages. >>
century mainstream church hierarchy or doctrine is officially antisemitic.
Does that include Islam or are only the Christians the bud guys?
On 2025-07-26, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 23:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 19:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My point is that the question is not "do synagogues frequently hold
sessions on Saturday mornings which they call 'Shabbat School'?",
it is "is it plausible that this non-Jewish person's wife remembers
going to Saturday morning religious educational sessions at the
synagogue as a child, which either she or he therefore describes,
many years later, as 'Shabbat School'?" and the obvious answer is
"yes, it is entirely plausible".
How does 'entirely plausible' differ from 'plausible'? 'Shabbat school' >>>> is very unusual, but I agree you've made your point.
When I was at school, the woodwork teacher once said "Be careful with
that wood, boy. It doesn't grow on trees, you know." I remember that
because, well, you would, wouldn't you.
I had a teacher like that. They thought they were funny.
I think I'd remember if a teacher had ever said anything as obnoxious
as Chris claims. So, if it's true, why has nobody come forward to
corroborate his story? Not even his wife?
Imagine you are Chris. As far as I'm aware, his identity is not public,
and is not likely to become so based upon the publicly available info of >>> "he's called Chris, his wife has a Jewish background and she grew up in
Hertfordshire". Given the media furore calling him a liar, would you
(a) dive headfirst into the tempest and out yourself so that the media
can find more and more personal things to attack you with, or (b) keep
a very fucking low profile indeed? Assume for the sake of this argument
that you are not insane.
Good point, but his lady wife's classmates could entirely safely say
"I'm not married to anyone called Chris, but actually this did happen."
Not one has, though.
If they ddi the media would just aim fire on them instead, of course.
Plus, can you imagine little Jonnie goes home and says "Mummy, guess
what I was taught in 'shabbat school' today ..." There'd have been a
right stink.
Probably not the sort of stink that reaches the newspapers, though.
I'll just remind you that the dictionary definition of plausible is
"seeming reasonable or probable". So, Chris's story is implausible,
although not completely impossible.
I'll just remind you that my actual point was that the Telegraph's
specific criticisms ("brought up Jewish" is laughable, there's no
such thing as "Shabbat School") were false and almost certainly in
bad faith. I wasn't commenting on whether Chris' story was true or
not, because I don't know enough to be able to determine that.
On 25/07/2025 13:15, GB wrote:
On 25/07/2025 11:10, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
life experience.
Boring to repeat the same discussion, so I won't.
You have to feel sorry for poor Chris, though. There he is, being
vilified in the press for telling the truth. You'd think his lovely
wife would come to his rescue, and she'd be confirming her own
experience and filling in the details. What about the other kids in
the class?
Why have none of them come forward to exonerate poor Chris?
And risk being called antisemitic?
No one has actually said it is untrue.The issue is that rather than condemning the event where a teacher
has said, "one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that
Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed" the act of reporting is
condemned instead.
Do you think that, if the statement is untrue, then repeating it is
wrong?
One does wonder how many Gazans
must pay for the price of Hamas committing the October attack. At a
1,000:1 the IDF has just got just 1,140,000 to go. Starving them seems
the newest method of killing.
On 25/07/2025 11:27, JNugent wrote:
On 25/07/2025 11:10 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
life experience.
The issue is that rather than condemning the event where a teacher has
said, "one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs
are cockroaches to be crushed" the act of reporting is condemned
instead.
I presume it may have been an isolated event/incident but it's more
telling that no deputy has criticised the teaching itself as being
untrue even if it might have been said at a shabbat school.
What is a "deputy" in this context?
It's a bit like a Catholic saying that their church is above reproach
and call anyone bringing claim of paedophilia or abuse to priests and
nuns; liars.
Are you aware of the differences and distinctions between an
organisation and any of its members / supporters?
Quite, I suppose I should call a member of a gaggle of geese, geese either?
Even here:
https://bod.org.uk/bod-news/appeal-panel-decision-regarding-sanctions-on-deputies/
There is whingeing about "sanctions being imposed on a number of its Deputies".
Any idea what the BOD should be calling these "subjects" on which
sanctions are being imposed?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:02:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 10:44 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:43:47 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>>> representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the >>>>> things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their >>>> faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
I think, unfortunately, that you would be wrong in that assumption.
What?
IN a SCHOOL (as part of the curricular RE teaching)?
Within living memory?
I don't think so.
Do you seriously believe that no teacher has ever taught their class something which is actually a personal opinion and not part of the official curriculum?
If so, I have a bridge you may be interested in.
On 26/07/2025 15:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Plus, can you imagine little Jonnie goes home and says "Mummy, guess
what I was taught in 'shabbat school' today ..." There'd have been a
right stink.
Probably not the sort of stink that reaches the newspapers, though.
Nobody in the Jewish community knows anything about this, though
On 23/07/2025 10:08 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off
the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think
they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not
just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life
is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one
side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Whatever she said, she was NOT taught that at a Catholic school.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 15:51:21 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:c2748kl1eemojfpbka34cg37c2duks69do@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:49:27 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:dip38k54crh9e0nd0b3hv7vvtab28llq9u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:38:58 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:mec7t5Fq8roU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>>>>>>> representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) said to
all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a >>>>>>belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against >>>>>>Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians >>>>>>who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a >>>>>>platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration >>>>>>known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for Jesus's >>>>>>crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finally >>>>>>renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
That was not a change in teraching teaching, it was simply a
clarification of existing teaching that *all mankind* were responsible >>>>> fo Christ's suffering and death. From the Catechism of the Council of >>>>> Trent, published in 1566:
snippage
But only made 20 years after the Holocaust* I note; rather than say in the >>>>1930's.
So either its all just a bit of a coincidence; or simply a very unfortunate >>>>case of bad timing.
If you are referring to "Nostra Aetate", then I would suggest that
there was nothing coincidental about it; so much rubbish had been
promulgated about the Catholic Church's attitude to the Jews that the
Pope felt a need to remind people of the *actual* attitude.
quote:
John Charles McQuaid, C.S.Sp. (28 July 1895 - 7 April 1973), was
the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972. He was known for the unusual amount
of influence he had over successive governments.
In 1932, McQuaid then president of Blackrock College, gave a sermon
in his native Cavan on Passion Sunday in which he denounced Jews on
the grounds that "From the first persecutions till the present moment,
you will find Jews engaged in practically every movement against
Our Divine Lord and His Church.
So you want to base your argument on a throwaway personal opinion of a
cleric who was a notorious ultra-conservative
On 25/07/2025 11:10, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/07/2025 13:01, GB wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:59, Roger Hayter wrote:No it's not clear, prove it. It could just as easily have been a real
On reflection, it is almost certainly not true, do you think?
Just to be clear, it's a lie.
life experience.
Boring to repeat the same discussion, so I won't.
You have to feel sorry for poor Chris, though. There he is, being
vilified in the press for telling the truth. You'd think his lovely wife would come to his rescue, and she'd be confirming her own experience and filling in the details. What about the other kids in the class?
Why have none of them come forward to exonerate poor Chris?
The issue is that rather than condemning the event where a teacher has
said, "one Jewish life is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that
Arabs are cockroaches to be crushed" the act of reporting is condemned
instead.
Do you think that, if the statement is untrue, then repeating it is wrong?
On 26/07/2025 15:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-26, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 23:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/07/2025 19:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My point is that the question is not "do synagogues frequently hold >>>>>> sessions on Saturday mornings which they call 'Shabbat School'?",
it is "is it plausible that this non-Jewish person's wife remembers >>>>>> going to Saturday morning religious educational sessions at the
synagogue as a child, which either she or he therefore describes,
many years later, as 'Shabbat School'?" and the obvious answer is
"yes, it is entirely plausible".
How does 'entirely plausible' differ from 'plausible'? 'Shabbat
school'
is very unusual, but I agree you've made your point.
When I was at school, the woodwork teacher once said "Be careful with >>>>> that wood, boy. It doesn't grow on trees, you know." I remember that >>>>> because, well, you would, wouldn't you.
I had a teacher like that. They thought they were funny.
I think I'd remember if a teacher had ever said anything as obnoxious >>>>> as Chris claims. So, if it's true, why has nobody come forward to
corroborate his story? Not even his wife?
Imagine you are Chris. As far as I'm aware, his identity is not public, >>>> and is not likely to become so based upon the publicly available
info of
"he's called Chris, his wife has a Jewish background and she grew up in >>>> Hertfordshire". Given the media furore calling him a liar, would you
(a) dive headfirst into the tempest and out yourself so that the media >>>> can find more and more personal things to attack you with, or (b) keep >>>> a very fucking low profile indeed? Assume for the sake of this argument >>>> that you are not insane.
