New State Schools & Religion

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Isn't that question kind of moot? That people can shake off what they are taught as children does not make it okay to teach them anything.

That wasn't my motive in asking the question. I was merely trying to outline why you as atheists and agnostics are clearly different from the rest of the populace who you claim have been "indoctrinated" by religion. I didn't mean it in that context, apologies for any confusion caused.

Xhristy wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't take the Islamic argument any above the Christian. In terms of the English translations of the Qur'an (or meanings if you will that word to be used), not only do the translations differ, the verse structure also differs so if one quotes Sura 5:110 in one translation, the other may be 5 verses down on the Sura, making it difficult not only to read but to reference from.

Dades wrote:

But I wonder who really wants all these little catholics - the parents or the church? How many of these parents actually go to mass, or have anything but the fluffiest notion of catholic doctrine?

Again, a good argument, I cannot speak for the Roman Catholic Church (I'm an Anglican). However if parents are enrolling their children in faith schools they should be aware of the ethos of the school first surely?

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

However if parents are enrolling their children in faith schools they should be aware of the ethos of the school first surely?

Ah but the current debate is over the (Catholic) church's demands to intervene in non-denominational schools. The nerve! As an Anglican you can surely see from an objective pov how this can't be allowed?

As for the "faith" schools - they account for 3,000 out of 3,200 (or something) of all schools in Ireland, funded for the most part by taxpayers money.

finlma

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools. I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them - if the person they look up to is force feeding them religious mumbo jumbo every day, they will take it on board. Some of them will lack the intelligence in later life to think for themselves and to question what they were taught.

philologos

Hellm0 wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't, you being a man of faith:P That said my post did state that any answer to your question would be a generalization, the two I posed were merely opinion.

If you are saying that Christians are less intelligent than the rest of the secular population surely you have reasons to believe in this?

Hellm0 wrote: »

Because Christians throughout the ages have murdered, lied and cheated in the name of spreading their religion. That of course is true of many other faiths however when you look at Christianities track record there is no denying innocent blood has been shed in the name of Jesus(look at south America). Ireland is just another victim.

Yes, a few have yes. I think that it's incorrect to paint a picture. Personally I do not feel answerable to defend people who have murdered in the path. They were clearly in it for their own goals, not for the truth of Christianity. I find it interesting that the first Apostles never used violence to put their views across, and thats the reason why the faith spread as it did in the first place by peaceful means. I cringe over the accounts of the First Crusade in Jerusalem as much as anyone else does, as it deviated from the true intentions of the Gospel.

Hellm0 wrote: »

So you agree with me but only if there is a Christian teacher? That doesn't fit

If someone is to teach children Christianity, they should be experienced enough in the faith to teach it. That is all I'm suggesting. Like I would like for someone to be experienced enough in Judaism to teach me Judaism, and the same applies for any faith on the course. I think that respective faith community speakers and guests should be encouraged to visit in order for people to get a clear mind on the faith, that means interaction with the churches for Christianity, and interaction with the synagogues for Judaism etc. Hopefully this is the path religious education will take in the future.

Hellm0 wrote: »

Good Friday is not popular it's tolerated. There would be no public outcry if drink were to be served, if anything people would be happy I should think.

Perhaps not popular in the non-Christian field. However it's not it's purpose. The day exists for Christians to keep it holy in remembering that this is a remembrance for the sacred Crucifixion of Jesus Christ by which we may be all taken from the slavery of sin through faith in Him. I for one do not wish to impose it on anyone apart from those who are willing to be a part of our community.

Dades wrote:

Ah but the current debate is over the (Catholic) church's demands to intervene in non-denominational schools. The nerve! As an Anglican you can surely see from an objective pov how this can't be allowed?

Indeed, yes. I think that children should be encouraged to visit their own retrospective pastors, or to be taught of faith by their parents. I totally agree with you. Unless they are in a faith school this is the way that it must be done. Non-denominational, multifaith means precisely that. Apologies for deviating off the topic.

finlma wrote:

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools.

I don't think the point concerns removing faith from faith schools, it's in relation to non-denominational schools.

finlma wrote:

I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them.