Good point, but his lady wife's classmates could entirely safely say
"I'm not married to anyone called Chris, but actually this did happen."
Not one has, though.
If they ddi the media would just aim fire on them instead, of course.
Why? One person saying this looks very much like a slur. A group of
pupils from the same class does not.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mec7t5Fq8roU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>> representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) said to >> all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a
belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against
Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians
who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration
known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for Jesus's crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finally
renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
Which wasn't exclusive to the Catholic Church, either.
So that Todal's acquaintance's recollection may well have been
correct.
Well no.
Let's actually say that she definitely was correct. And leave it that.
bb
Plus, can you imagine little Jonnie goes home and says "Mummy, guess
what I was taught in 'shabbat school' today ..." There'd have been a
right stink.
Probably not the sort of stink that reaches the newspapers, though.
Nobody in the Jewish community knows anything about this, though.
It's all so delightfully vague. A leafy Hertfordshire town. Well, which
town? Why not name it? When was this? Which school?
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his
tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:08 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off >>>> the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that
was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think
they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video. >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not >>> just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life >>> is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be
crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one >>> side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Whatever she said, she was NOT taught that at a Catholic school.
You claim that but I recall it being a common ‘theme’ propagated when I was a youngster. It wasn’t limited to Catholics.
Of course, once the Romans converted to Christianity, they did have the problem of having Crucified Jesus. Blaming the Jews was convenient and
easy, given they ran things.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mec7t5Fq8roU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>>> representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) said to >>> all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a
belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against
Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians
who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a
platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration
known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for Jesus's
crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finally
renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
Which wasn't exclusive to the Catholic Church, either.
So that Todal's acquaintance's recollection may well have been
correct.
Well no.
Let's actually say that she definitely was correct. And leave it that.
bb
Jews have been victims of numerous ‘blood libels’ throughout history. Many
referenced / were ‘justified’ ( note my quotes) on the basis of their supposed murder of Jesus.
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the "Arabs" or
Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
If you did, what was your own experience there?
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in
Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his
tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church
Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend) Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
On 26/07/2025 18:43, GB wrote:
<snip>
Plus, can you imagine little Jonnie goes home and says "Mummy, guess
what I was taught in 'shabbat school' today ..." There'd have been a
right stink.
Probably not the sort of stink that reaches the newspapers, though.
Nobody in the Jewish community knows anything about this, though.
It's all so delightfully vague. A leafy Hertfordshire town. Well,
which town? Why not name it? When was this? Which school?
You come across as incredibly naive. Would it be more healthy if another county was provided in the story?
Do you honestly think there are no Synagogues in Hertfordshire? Or is it
a jew free zone?
On 27/07/2025 09:57, The Todal wrote:
On 26/07/2025 18:43, GB wrote:
On 26/07/2025 15:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Plus, can you imagine little Jonnie goes home and says "Mummy, guess >>>>> what I was taught in 'shabbat school' today ..." There'd have been a >>>>> right stink.
Probably not the sort of stink that reaches the newspapers, though.
Nobody in the Jewish community knows anything about this, though
What a remarkable statement you've just made!
Your statement is self evidently untrue. You haven't asked everyone in
"the Jewish community" and nobody has the ability to sound out every
member of that community for their memories over several years.
You are absolutely correct, but nit-picking a minor point about
phraseology. It's perfectly clear what I meant.
To quote from one of your posts this morning, your point is "trivially unimportant". :)
On 26/07/2025 18:43, GB wrote:
On 26/07/2025 15:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Plus, can you imagine little Jonnie goes home and says "Mummy, guess
what I was taught in 'shabbat school' today ..." There'd have been a
right stink.
Probably not the sort of stink that reaches the newspapers, though.
Nobody in the Jewish community knows anything about this, though
What a remarkable statement you've just made!
Your statement is self evidently untrue. You haven't asked everyone in
"the Jewish community" and nobody has the ability to sound out every
member of that community for their memories over several years.
He does not produce anything, he merely trades in
goods.
On 26/07/2025 05:20 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:02:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 10:44 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:43:47 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>>>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>>>> representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the >>>>>> things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their >>>>> faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
I think, unfortunately, that you would be wrong in that assumption.
What?
IN a SCHOOL (as part of the curricular RE teaching)?
Within living memory?
I don't think so.
Do you seriously believe that no teacher has ever taught their class
something which is actually a personal opinion and not part of the official >> curriculum?
Did you actually stop to read the post to which you responded?
Here's the relevant bit again:
[Re: allegations that Catholics are taught at school that jewish people
are "contemptible"]
QUOTE:
What?
IN a SCHOOL (*as* *part* *of* *the* *curricular* *RE* *teaching*)?
Within living memory?
I don't think so.
ENDQUOTE
On 27/07/2025 09:45 AM, Brian wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2025 10:08 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 23/07/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued a statement
condemning James O'Brien and LBC for their remarks about the Gaza
conflict and Israel, and are demanding that James O'Brien be taken off >>>>> the air.
They say that LBC has demonised the British Jewish community. If that >>>>> was true, maybe it would amount to antisemitism. But I don't think
they have quoted the offending remarks.
I suppose this is the latest O'Brien show, but it is a very long video. >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhJypB_ilxs
Maybe this is what the complaint is about. A blood libel.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/james-obrien-slammed-for-blood-libel-about-british-jewish-children-on-live-radio/
quote
“And of course it’s not confined, as Chris writes from Oxford – ‘I’m
loving the show’ – thank you, Chris – ‘and the high quality of callers
today, but I do think it’s worth saying that these warped views are not >>>> just an Israeli problem. My wife was brought up Jewish and at Shabbat
school in a leafy Hertfordshire town she was taught that one Jewish life >>>> is worth thousands of Arab lives, and that Arabs are cockroaches to be >>>> crushed. Whilst young children are being taught such hatred and
dehumanisation, undoubtedly on both sides’ – as Chris points out – ‘then
they will always be able to justify death and cruelty, and it does
indeed start young. There is a danger perhaps that we only ever hear one >>>> side of the dehumanisation and propaganda processes’.”
unquote
Is this an appalling antisemitic incident?
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent
school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of >>>> Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily
representative of an entire religion.
Whatever she said, she was NOT taught that at a Catholic school.
You claim that but I recall it being a common ‘theme’ propagated when I >> was a youngster. It wasn’t limited to Catholics.
That is true - I can remember all the derogatory phrases used by so many working class adults of any Christian denomination. But it was not
inculcated by schools. And certainly not under the guise of RE lessons
in schools. Not even by "county" schools, which we regarded, for
justifiable reasons, as merely being protestant schools.
Of course, once the Romans converted to Christianity, they did have the
problem of having Crucified Jesus. Blaming the Jews was convenient and
easy, given they ran things.
I have sometimes wondered how antisemitism even came about, but that's a
good point and of course, Jewish people had been scattered across the
middle east by the time of Constantine, perhaps becoming unwelcome in
some places. Four hundred years later still, they were an inconvenience
for Islam.
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are expressed in the classroom.
On 27/07/2025 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in
Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his
tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church
Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend) Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Peut-être que les canards sont trop paresseux pour aller aux services religieux.
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the "Arabs" or
Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
You might be the exception, of course. Or maybe the bigotry and racism
was so taken for granted it wasn't even remembered later.
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in
Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his
tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church
Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on which every devout
Catholic has attended (or been able to attend) Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
On 27/07/2025 13:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like >> everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are
expressed in the classroom.
I suspect that people are at cross purposes about what the words
"taught" or "teach" mean. At heart, it is a very dull, semantic argument.
Not everything a teacher says in the classroom is teaching, in my
opinion, and if he voices a personal opinion that is not part of the curriculum it's perhaps wrong to treat it as 'teaching'?
On 27/07/2025 10:08, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the
murderers of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that
aren't necessarily representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests)
said to all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a
belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against
Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians
who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a
platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration
known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for Jesus's >>> crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time
or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finallyLet's actually say that she definitely was correct. And leave it that.
renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
Which wasn't exclusive to the Catholic Church, either.
So that Todal's acquaintance's recollection may well have been
correct.
Well no.
bb
Jews have been victims of numerous ‘blood libels’ throughout history.
Many referenced / were ‘justified’ ( note my quotes) on the basis of
their supposed murder of Jesus.
I don't suppose any other victimised minority is so fond of the phrase
"blood libel". Do you hear West Indian men complaining that their
reputation for violence and crime is a blood libel?
On 27/07/2025 01:03 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in
Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his
tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church
Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend) Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Peut-être que les canards sont trop paresseux pour aller aux services
religieux.
That's disappointing.
I had thought that you would know that "canard", when used in an english sentence which is not about avian creatures, has an entirely distinct
and separate meaning.
On 27/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 10:08, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the
murderers of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that >>>>>>>> aren't necessarily representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests)
said to all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a >>>> belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against
Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians
who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a >>>> platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration
known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for
Jesus's
crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time
or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-
collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finallyLet's actually say that she definitely was correct. And leave it that.
renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
Which wasn't exclusive to the Catholic Church, either.
So that Todal's acquaintance's recollection may well have been
correct.
Well no.
bb
Jews have been victims of numerous ‘blood libels’ throughout history. >>> Many referenced / were ‘justified’ ( note my quotes) on the basis of >>> their supposed murder of Jesus.
I don't suppose any other victimised minority is so fond of the phrase
"blood libel". Do you hear West Indian men complaining that their
reputation for violence and crime is a blood libel?
Surely they are aware that that reputation (to the extent that it exists
at all) is not based on historical events of 1,000 to 2,000 years ago?
[ ... ]
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the "Arabs" or >>>> Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
And that is what was elleged earlier, isn't it?
You might be the exception, of course. Or maybe the bigotry and racism
was so taken for granted it wasn't even remembered later.
I was never taught that Jewish people were "comtemptible" or similar.
Not a word of it.
On 27/07/2025 01:03 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in
Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his
tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church
Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend) Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Peut-être que les canards sont trop paresseux pour aller aux services
religieux.
That's disappointing.
I had thought that you would know that "canard", when used in an english sentence which is not about avian creatures, has an entirely distinct
and separate meaning.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 13:14:27 +0100
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
He does not produce anything, he merely trades in goods.
In Starmer's world, that means he could not be a 'working person'.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:15:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/07/2025 05:20 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:02:01 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/07/2025 10:44 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:43:47 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 24/07/2025 10:43 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:08:51 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the murderers of
Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that aren't necessarily >>>>>>>> representative of an entire religion.
Chrstian antisemitism has a long and dark history, and it's one of the >>>>>>> things that the church continues to struggle with at times.
But is IS history. No-one alive today and still in possession of their >>>>>> faculties was taught in a Catholic school that Jewish people are
contemptible.
I think, unfortunately, that you would be wrong in that assumption.
What?
IN a SCHOOL (as part of the curricular RE teaching)?
Within living memory?
I don't think so.
Do you seriously believe that no teacher has ever taught their class
something which is actually a personal opinion and not part of the
official curriculum?
Did you actually stop to read the post to which you responded?
Here's the relevant bit again:
[Re: allegations that Catholics are taught at school that jewish people
are "contemptible"]
QUOTE:
What?
IN a SCHOOL (*as* *part* *of* *the* *curricular* *RE* *teaching*)?
Within living memory?
I don't think so.
ENDQUOTE
I have never suggested that it's part of the current official curriculum.
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the "Arabs" or
Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s can cite
bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the people there. Even
at our finest public schools.
On 27/07/2025 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:03 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in >>>>> Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his >>>>> tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church >>>>> Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend) Mass. >>>>
See whether you can think why that is.
Peut-être que les canards sont trop paresseux pour aller aux services
religieux.
That's disappointing.
I had thought that you would know that "canard", when used in an
english sentence which is not about avian creatures, has an entirely
distinct and separate meaning.
Usually one which is intended to show off the sophistication of the
writer but fails to convey any clear meaning.
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or >>>>> gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the
"Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time there was
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the education authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum".
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable today.
On 27 Jul 2025 at 15:15:11 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 13:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like >>> everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are
expressed in the classroom.
I suspect that people are at cross purposes about what the words
"taught" or "teach" mean. At heart, it is a very dull, semantic argument.
Not everything a teacher says in the classroom is teaching, in my
opinion, and if he voices a personal opinion that is not part of the
curriculum it's perhaps wrong to treat it as 'teaching'?
I'd meet you halfway on this. There are certainly things that teachers say that pupils rightly regard as idiosyncracy, or idiocy. But teachers certainly can and do teach things that are not on the curriculum, or even part of their subject.
It is not always clear which is which to all pupils, and unpleasant throwaway remarks can influence pupils.
On 27/07/2025 14:47, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 10:08, Brian wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/07/2025 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Reminds me of a Catholic woman I know who said that at her convent >>>>>>>>> school she was taught that the Jews were contemptible, the
murderers of Christ. Things are said by ignorant teachers that >>>>>>>>> aren't necessarily representative of an entire religion.
I remember what the RE teachers (some of whom were Jesuit priests) >>>>>> said to all of us in the classroom, as part of a lesson.
It never once included any thing remotely like what it is said,
by someone's friend's aunt or whatever.
Strange.
quote:
Paul VI Renounces the Collective Guilt of Jews in Christ's Death
For centuries, Jews were collectively blamed for the death of Jesus, a >>>>> belief that fueled anti-Semitism and justified discrimination against >>>>> Jewish communities.
In the post-World War II era, a shift occurred among many Christians >>>>> who recognized the harm caused by such long-held views.
The Second Vatican Council, which convened n the early 1960s, became a >>>>> platform for reform and dialogue, leading to the pivotal declaration >>>>> known as "Nostra Aetate," promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.
* This declaration explicitly stated that the responsibility for
Jesus's
crucifixion could not be attributed to all Jews, either of that time >>>>> or of today.
:unquote
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/paul-vi-renounces-
collective-guilt-jews-christs-death
So that it was only in 1968, that the Catholic Church finallyLet's actually say that she definitely was correct. And leave it that.
renounced this long held accusation, against all Jews.
Which wasn't exclusive to the Catholic Church, either.
So that Todal's acquaintance's recollection may well have been
correct.
Well no.
bb
Jews have been victims of numerous ‘blood libels’ throughout history. >>>> Many referenced / were ‘justified’ ( note my quotes) on the basis of >>>> their supposed murder of Jesus.
I don't suppose any other victimised minority is so fond of the phrase
"blood libel". Do you hear West Indian men complaining that their
reputation for violence and crime is a blood libel?
Surely they are aware that that reputation (to the extent that it
exists at all) is not based on historical events of 1,000 to 2,000
years ago?
[ ... ]
But why is it that when anyone makes unfair remarks about Jews - eg that
they have undue influence over the government, that they regard
Palestinians as a sub-race, that they have more allegiance to Israel
than to the UK (no doubt all unfair criticisms) someone in the Board of Deputies calls it a blood libel, thereby calling to mind myths about
Jews drinking the blood of non-Jews?
Nobody nowadays accuses the Jews of drinking the blood of non-Jews. Why
use the phrase unless wallowing in self-pity and imaginary grievances?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:memdtfFhabvU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man
in Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped
to his tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went
against "Church Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly
whenever any controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the
country would be sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the
next Sunday Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of
otherwise burning in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend)
Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Oh yes sorry. I was forgetting
Catholics can commit as many sins as they like; murder people, commit
incest or fiddle with other people's kids, rob and steal as much
as they like. But just so long as they're truly sorry, 'til the end
of the week at least, then after they've confessed their sins to a
Catholic Priest, who is sworn to total secrecy, then they are
forgiven; and the slate is wiped totally clean.
Which is nice.
Jimmy Savil of course was not only a devout Roman Catholic but a
Papal Knight into the bargain, as well.
Although doubtless you will be the first to point out that Jimmy
Savile was never convicted of any crime. Much the same as Fred West.
Anyway, thanks for biting.
bb
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or >>>>>>> gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards theDid you go to a Jewish school?
"Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"? >>>
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s >>>>> can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the >>>>> people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time there was >>> a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the education
authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, which >>must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools era.
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is
taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to >>Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum".
I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar
school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and let us >>know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't share >>his enthusiasm for sports.
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable today.
"lessons"?
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at all
- always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a lesson in >>macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
That education was all in Northern Ireland where the religious divide
was enormous and religious bigotry widespread but never ever, not
even once, did I ever hear of any group or race being described as contemptible or similar; on the contrary, every one of those teachers emphasised that the bedrock of Christianity is the love of fellow man
- and that was *all* of mankind, everyone is our brother or sister.
The ill will I experienced at those schools was towards the Unionist
and British government but that was purely political, not religious or cultural, a direct reaction to the political and discriminatory
treatment of Catholics in that era and was rarely openly expressed by
any teachers. (
=============================
*The school where John Hume taught though I wasn't in any of his
classes.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or >>>>>>> gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards theDid you go to a Jewish school?
"Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"? >>>
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s >>>>> can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the >>>>> people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time there was >>> a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the education
authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, which
must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools era.