Do you teach in a Roman Catholic ethos school? Then surely you should know that is their objective, and the parents should have consulted the ethos of the school prior to sending them if they did not want them to be brought up in a Catholic background. If you are so opposed to teaching them religion, why don't you move on to a non-denominational school?

robindch

finlma wrote: »

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools.

Good to hear!

In your experience, could you estimate very loosely the percentage of primary school teachers who are teaching religion as fact? Is a majority, or a minority? And how do other teachers feel about it?

And how would you classify the susceptibility of young kids to teaching religion as fact? What percentage of kids will lap it up without question?

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, yes. I think that children should be encouraged to visit their own retrospective pastors, or to be taught of faith by their parents. I totally agree with you. Unless they are in a faith school this is the way that it must be done. Non-denominational, multifaith means precisely that. Apologies for deviating off the topic.

I think the topic was always going to spread to catholic schools tbh.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are so opposed to teaching them religion, why don't you move on to a non-denominational school?

Given the ratio of non-denom schools to (publicly funded) catholic schools, I would imagine this isn't usually a realistic option.

Your points about "faith" schools would be valid if we, the non-denominational taxpayer, didn't pay for the running of those schools!

Dades

Parents demand right to pick schools for children

Respondents were also asked what one kind of school they would choose for their children from four options provided. The most popular choice was a Catholic school (47pc) followed by a 'State-run school in which all religions are taught' (37pc).

Only a small minority of people (11pc) favour schools in which no religion is taught.

Iona Institute director David Quinn said: "What these poll findings show is that there is very little support for those who want to replace publicly funded denominational schools with State-run multi-denominational or non-denominational schools.

Oddly enough that "very little support" seems to me to add up to 48%...

The poll has been conducted ahead of a conference on denominational schools organised by The Iona Institute and 'The Word' magazine. 'In Defence of Denominational Schools' will be held in the Tara Towers Hotel on April 4.

I wonder if PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins will be sneaking into this.

Galvasean

In primary school religion class was basically just learning about Jesus, Moses, Adam and Eve etc.
Stupid class, where's my Xenu!!!?

finlma

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are so opposed to teaching them religion, why don't you move on to a non-denominational school?

It is extremely difficult to get a job in non-denominational schools without being prepared to move home, which I am not prepared to do.

robindch wrote: »

In your experience, could you estimate very loosely the percentage of primary school teachers who are teaching religion as fact? Is a majority, or a minority? And how do other teachers feel about it?

The majority would teach it as fact from my experience but there are some who don't. It is a difficult topic to bring up in the staffroom as working in a Catholic school you can't go around promoting that you don't believe in the school's ethos. That said I'm not afraid to voice my opinion in front of certain teachers. I don't feel I've anything to hide but at the same time my job is at steak.

robindch wrote: »

And how would you classify the susceptibility of young kids to teaching religion as fact? What percentage of kids will lap it up without question?

I could tell the younger children that Jesus was a twenty foot lizard with 3 heads they would believe me. The older children do take in most of what I say but they do bring in some beliefs from their parents - some would be more reverend than others. None of them leave my class more reverend than when they came in, that's for sure. I show the older children a Karl Sagan clip to explain evolution and where they came from. Any Bible questions I tell them to ask their parents.

Dades

finlma wrote: »

I don't feel I've anything to hide but at the same time my job is at steak.

You shouldn't be forced to moove.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

"THE Catholic Church has drawn up a list of "non-negotiable" demands in return for its involvement in new multi-denominational primary schools."

hmmm... The Minister for Education and the INTO seem to have other ideas:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0325/education.html?RTEMAILID

Mary Hanafin wrote:

Hanafin says Church will not have teacher veto

The Minister for Education has said there is no question of the Catholic Church being allowed to impose a veto on the appointment of staff to a new type of State primary school that is due to be piloted in three areas of Dublin in September. Speaking at the INTO conference in Killarney, Mary Hanafin annnounced her intention to hold a public conference to discuss the new model of multi-denominational school, and the impact of a new diverse pupil body in schools generally.

Ms Hanafin said it was important to discuss these issues in a public forum. She said the conference would be held later this year. The event will focus on the challenges of a changing society for new and existing schools, concentrating on schools ethos and approach to religious instruction. It will also discuss the implications of this for school enrolment policies.