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is
taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to
Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum".
I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar
school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and let us
know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't share
his enthusiasm for sports.
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable today.
"lessons"?
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at all
- always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a lesson in
macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
On 27/07/2025 05:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Jul 2025 at 15:15:11 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 27/07/2025 13:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like
everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are
expressed in the classroom.
I suspect that people are at cross purposes about what the words
"taught" or "teach" mean. At heart, it is a very dull, semantic argument. >>>
Not everything a teacher says in the classroom is teaching, in my
opinion, and if he voices a personal opinion that is not part of the
curriculum it's perhaps wrong to treat it as 'teaching'?
I'd meet you halfway on this. There are certainly things that teachers say >> that pupils rightly regard as idiosyncracy, or idiocy. But teachers certainly
can and do teach things that are not on the curriculum, or even part of their
subject.
It is not always clear which is which to all pupils, and unpleasant throwaway
remarks can influence pupils.
Whether true or not (see my remarks about the art teacher at my grammar >school), does that make such remarks (whether made or not) a *lesson*?
On 14:44 27 Jul 2025, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:memdtfFhabvU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man
in Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped
to his tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went
against "Church Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly
whenever any controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the
country would be sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the
next Sunday Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of
otherwise burning in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend)
Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Oh yes sorry. I was forgetting
Catholics can commit as many sins as they like; murder people, commit
incest or fiddle with other people's kids, rob and steal as much
as they like. But just so long as they're truly sorry, 'til the end
of the week at least, then after they've confessed their sins to a
Catholic Priest, who is sworn to total secrecy, then they are
forgiven; and the slate is wiped totally clean.
Which is nice.
Jimmy Savil of course was not only a devout Roman Catholic but a
Papal Knight into the bargain, as well.
Although doubtless you will be the first to point out that Jimmy
Savile was never convicted of any crime. Much the same as Fred West.
Anyway, thanks for biting.
bb
It is not only Catholics who are taught forgiveness, atonement and repentence. All Judeo-Christian religions teach something similar.
Islam too.
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
That education was all in Northern Ireland where the religious divide
was enormous and religious bigotry widespread but never ever, not
even once, did I ever hear of any group or race being described as contemptible or similar; on the contrary, every one of those teachers emphasised that the bedrock of Christianity is the love of fellow man
- and that was *all* of mankind, everyone is our brother or sister.
The ill will I experienced at those schools was towards the Unionist
and British government but that was purely political, not religious or cultural, a direct reaction to the political and discriminatory
treatment of Catholics in that era and was rarely openly expressed by
any teachers. (
=============================
*The school where John Hume taught though I wasn't in any of his
classes.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:26:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Jul 2025 at 15:15:11 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 27/07/2025 13:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like
everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are >>>>> expressed in the classroom.
I suspect that people are at cross purposes about what the words
"taught" or "teach" mean. At heart, it is a very dull, semantic argument. >>>>
Not everything a teacher says in the classroom is teaching, in my
opinion, and if he voices a personal opinion that is not part of the
curriculum it's perhaps wrong to treat it as 'teaching'?
I'd meet you halfway on this. There are certainly things that teachers say >>> that pupils rightly regard as idiosyncracy, or idiocy. But teachers certainly
can and do teach things that are not on the curriculum, or even part of their
subject.
It is not always clear which is which to all pupils, and unpleasant throwaway
remarks can influence pupils.
Whether true or not (see my remarks about the art teacher at my grammar
school), does that make such remarks (whether made or not) a *lesson*?
Again, the OP didn't say it was "a lesson". The specific wording was "taught".
The extent to which it was a casual, throwaway remark or delivered
as part of didactic instruction isn't known to us, and can't be known to anyone who wasn't there. But it was certainly perceived as teaching.
It's also worth bearing in mind that "teaching" is always about far more
than the curriculum.
There's no textbook on attitude and determination, but
these are values that teachers are expected to instil in their pupils. There's no textbook on right and wrong, but teachers are expected to teach their pupils how to tell the difference. Teachers at religious schools, in particular, are expected to instil the key values of that religion in their pupils. It's all part of a holistic approach to education.
On 27/07/2025 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man in
Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped to his
tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went against "Church
Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly whenever any
controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the country would be
sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the next Sunday
Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of otherwise burning
in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend) Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Peut-être que les canards sont trop paresseux pour aller aux services religieux.
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or >>>>> gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the
"Arabs" or
Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time there was
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the education authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum".
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable today.
Still, you can bring a canard to water but you can't make it fly.
And that is what was elleged earlier, isn't it?
You might be the exception, of course. Or maybe the bigotry and racism
was so taken for granted it wasn't even remembered later.
I was never taught that Jewish people were "comtemptible" or similar.
Not a word of it.
Give him a peanut!
Nobody nowadays accuses the Jews of drinking the blood of non-Jews
[...] Everyone who went to school in the 1960s can cite bigoted
comments and poor teaching methods from some of the people there.
Even at our finest public schools.
When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and objectives of the school.No, that's what YOU mean when you say you were taught X at school.
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or
Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the
"Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood
libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s >>>>>> can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the >>>>>> people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time there
was
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the education >>>> authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, which >>> must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools era. >>>
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is
taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to
Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce children to >>>> ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum".
I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar
school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and let us
know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't share >>> his enthusiasm for sports.
"lessons"?
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable today. >>>
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at all
- always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a lesson in
macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England,
primary and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i
vaguely recall supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at
Infants and Juniors, other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the cathlics
were there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it was time for announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the syllabus was
"too narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form that was "do you
know where you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss your fiancé". I
knew several boys who attended a Catholic school, and they weren't all Catholic. only thing that came out of that was when they queried some
point of Catholic doctrine and the staff couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
On 28/07/2025 01:08 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:26:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Jul 2025 at 15:15:11 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>>
On 27/07/2025 13:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like
everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are >>>>>> expressed in the classroom.
I suspect that people are at cross purposes about what the words
"taught" or "teach" mean. At heart, it is a very dull, semantic argument. >>>>>
Not everything a teacher says in the classroom is teaching, in my
opinion, and if he voices a personal opinion that is not part of the >>>>> curriculum it's perhaps wrong to treat it as 'teaching'?
I'd meet you halfway on this. There are certainly things that teachers say >>>> that pupils rightly regard as idiosyncracy, or idiocy. But teachers certainly
can and do teach things that are not on the curriculum, or even part of their
subject.
It is not always clear which is which to all pupils, and unpleasant throwaway
remarks can influence pupils.
Whether true or not (see my remarks about the art teacher at my grammar
school), does that make such remarks (whether made or not) a *lesson*?
Again, the OP didn't say it was "a lesson". The specific wording was
"taught".
A distinction without a shred of difference.
When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to >mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and >objectives of the school.
It's also worth bearing in mind that "teaching" is always about far more
than the curriculum.
So you now say.
There's no textbook on attitude and determination, but
these are values that teachers are expected to instil in their pupils.
There's no textbook on right and wrong, but teachers are expected to teach >> their pupils how to tell the difference. Teachers at religious schools, in >> particular, are expected to instil the key values of that religion in their >> pupils. It's all part of a holistic approach to education.
Do you say that that includes telling pupils, formally or informally,
that Jewish people are "comtemptible"?
Are you supporting the wild claim that it was an official part of the >religious teaching in Catholic schools?
On 28/07/2025 11:33, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or >>>>>>>>> Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the >>>>>>>>> "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood >>>>>>>>> libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s >>>>>>> can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the >>>>>>> people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time there >>>>> was
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the education >>>>> authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, which >>>> must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools era. >>>>
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is
taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to
Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce children to >>>>> ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum". >>>>I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar
school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and let us >>>> know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't share >>>> his enthusiasm for sports.
"lessons"?
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can >>>>> recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable today. >>>>
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at all >>>> - always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a lesson in >>>> macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England,
primary and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i
vaguely recall supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at
Infants and Juniors, other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the cathlics
were there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it was time for
announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the syllabus was
"too narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form that was "do you
know where you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss your fiancé". I
knew several boys who attended a Catholic school, and they weren't all
Catholic. only thing that came out of that was when they queried some
point of Catholic doctrine and the staff couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
I am glad that you had a good experience at school.
A while back, I suggested that the antisemitic remarks that my elderly
female friend witnessed at her school would have come from batty old
nuns who should never have been employed as teachers.
I am not in a position to examine their personnel files or their teacher training certificates after this length of time, of course. But I can
readily accept that batty, bigoted old nuns are not likely to have been typical of the teaching staff at the average Catholic school in your own
day.
However, it's also possible that bigotry won't be noticed at the time or
stay in the memory forever. In the same way, the Black and White
Minstrel Show would not have registered as racist or objectionable when
it was broadcast every week.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB32A6C6FC16901F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
On 14:44 27 Jul 2025, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:memdtfFhabvU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between
December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man
in Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped
to his tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went
against "Church Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly
whenever any controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the
country would be sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the
next Sunday Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of
otherwise burning in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend)
Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Oh yes sorry. I was forgetting
Catholics can commit as many sins as they like; murder people, commit
incest or fiddle with other people's kids, rob and steal as much
as they like. But just so long as they're truly sorry, 'til the end
of the week at least, then after they've confessed their sins to a
Catholic Priest, who is sworn to total secrecy, then they are
forgiven; and the slate is wiped totally clean.
Which is nice.
Jimmy Savil of course was not only a devout Roman Catholic but a
Papal Knight into the bargain, as well.
Although doubtless you will be the first to point out that Jimmy
Savile was never convicted of any crime. Much the same as Fred West.
Anyway, thanks for biting.
bb
It is not only Catholics who are taught forgiveness, atonement and
repentence. All Judeo-Christian religions teach something similar.
Islam too.
But is is only the Catholic Church which grants the power to its
appointed priests to absolve Catholics of mortal sins; which
otherwise would condemn them all to hell fire.
Don't you see ? The Catholic Church is taking upon itself a
power which should only be God's; that of forgiving sins.
Imagine for a moment that a fraudulent lookalike priest turned
up in a parish; maybe somehow having murdered the legitimate
Rome appointed priest. And started hearing confessions
of mortal sinners; who therefore beieved they would go to
hell.* Well clearly they would still go to hell as he
wasn't a legitimate properly ordained priest. Butv a murderer
in a priest's clothes.
Howver
The Catholic Church only claims legitinmacy for themselves
and their clergy, the lot, Popes, Archbishops, priests etc
because they claim direct descendene fronm St Peter. Which
they clearly need to do,
Except they can't. Becaese as mentioned previously there have
been plenty of dodgy Popes in the past who doubtless bribed
bishops to appoint them; who doubtless promoted dodgy bishops
in their turn all of whom ended up appointing dodgy priests.
There is no getting around this. There is no possibility of
God "making himself known" to some dodgy Pope in say the 18th c
and saying "Look I know things got a bit out of hand in the past
so lets start again. If you promise to be good "I'll make you my
official representative on Earth again"; so you can start
administering valid Sacraments icluding Confessions.
There is simply no continuity of legitimacy.
This simply isn't as problem which effects other religions or other
Christian denominations; as they don't claim to be God's represntatives
on Earth. Only interpreters of his words as contained in Holy
Scriptures.
I don't normally like discussing religion. Full stop. Martyrs of all
faiths have died happily while being dosembowelled or burned at the
stake. So similarly, many believers have died with a smile on their
faces; and I see no good reason to deny anyone that. So if I'm ever approached, I wish such people well and simply point to the uphill
struggle they face converting anyone in the materialistic world
of today.
* This would make a good plot for a novel. As the fraudulent priest
could then use secrets learned in the Confessional, to blackmail
people.
On 28/07/2025 14:17, JNugent wrote:
When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken
to mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes
and objectives of the school.
No, that's what YOU mean when you say you were taught X at school.
For the vast majority, it means that a teacher told them something that
has stayed in their memory as sensible advice or alternatively bad advice.
My English teacher would regularly tell us that Dylan Thomas was a
bombastic phoney and his poems weren't worth reading.
I suppose if it had been the army, someone could have asked the teacher
"Is that an order, sir? Is it an instruction as part of the curriculum,
sir?"
A head teacher at the local private school often advised his pupils that
to get on in life it is important to look people straight in the eye,
smile and give the firmest of handshakes.
That would not have been part of the curriculum - unless you can show it
to me on the curriculum from your own school.
Why not gracefully accept that your version of what happens in schools
is not the same for everyone?
On 28/07/2025 08:04 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Are you supporting the wild claim that it was an official part of the
religious teaching in Catholic schools?
Absolutely nobody has made that claim, wild or not.
Is that a "No"?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 01:08 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:26:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Jul 2025 at 15:15:11 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 13:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like
everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are >>>>>>> expressed in the classroom.
I suspect that people are at cross purposes about what the words
"taught" or "teach" mean. At heart, it is a very dull, semantic argument.
Not everything a teacher says in the classroom is teaching, in my
opinion, and if he voices a personal opinion that is not part of the >>>>>> curriculum it's perhaps wrong to treat it as 'teaching'?
I'd meet you halfway on this. There are certainly things that teachers say
that pupils rightly regard as idiosyncracy, or idiocy. But teachers certainly
can and do teach things that are not on the curriculum, or even part of their
subject.
It is not always clear which is which to all pupils, and unpleasant throwaway
remarks can influence pupils.
Whether true or not (see my remarks about the art teacher at my grammar >>>> school), does that make such remarks (whether made or not) a *lesson*?
Again, the OP didn't say it was "a lesson". The specific wording was
"taught".
A distinction without a shred of difference.
When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to
mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and
objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
It's also worth bearing in mind that "teaching" is always about far more >>> than the curriculum.
So you now say.
So everybody else has always said.
There's no textbook on attitude and determination, but
these are values that teachers are expected to instil in their pupils.
There's no textbook on right and wrong, but teachers are expected to teach >>> their pupils how to tell the difference. Teachers at religious schools, in >>> particular, are expected to instil the key values of that religion in their >>> pupils. It's all part of a holistic approach to education.
Do you say that that includes telling pupils, formally or informally,
that Jewish people are "comtemptible"?
In some cases, quite possibly.
Are you supporting the wild claim that it was an official part of the
religious teaching in Catholic schools?
Absolutely nobody has made that claim, wild or not.
I don't normally like discussing religion. Full stop. Martyrs of all
faiths have died happily while being dosembowelled or burned at the
stake.
So similarly, many believers have died with a smile on theirSS
faces; and I see no good reason to deny anyone that.--
On 28/07/2025 01:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Don't you see ? The Catholic Church is taking upon itself a
power which should only be God's; that of forgiving sins.
From where do you say the Church gets that power?
Does the Pope have a generating station for it?
On 28/07/2025 11:33, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or Shuls or >>>>>>>>> gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the >>>>>>>>> "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood libel"? >>>>>Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the 1960s >>>>>>> can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the >>>>>>> people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time there was >>>>> a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the education >>>>> authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, which >>>> must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools era. >>>>
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is
taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to
Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce children to >>>>> ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum". >>>>I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar
school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and let us >>>> know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't share >>>> his enthusiasm for sports.
"lessons"?
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can >>>>> recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable today. >>>>
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at all >>>> - always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a lesson in >>>> macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England, primary
and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i vaguely recall >> supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at Infants and Juniors, >> other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the cathlics were >> there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it was time for
announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the syllabus was "too >> narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form that was "do you know where >> you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss your fiancé". I knew several boys
who attended a Catholic school, and they weren't all Catholic. only thing that
came out of that was when they queried some point of Catholic doctrine and the
staff couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
I am glad that you had a good experience at school.
A while back, I suggested that the antisemitic remarks that my elderly female friend witnessed at her school would have come from batty old nuns who should never have been employed as teachers.
I am not in a position to examine their personnel files or their teacher training certificates after this length of time, of course. But I can readily accept that batty, bigoted old nuns are not likely to have been typical of the
teaching staff at the average Catholic school in your own day.
However, it's also possible that bigotry won't be noticed at the time or stay in
the memory forever. In the same way, the Black and White Minstrel Show would not
have registered as racist or objectionable when it was broadcast every week.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 01:08 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:26:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Jul 2025 at 15:15:11 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 13:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
Teachers are human, they have human prejudices and misconceptions just like
everyone else. And sometimes, those prejudices and misconceptions are >>>>>>> expressed in the classroom.
I suspect that people are at cross purposes about what the words
"taught" or "teach" mean. At heart, it is a very dull, semantic argument.
Not everything a teacher says in the classroom is teaching, in my
opinion, and if he voices a personal opinion that is not part of the >>>>>> curriculum it's perhaps wrong to treat it as 'teaching'?
I'd meet you halfway on this. There are certainly things that teachers say
that pupils rightly regard as idiosyncracy, or idiocy. But teachers certainly
can and do teach things that are not on the curriculum, or even part of their
subject.
It is not always clear which is which to all pupils, and unpleasant throwaway
remarks can influence pupils.
Whether true or not (see my remarks about the art teacher at my grammar >>>> school), does that make such remarks (whether made or not) a *lesson*?