Referring to the new model of State-run primary schools planned, the minister said the Government had very deliberately decided to make these schools multi-faceted rather than non-denominational. She said the Government wants them to cater for all children of all faiths and of none. But Fine Gael Education spokesman Brian Hayes has described Minister Hanafin's announcement of the one-day conference 'as the barest of fig leaves to cover her complete inaction in this area'.

Deputy Hayes said it is unacceptable that the Minister has offered a toothless conference that will last a few hours when a comprehensive debate bringing in all education partners and political parties is needed. The question over the new inclusive schools and how they should be run has generated significant controversy.

Earlier the INTO said it will oppose a demand by the Catholic Church for a veto over teachers who provide religious instruction to Catholic pupils in new multi-denominational schools. The veto is one of several demands made by bishops in private talks on a new primary school model with the Department of Education. The details were revealed in documents released to the Irish Independent under Freedom of Information.

robindch

BTW, I notice that that infernal word "ethos" is being bandied about again, as though it explained anything other than the desire for unsupervised control. My eyes water every time I see it!

Tim Robbins

finlma wrote: »

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools. I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them - if the person they look up to is force feeding them religious mumbo jumbo every day, they will take it on board. Some of them will lack the intelligence in later life to think for themselves and to question what they were taught.

Good for you. It's a pity we haven't more teachers like yourself.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

hmmm... The Minister for Education and the INTO seem to have other ideas:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0325/education.html?RTEMAILID

She doesn't need a public forum, that is just her way of wasting tax payers money so she doesn't have to say what has to be said.

A public forum is usually a sign of political weakness.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

My eyes water every time I see it!

Keep taking the drops!

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Keep taking the drops!

No, I think that any intelligent person will see that I'm being persecuted! Quick, open up a persecution thread!

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

finlma wrote:

As a primary teacher I for one will be delighted if religion is taken out of schools. I have to "teach" it every day but I do my best not too mention the God word and I teach all my class about evolution - try to open their eyes and minds. I use my daily half hour of religion a day to teach morals and how to be a good person rather than anything else. But I still hate the fact that children are forced (they are forced) to pray and view statues and other Catholic rubbish every day. Of course that effects them - if the person they look up to is force feeding them religious mumbo jumbo every day, they will take it on board. Some of them will lack the intelligence in later life to think for themselves and to question what they were taught.

Good for you. It's a pity we haven't more teachers like yourself.

I'd prefer them slightly better at spelling

finlma

pH wrote: »

I'd prefer them slightly better at spelling

Touche - I just type too quickly

On the "ethos" word - every school has to have an "ethos" to describe itself.

robindch

finlma wrote: »

On the "ethos" word - every school has to have an "ethos" to describe itself.

No doubt, but the word is used to legitimate the control of schools full of susceptible kids by the religious. It sounds like a nice harmless word, but it hides something rather horrible. Look out for how it's used...

philologos

robindch wrote: »

No doubt, but the word is used to legitimate the control of schools full of susceptible kids by the religious. It sounds like a nice harmless word, but it hides something rather horrible. Look out for how it's used...

It's funny, before I looked at this thread, I wouldn't have thought that atheists would view us in a similar manner to the Hitler Youth. However I agree, I personally think that some religious based schools should teach with questioning as well.

Dades

pH wrote: »

I'd prefer them slightly better at spelling

finlma wrote: »

Touche - I just type too quickly

I guess my 'typo' in the post at the top of this page was too subtle!

finlma wrote: »

On the "ethos" word - every school has to have an "ethos" to describe itself.

I quite like the word ethos.
I find in useful to say I have one in the absence of a belief structure.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

It's funny, before I looked at this thread, I wouldn't have thought that atheists would view us in a similar manner to the Hitler Youth.

Not quite as bad.
Anyway, we're not lumping you in with them. Its certain institutions we're having a go at.

lostexpectation

can we stick to practicalities jakkass, and if you cant' recognise the 95% problem maybe you should stop posting in this forum.

the into guy, hanafin and the bishop weren't very clear.

at multi-denominational ET schools the teaching of specific religions is faciltated by te school outside school hours, which avoids splitting up the kids during the compulsory school day. john carr was asked three times whether he wanted to do the same but never answered.

there suggestions would cement compulsory denominational religious teaching into the system, they also want a say on who teaches the kids religion, now in primary there only one teacher, so the bishop suggest swapping teachers for that period, splitting up the kids . but if as hanafin claims she wants to cater for all religions and none then they would need teaches from all religions , protestant catholic, muslim, jew hindu teacher on hand in each school.?? note the bishop didn't say guests he said teachers vetted by the BOM.

or how would it work?

a more secular system would benefit everybody. hanafin and church continue to want to be divisive and priviliged

robindch

finlma wrote: »

The majority would teach it as fact from my experience but there are some who don't.