Again, the OP didn't say it was "a lesson". The specific wording was
"taught".
A distinction without a shred of difference.
When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to
mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and
objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
On 28/07/2025 11:33, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or >>>>>>>>> Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the >>>>>>>>> "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood >>>>>>>>> libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the
1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of the >>>>>>> people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time
there was
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the
education
authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament,
which
must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools
era.
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is
taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to
Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduceI don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar
children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the "curriculum". >>>>
school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and let us >>>> know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't
share
his enthusiasm for sports.
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good
manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can >>>>> recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable
today.
"lessons"?
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at all >>>> - always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a lesson in >>>> macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England,
primary and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i
vaguely recall supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at
Infants and Juniors, other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the cathlics
were there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it was time
for announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the syllabus
was "too narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form that was "do
you know where you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss your
fiancé". I knew several boys who attended a Catholic school, and they
weren't all Catholic. only thing that came out of that was when they
queried some point of Catholic doctrine and the staff couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
I am glad that you had a good experience at school.
A while back, I suggested that the antisemitic remarks that my elderly
female friend witnessed at her school would have come from batty old
nuns who should never have been employed as teachers.
I am not in a position to examine their personnel files or their teacher training certificates after this length of time, of course. But I can
readily accept that batty, bigoted old nuns are not likely to have been typical of the teaching staff at the average Catholic school in your own
day.
However, it's also possible that bigotry won't be noticed at the time or
stay in the memory forever. In the same way, the Black and White
Minstrel Show would not have registered as racist or objectionable when
it was broadcast every week.
On 28/07/2025 20:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to >>> mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and
objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of
one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
I would say that I was "taught" what I needed to know to pass exams,
but that there were other things I "learned". I was taught how to
play hockey, but I learned I was useless at it.
Yes, it is all education, but I tend to see a difference. I didn't
have to agree with opinions of teachers.
On 2025-07-29, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 20:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to >>>> mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and
objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of
one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
I would say that I was "taught" what I needed to know to pass exams,
but that there were other things I "learned". I was taught how to
play hockey, but I learned I was useless at it.
Yes, it is all education, but I tend to see a difference. I didn't
have to agree with opinions of teachers.
Ok, but that's not what Mark and JNugent are talking about. You are
making a distinction between information deliberately passed on by
teachers and things you learned for yourself. JNugent is purporting
to make a distinction between different types of information passed
on by teachers, and he's clearly wrong, and your comment doesn't
support what he's saying.
On 29/07/2025 17:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 20:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to >>>>> mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and >>>>> objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of
one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
I would say that I was "taught" what I needed to know to pass exams,
but that there were other things I "learned". I was taught how to
play hockey, but I learned I was useless at it.
Yes, it is all education, but I tend to see a difference. I didn't
have to agree with opinions of teachers.
Ok, but that's not what Mark and JNugent are talking about. You are
making a distinction between information deliberately passed on by
teachers and things you learned for yourself. JNugent is purporting
to make a distinction between different types of information passed
on by teachers, and he's clearly wrong, and your comment doesn't
support what he's saying.
So, when Mr Good, the English teacher, told a class of 12 year olds that "Using a condom was like washing your feet with your socks on", you are adamant that he was teaching them to have unprotected sex?
I must say that I'm not so sure about that.
On 2025-07-29, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 20:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to >>>> mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and
objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of
one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
I would say that I was "taught" what I needed to know to pass exams,
but that there were other things I "learned". I was taught how to
play hockey, but I learned I was useless at it.
Yes, it is all education, but I tend to see a difference. I didn't
have to agree with opinions of teachers.
Ok, but that's not what Mark and JNugent are talking about. You are
making a distinction between information deliberately passed on by
teachers and things you learned for yourself. JNugent is purporting
to make a distinction between different types of information passed
on by teachers, and he's clearly wrong, and your comment doesn't
support what he's saying.
On 28/07/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
On 28/07/2025 11:33, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or >>>>>>>>>> Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the >>>>>>>>>> "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood >>>>>>>>>> libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the >>>>>>>> 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of >>>>>>>> the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time
there was
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the
education
authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament,
which
must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools
era.
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is
taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to
Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce
children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the
"curriculum".
I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar >>>>> school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and
let us
know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't
share
his enthusiasm for sports.
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good >>>>>> manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you can >>>>>> recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable
today.
"lessons"?
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at
all
- always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a
lesson in
macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in
1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years
at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught
RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England,
primary and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i
vaguely recall supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at
Infants and Juniors, other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the
cathlics were there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it
was time for announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the
syllabus was "too narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form
that was "do you know where you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss
your fiancé". I knew several boys who attended a Catholic school,
and they weren't all Catholic. only thing that came out of that was
when they queried some point of Catholic doctrine and the staff
couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
I am glad that you had a good experience at school.
A while back, I suggested that the antisemitic remarks that my elderly
female friend witnessed at her school would have come from batty old
nuns who should never have been employed as teachers.
I am not in a position to examine their personnel files or their
teacher training certificates after this length of time, of course.
But I can readily accept that batty, bigoted old nuns are not likely
to have been typical of the teaching staff at the average Catholic
school in your own day.
However, it's also possible that bigotry won't be noticed at the time
or stay in the memory forever. In the same way, the Black and White
Minstrel Show would not have registered as racist or objectionable
when it was broadcast every week.
It merely registered to me as very boring.
Racism is a mindset. Why did they put on black face? To a young person,
as I was, maybe they thought we, the viewers, preferred black singers.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 13:51:44 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message >>news:XnsB32A6C6FC16901F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
On 14:44 27 Jul 2025, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:memdtfFhabvU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between >>>>>> December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man
in Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped
to his tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went
against "Church Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly
whenever any controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the
country would be sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the >>>>>> next Sunday Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of
otherwise burning in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend)
Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Oh yes sorry. I was forgetting
Catholics can commit as many sins as they like; murder people, commit
incest or fiddle with other people's kids, rob and steal as much
as they like. But just so long as they're truly sorry, 'til the end
of the week at least, then after they've confessed their sins to a
Catholic Priest, who is sworn to total secrecy, then they are
forgiven; and the slate is wiped totally clean.
Which is nice.
Jimmy Savil of course was not only a devout Roman Catholic but a
Papal Knight into the bargain, as well.
Although doubtless you will be the first to point out that Jimmy
Savile was never convicted of any crime. Much the same as Fred West.
Anyway, thanks for biting.
bb
It is not only Catholics who are taught forgiveness, atonement and
repentence. All Judeo-Christian religions teach something similar.
Islam too.
But is is only the Catholic Church which grants the power to its
appointed priests to absolve Catholics of mortal sins; which
otherwise would condemn them all to hell fire.
Don't you see ? The Catholic Church is taking upon itself a
power which should only be God's; that of forgiving sins.
Imagine for a moment that a fraudulent lookalike priest turned
up in a parish; maybe somehow having murdered the legitimate
Rome appointed priest. And started hearing confessions
of mortal sinners; who therefore beieved they would go to
hell.* Well clearly they would still go to hell as he
wasn't a legitimate properly ordained priest. Butv a murderer
in a priest's clothes.
Howver
The Catholic Church only claims legitinmacy for themselves
and their clergy, the lot, Popes, Archbishops, priests etc
because they claim direct descendene fronm St Peter. Which
they clearly need to do,
Except they can't. Becaese as mentioned previously there have
been plenty of dodgy Popes in the past who doubtless bribed
bishops to appoint them; who doubtless promoted dodgy bishops
in their turn all of whom ended up appointing dodgy priests.
There is no getting around this. There is no possibility of
God "making himself known" to some dodgy Pope in say the 18th c
and saying "Look I know things got a bit out of hand in the past
so lets start again. If you promise to be good "I'll make you my
official representative on Earth again"; so you can start
administering valid Sacraments icluding Confessions.
There is simply no continuity of legitimacy.
You have already shown how little you know or understand Catholic
teaching, no need to double down on it.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
This simply isn't as problem which effects other religions or other >>Christian denominations; as they don't claim to be God's represntatives
on Earth. Only interpreters of his words as contained in Holy
Scriptures.
I don't normally like discussing religion. Full stop.
You really shouldn't when you know so little about it but then again,
lack of knowledge has never stopped you in the past - not just about religion but also other subjects.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
Martyrs of all
faiths have died happily while being dosembowelled or burned at the
stake. So similarly, many believers have died with a smile on their
faces; and I see no good reason to deny anyone that. So if I'm ever >>approached, I wish such people well and simply point to the uphill
struggle they face converting anyone in the materialistic world
of today.
bb
* This would make a good plot for a novel. As the fraudulent priest
could then use secrets learned in the Confessional, to blackmail
people.
On 28/07/2025 01:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB32A6C6FC16901F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
On 14:44 27 Jul 2025, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:memdtfFhabvU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/07/2025 08:47 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As the Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin between >>>>>> December 1940 and January 1972 McQuaid was *The Most Powerful Man
in Ireland*. All the politicians Devalara most especially, jumped
to his tune. And wouldn't dare introduce policies which went
against "Church Teachings" as determined by McQuaid. Similarly
whenever any controversies arose, Parish Priests throughout the
country would be sent directives be read out from the pulpit at the >>>>>> next Sunday Mass. Which everyone had to attend; on pain of
otherwise burning in Hell for eternity.
Old lazy canard no 472, eh?
Of course it is NOT true.
There has probably never been a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation on
which every devout Catholic has attended (or been able to attend)
Mass.
See whether you can think why that is.
Oh yes sorry. I was forgetting
Catholics can commit as many sins as they like; murder people, commit
incest or fiddle with other people's kids, rob and steal as much as
they like. But just so long as they're truly sorry, 'til the end of
the week at least, then after they've confessed their sins to a
Catholic Priest, who is sworn to total secrecy, then they are
forgiven; and the slate is wiped totally clean.
Which is nice.
Jimmy Savil of course was not only a devout Roman Catholic but a
Papal Knight into the bargain, as well.
Although doubtless you will be the first to point out that Jimmy
Savile was never convicted of any crime. Much the same as Fred West.
Anyway, thanks for biting.
bb
It is not only Catholics who are taught forgiveness, atonement and
repentence. All Judeo-Christian religions teach something similar.
Islam too.
But is is only the Catholic Church which grants the power to its
appointed priests to absolve Catholics of mortal sins; which otherwise
would condemn them all to hell fire.
Don't you see ? The Catholic Church is taking upon itself a power which
should only be God's; that of forgiving sins.
From where do you say the Church gets that power?
Does the Pope have a generating station for it?
Imagine for a moment that a fraudulent lookalike priest turned up in a
parish; maybe somehow having murdered the legitimate Rome appointed
priest. And started hearing confessions of mortal sinners; who
therefore beieved they would go to hell.* Well clearly they would still
go to hell as he wasn't a legitimate properly ordained priest. Butv a
murderer in a priest's clothes.
How do you (think you) know?
Howver
The Catholic Church only claims legitinmacy for themselves and their
clergy, the lot, Popes, Archbishops, priests etc because they claim
direct descendene fronm St Peter. Which they clearly need to do,
Except they can't. Becaese as mentioned previously there have been
plenty of dodgy Popes in the past who doubtless bribed bishops to
appoint them; who doubtless promoted dodgy bishops in their turn all of
whom ended up appointing dodgy priests.
Don't, for God's sake, give up that day job.
There is no getting around this. There is no possibility of God "making
himself known" to some dodgy Pope in say the 18th c and saying "Look I
know things got a bit out of hand in the past so lets start again. If
you promise to be good "I'll make you my official representative on
Earth again"; so you can start administering valid Sacraments icluding
Confessions.
There is simply no continuity of legitimacy.
This simply isn't as problem which effects other religions or other
Christian denominations; as they don't claim to be God's represntatives
on Earth. Only interpreters of his words as contained in Holy
Scriptures.
I don't normally like discussing religion. Full stop. Martyrs of all
faiths have died happily while being dosembowelled or burned at the
stake. So similarly, many believers have died with a smile on their
faces; and I see no good reason to deny anyone that. So if I'm ever
approached, I wish such people well and simply point to the uphill
struggle they face converting anyone in the materialistic world of
today.
* This would make a good plot for a novel. As the fraudulent priest
could then use secrets learned in the Confessional, to blackmail
people.
He'd be lucky - if that's the right word - to:
(a) know who the parishioner was, and
(b) encounter someone who wished to confess something worth blackmailing
him over.
I can remember at least one TV play (probably ITV, in the days of ABC's Armchair Theatre) where a parish priest who had heard a grievously
injured gangster's confession in a dire emergency was pressured by the
police to reveal what that person had said. From the accents affected by
the cast, I think it was set in Italy. It was a long time ago. More than fifty years.
Straight to the chase. He didn't comply with the police requests.
On 28/07/2025 13:51, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
I don't normally like discussing religion. Full stop. Martyrs of all
faiths have died happily while being dosembowelled or burned at the
stake.
Or blowing themselves and others up. After all, if you genuinely
believe in the rewards to come it makes perfect sense.
On 29/07/2025 17:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 20:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are
taken to
mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and >>>>> objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of
one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
I would say that I was "taught" what I needed to know to pass exams,
but that there were other things I "learned". I was taught how to
play hockey, but I learned I was useless at it.
Yes, it is all education, but I tend to see a difference. I didn't
have to agree with opinions of teachers.
Ok, but that's not what Mark and JNugent are talking about. You are
making a distinction between information deliberately passed on by
teachers and things you learned for yourself. JNugent is purporting
to make a distinction between different types of information passed
on by teachers, and he's clearly wrong, and your comment doesn't
support what he's saying.
So, when Mr Good, the English teacher, told a class of 12 year olds that "Using a condom was like washing your feet with your socks on", you are adamant that he was teaching them to have unprotected sex?
I must say that I'm not so sure about that.
On 2025-07-29, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 20:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to >>>> mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and
objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of
one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
I would say that I was "taught" what I needed to know to pass exams,
but that there were other things I "learned". I was taught how to
play hockey, but I learned I was useless at it.
Yes, it is all education, but I tend to see a difference. I didn't
have to agree with opinions of teachers.
Ok, but that's not what Mark and JNugent are talking about. You are
making a distinction between information deliberately passed on by
teachers and things you learned for yourself. JNugent is purporting
to make a distinction between different types of information passed
on by teachers, and he's clearly wrong, and your comment doesn't
support what he's saying.
On 2025-07-29, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 20:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:17:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> When anyone says "I was taught X at school", they mean, and are taken to >>>> mean, that it was formally taught to them as part of the purposes and
objectives of the school.
No, they don't. They really don't. You appear to be in a minority of
one as regards this particular non-standard opinion.
I would say that I was "taught" what I needed to know to pass exams,
but that there were other things I "learned". I was taught how to
play hockey, but I learned I was useless at it.
Yes, it is all education, but I tend to see a difference. I didn't
have to agree with opinions of teachers.
Ok, but that's not what Mark and JNugent are talking about. You are
making a distinction between information deliberately passed on by
teachers and things you learned for yourself. JNugent is purporting
to make a distinction between different types of information passed
on by teachers, and he's clearly wrong, and your comment doesn't
support what he's saying.
On 29/07/2025 18:00, GB wrote:
So, when Mr Good, the English teacher, told a class of 12 year olds
that "Using a condom was like washing your feet with your socks on",
you are adamant that he was teaching them to have unprotected sex?
I must say that I'm not so sure about that.
Our English teacher once told us a little about Sigmund Freud's
theories, which was not relevant to the set book we were discussing, but
was an agreeable diversion and, of course, since none of us had read
Freud's work we were inclined to believe our teacher's interpretation.
Our teacher said how distasteful it was to read that our teacher's son
might yearn to have sex with his mother and see his father as a rival
for sexual favours, despite the son not yet having reached puberty. I
think it was intended as a way of encouraging us to question what we
were told by eminent experts in their field and to apply common sense.
BUt we may have been too young to understand the lesson. There is a lot
in Freud that has been discredited, especially his belief that when
young women described being sexually molested by their father it was
surely a fantasy and not a real life experience.
On 29/07/2025 11:29 AM, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
On 28/07/2025 11:33, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or >>>>>>>>>>> Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the >>>>>>>>>>> "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood >>>>>>>>>>> libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the >>>>>>>>> 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of >>>>>>>>> the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools.
Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time
there was
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the
education
authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, >>>>>> which
must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools >>>>>> era.
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is >>>>>> taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to
Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce
children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the
"curriculum".
I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar >>>>>> school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and
let us
know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their
personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not
understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't >>>>>> share
his enthusiasm for sports.
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good >>>>>>> manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you >>>>>>> can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable >>>>>>> today.
"lessons"?
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at >>>>>> all
- always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a
lesson in
macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in >>>>> 1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years >>>>> at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by
various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught >>>>> RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England,
primary and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i
vaguely recall supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at
Infants and Juniors, other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the
cathlics were there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it
was time for announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the >>>> syllabus was "too narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form
that was "do you know where you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss
your fiancé". I knew several boys who attended a Catholic school,
and they weren't all Catholic. only thing that came out of that was
when they queried some point of Catholic doctrine and the staff
couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
I am glad that you had a good experience at school.