That's rather what I suspected. It's just an adaption that religion has evolved in order to ensure its own propagation -- evolution applies in culture, and the natural selection of successively more efficient means of cultural propagation, just as much as the same principle does in biology.

finlma wrote: »

I could tell the younger children that Jesus was a twenty foot lizard with 3 heads they would believe me.

Have you come across any peer-reviewed research that's been done in this area -- ie, feeding kids random or nonsensical ideas as 'truth', and seeing how they react to them?

finlma wrote: »

I show the older children a Karl Sagan clip to explain evolution and where they came from.

You won't go far wrong with Sagan. His excellent 'Cosmos' series is available from various websites and I think most of it's on youtube too. I find his comment about the pale blue dot suspended in space is particularly moving -- have you come across that one?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It's funny, before I looked at this thread, I wouldn't have thought that atheists would view us in a similar manner to the Hitler Youth.

Huh? Who mentioned the Hitler Youth? What on earth do you mean?

Jakkass wrote: »

However I agree, I personally think that some religious based schools should teach with questioning as well.

I'm glad we can find something to agree upon

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I quite like the word ethos. I find in useful to say I have one in the absence of a belief structure.

Hmm... moderator speak with forked tongue.

Dades

A twenty foot lizard with three heads, perhaps Robin? :pac:

It's interesting that finlma's posts highlight exactly why the catholic church want to vet those teaching "religion" in schools out of their remit. Of course understanding why they want this is not the same as conceding they have a right to do so. Which of course they don't.

finlma

In any interview for a job you have to prove your Catholicism - luckily I'm a good liar and got the job. Now I'm planning to take them down from the inside.

iUseVi

finlma wrote: »

It is extremely difficult to get a job in non-denominational schools without being prepared to move home, which I am not prepared to do.


The majority would teach it as fact from my experience but there are some who don't. It is a difficult topic to bring up in the staffroom as working in a Catholic school you can't go around promoting that you don't believe in the school's ethos. That said I'm not afraid to voice my opinion in front of certain teachers. I don't feel I've anything to hide but at the same time my job is at steak.


I could tell the younger children that Jesus was a twenty foot lizard with 3 heads they would believe me. The older children do take in most of what I say but they do bring in some beliefs from their parents - some would be more reverend than others. None of them leave my class more reverend than when they came in, that's for sure. I show the older children a Karl Sagan clip to explain evolution and where they came from. Any Bible questions I tell them to ask their parents.

Good for you Fimlma! Hang on in there.

In my experience, not only will children listen to what ever the authority figure tells them, but there is also a large peer pressure factor.

"Sure everyone else is going along with this, they must believe this. Therefore it must be true and I 'believe' it too."

I know I found myself telling people I believed it for many years, but I never actually did in reality. When I grew up and become more learned, I eventually mustered up the courage to tell people what I really thought.

PDN

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, they read it in all kinds of languages. You can also read it in the original Hebrew and Greek if you want. (I like to do so occasionally with the Greek - but my Hebrew is lousy).

As the bible moved from one language to another it lost some of its initial meaning in the intricacies of the original language. Words that do not correspond exactly to the translation.

Which would be why we have commentaries and other study books to remind us of those shades of meaning.

One example that comes to mind, although I have yet to research it, is that the for Virgin Mary in the original Greek was actually Maid Mary. Although they are apparantly only one letter off. Like I said I have no proof of this, but you could extend this to much of the bible.

I think you're a bit confused here. Has been covered in the Christianity forum before. parthenos is the usual Greek word for 'virgin' and is translated as such by most scholars. For example, the technical word in English for virgin birth is parthenogenesis. There is no word for 'maid' that differs by one letter.

As such the various scholars, theologians and biblical commentaries could be missinformed.

Not as misinformed as your sources, apparently.