A while back, I suggested that the antisemitic remarks that my elderly
female friend witnessed at her school would have come from batty old
nuns who should never have been employed as teachers.
I am not in a position to examine their personnel files or their
teacher training certificates after this length of time, of course.
But I can readily accept that batty, bigoted old nuns are not likely
to have been typical of the teaching staff at the average Catholic
school in your own day.
However, it's also possible that bigotry won't be noticed at the time
or stay in the memory forever. In the same way, the Black and White
Minstrel Show would not have registered as racist or objectionable
when it was broadcast every week.
It merely registered to me as very boring.
Racism is a mindset. Why did they put on black face? To a young person,
as I was, maybe they thought we, the viewers, preferred black singers.
It wasn't that.
The tradition of performing in blackface (which in vaudeville was known
as "minstrelcy") goes back to the nineteenth century at a minimum.
Al Jolson is probably the name most associated with it, but he was
following a tradition which was at least forty years old when he started
in the early years of the last century.
Not all those using black greasepaint and that particular way of
applying it were white, by the way.
On 29/07/2025 18:06, JNugent wrote:
On 29/07/2025 11:29 AM, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
On 28/07/2025 11:33, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time >>>>>>>> there was
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or >>>>>>>>>>>> Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the >>>>>>>>>>>> "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood >>>>>>>>>>>> libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the >>>>>>>>>> 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of >>>>>>>>>> the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools. >>>>>>>>
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the
education
authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, >>>>>>> which
must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools >>>>>>> era.
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is >>>>>>> taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to >>>>>>> Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce
children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the
"curriculum".
I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar >>>>>>> school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and >>>>>>> let us
know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their >>>>>>> personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not >>>>>>> understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't >>>>>>> share
his enthusiasm for sports.
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good >>>>>>>> manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than you >>>>>>>> can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable >>>>>>>> today.
"lessons"?
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at >>>>>>> all
- always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a
lesson in
macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in >>>>>> 1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years >>>>>> at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by >>>>>> various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught >>>>>> RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England, >>>>> primary and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i
vaguely recall supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at >>>>> Infants and Juniors, other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the
cathlics were there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it >>>>> was time for announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the >>>>> syllabus was "too narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form
that was "do you know where you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss >>>>> your fiancé". I knew several boys who attended a Catholic school,
and they weren't all Catholic. only thing that came out of that was
when they queried some point of Catholic doctrine and the staff
couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
I am glad that you had a good experience at school.
A while back, I suggested that the antisemitic remarks that my elderly >>>> female friend witnessed at her school would have come from batty old
nuns who should never have been employed as teachers.
I am not in a position to examine their personnel files or their
teacher training certificates after this length of time, of course.
But I can readily accept that batty, bigoted old nuns are not likely
to have been typical of the teaching staff at the average Catholic
school in your own day.
However, it's also possible that bigotry won't be noticed at the time
or stay in the memory forever. In the same way, the Black and White
Minstrel Show would not have registered as racist or objectionable
when it was broadcast every week.
It merely registered to me as very boring.
Racism is a mindset. Why did they put on black face? To a young person, >>> as I was, maybe they thought we, the viewers, preferred black singers.
It wasn't that.
The tradition of performing in blackface (which in vaudeville was known
as "minstrelcy") goes back to the nineteenth century at a minimum.
Al Jolson is probably the name most associated with it, but he was
following a tradition which was at least forty years old when he started
in the early years of the last century.
Not all those using black greasepaint and that particular way of
applying it were white, by the way.
One wonders why Lenny Henry isn't cancelled as a result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show
"contractually obliged", my a***e.
On 29/07/2025 18:06, JNugent wrote:
On 29/07/2025 11:29 AM, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:55, The Todal wrote:
On 28/07/2025 11:33, kat wrote:
On 28/07/2025 08:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:21:53 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/07/2025 05:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 27/07/2025 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 01:00 PM, The Todal wrote:Maybe you are much younger that I supposed. Maybe in your time >>>>>>>> there was
On 27/07/2025 11:40, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Why are we expected to believe that in all Jewish schools or >>>>>>>>>>>> Shuls or
gatherings, the Jews are scrupulously respectful towards the >>>>>>>>>>>> "Arabs" or Palestinians, and to suggest otherwise is a "blood >>>>>>>>>>>> libel"?
Did you go to a Jewish school?
No
OK.
If you did, what was your own experience there?
What has that to do with it? Everyone who went to school in the >>>>>>>>>> 1960s
can cite bigoted comments and poor teaching methods from some of >>>>>>>>>> the
people there. Even at our finest public schools.
Not from teachers teaching the curriculum in Catholic schools. >>>>>>>>
a curriculum imposed upon all schools, all teachers, from the
education
authority or, who knows, maybe from the Vatican.
No, there wasn't such a national curriculum imposed by Parliament, >>>>>>> which
must be what you mean. I was a child of the 11+ and grammar schools >>>>>>> era.
However, the Catholic Church has long been particular about what is >>>>>>> taught for RE (which, as you know, even today, is not subject to >>>>>>> Parliamentary control as to its content).
Maybe it was virtually unheard of for teachers to introduce
children to
ideas and beliefs that departed, to any extent, from the
"curriculum".
I don't it was "virtually unheard of". The art teacher at my grammar >>>>>>> school was a noted lefty, supported every strike in the news and >>>>>>> let us
know as much.
Other teachers were more balanced in their presentation of their >>>>>>> personal beliefs, except, as ever, the PE teacher, who could not >>>>>>> understand - and did not want to understand - any pupil who didn't >>>>>>> share
his enthusiasm for sports.
And maybe now, in today's climate, you should try to find the good >>>>>>>> manners to accept that some people who are perhaps older than
you can
recall to mind teachers and lessons that would not be acceptable >>>>>>>> today.
"lessons"?
Are you, even now, sure that a teacher's comments - if delivered at >>>>>>> all
- always count as a lesson?
Did the art teacher's support for striking dockers count as a
lesson in
macroeconomics and sociology?
I don't know what age Todal is but I'm 74 and started my education in >>>>>> 1956 at a Catholic convent where I did P1 and P2 followed by 5 years >>>>>> at a Catholic primary school; that was followed by 5 years (1963
-1968) at a Catholic grammar school* so I'd think that was fairly
contemporaneous with period he is referring to. Roughly half the
teachers at that grammar school were priests and I was taught RE by >>>>>> various priests so over my years at school, I would say I was taught >>>>>> RE by at least 10 or 11 different/teachers.
I am also 74, and spent my time in ordinary state schools in England, >>>>> primary and then a Girl's Grammar school. Some sort of RE was i
vaguely recall supposed o be compulsory but i don't rememeber any at >>>>> Infants and Juniors, other than morning assembly.
At the Grammar school we did Scripture the first 3 years, the
cathlics were there too, though they didn't attend assembly until it >>>>> was time for announcements. Come O levels we dropped Scripture ( the >>>>> syllabus was "too narrow") and had some sort of RE and by 6th form
that was "do you know where you can buy drugs" and "miss, do you kiss >>>>> your fiancé". I knew several boys who attended a Catholic school,
and they weren't all Catholic. only thing that came out of that was
when they queried some point of Catholic doctrine and the staff
couldn't answer!
But bigotry? None.
I am glad that you had a good experience at school.
A while back, I suggested that the antisemitic remarks that my elderly >>>> female friend witnessed at her school would have come from batty old
nuns who should never have been employed as teachers.
I am not in a position to examine their personnel files or their
teacher training certificates after this length of time, of course.
But I can readily accept that batty, bigoted old nuns are not likely
to have been typical of the teaching staff at the average Catholic
school in your own day.
However, it's also possible that bigotry won't be noticed at the time
or stay in the memory forever. In the same way, the Black and White
Minstrel Show would not have registered as racist or objectionable
when it was broadcast every week.
It merely registered to me as very boring.
Racism is a mindset. Why did they put on black face? To a young person, >>> as I was, maybe they thought we, the viewers, preferred black singers.
It wasn't that.
The tradition of performing in blackface (which in vaudeville was
known as "minstrelcy") goes back to the nineteenth century at a minimum.
Al Jolson is probably the name most associated with it, but he was
following a tradition which was at least forty years old when he
started in the early years of the last century.
Not all those using black greasepaint and that particular way of
applying it were white, by the way.
One wonders why Lenny Henry isn't cancelled as a result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show
"contractually obliged", my a***e.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:46:41 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |