Religion in primary schools

CDfm

ArthurDent wrote: »

so which CULTURAL values would be missing by removing doctrinal instruction from schools?

you tell me - surely you should know which ones you find objectionable

Antbert

CDfm wrote: »

you tell me - surely you should know which ones you find objectionable

Nicely avoided.

Osgoodisgood

CDfm wrote: »

But you want everyone to think the way you do and take away the right of parents to decide the religious orientation of their kids.

Pardon? That's your "right"?

Rev Hellfire

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Pardon? That's your "right"?

Are you suggesting that parents should not be offered the 'right' to determine the upbringing of their children. And if not who or what dictates that upbringing ?

CDfm

Antbert wrote: »

Nicely avoided.

I am not trying to avoid it honestly. If someone wants change surely the have a shopping list. JUst want to see some concensus.

ArthurDent

CDfm wrote: »

you tell me - surely you should know which ones you find objectionable

the hint was in the question - you said you wanted to YOUR CULTURAL values taught in school, I just wanted to know what cultural values would not be imparted if doctrinal instruction was removed?

you tell me what these cultural values are and I'll tell you if I object to em - altough tbh I doubt that you'll come up with any that removal of doctrinal instruction prevents

eoin5

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Are you suggesting that parents should not be offered the 'right' to determine the upbringing of their children. And if not who or what dictates that upbringing ?

Both the state and parents raise children. The state has them in school and if parents do something deemed wrong (denying transfusions etc) the state steps in. The state also has certain requirements such as vaccinations. Personally I dont think parents should have the right to teach children that there is a place called hell where you suffer forever if youre not good. Its all just drawing lines in the sand though, pretty arbitrary stuff really.

ArthurDent

eoin5 wrote: »

Both the state and parents raise children. The state has them in school and if parents do something deemed wrong (denying transfusions etc) the state steps in. The state also has certain requirements such as vaccinations. Personally I dont think parents should have the right to teach children that there is a place called hell where you suffer forever if youre not good. Its all just drawing lines in the sand though, pretty arbitrary stuff really.

unfortunatley the constitution does not agree with you and the state recognises parents as the primary educators of their children

20goto10

One of the advantages of being an atheist is there is no hell for us to burn for all eternity in if we lie. Are you a catholic - yes. It's that simple. Do they ask for certs?

As for religion class, I went to school with an Indian bloke. I don't know what religion he was but it wasn't catholic. He spent religion class doing his maths homework. The teachers tried to tell him he had to listen and participate and he just refused and carried on doing his maths. I distictly remember one teacher telling him religion class was not just about religion, that it was about learning to be a good person.

Pff. Religion class will be for maths homework for my son. He's not Indian so it might not go down so lightly but what they going to do about it?

Rev Hellfire

20goto10 wrote: »

Pff. Religion class will be for maths homework for my son. He's not Indian so it might not go down so lightly but what they going to do about it?

Hee, there's no guarantee that will happen, you tell him he has to do maths as sure as bedamned he'll start listening

Kids... if you could only put them back...

ArthurDent

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Kids... if you could only put them back...

totally off topic - but only a man could say that - if you knew how much trouble we have popping em out!!!!!

20goto10

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Hee, there's no guarantee that will happen, you tell him he has to do maths as sure as bedamned he'll start listening

Kids... if you could only put them back...

Ha good point :-) well for the rest of us religion class was no more than a free period. I personally looked forward to 45 mins of day dreaming and even catching a snooze.

That's secondary school though. The problem is primary school when they're young and believe the stories or god forbid (excuse the phrase :-)) even enjoy the stories. But I'm very confident I will be able to convince even a 5 year old that it's all baloney. It's a pity I have to in the first place but that's the country we live in and there's not a political party you can vote for that'll change that.

Dades

20goto10 wrote: »

Pff. Religion class will be for maths homework for my son. He's not Indian so it might not go down so lightly but what they going to do about it?

That reminds me of a Tommy Cooper joke...

Tommy Cooper wrote:

"Apparently, 1 in 5 people in the world are Chinese. And there are 5 people in my family, so it must be one of them. It's either my mum or my dad. Or my older brother Colin. Or my younger brother Ho-Cha-Chu. But I think it's Colin."

Ahem. Sorry. As you were.

eoin5

ArthurDent wrote: »

unfortunatley the constitution does not agree with you and the state recognises parents as the primary educators of their children

I'm saying that its not just the parents but also the state that takes a hand in educating our children. Thats the situation regardless of what the constitution says.

ArthurDent

eoin5 wrote: »

I'm saying that its not just the parents but also the state that takes a hand in educating our children. Thats the situation regardless of what the constitution says.

agree but ultimately parents have the last call - they cannot be forced to let their children participate in something they thinkl is against their beliefs (so can withdraw child from religion class etc)

Ickle Magoo

Antbert wrote: »

... What about all the Educate Together schools springing up all over the place?

There is the grand total of 56 ET primary schools in the whole of the country. By the way they are thrown around as the panacea to all arguments against the current education system you would think they were on every corner - but alas that is not the case, not even close.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

exactly- from a cultural perspective thats what you want irrespective of what the parents want or the community wants

And what "cultural perspective" would that be....?

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

And what "cultural perspective" would that be....?

I am just taking a Nietchzean definition of education so I posed the question based on subject of the thread.

The cultural perspective should be the choice of the parents and not the state.

ArthurDent

ArthurDent wrote: »

the hint was in the question - you said you wanted to YOUR CULTURAL values taught in school, I just wanted to know what cultural values would not be imparted if doctrinal instruction was removed?

you tell me what these cultural values are and I'll tell you if I object to em - altough tbh I doubt that you'll come up with any that removal of doctrinal instruction prevents

any fear of you answering this question?

CDfm

ArthurDent wrote: »

any fear of you answering this question?

if you disagree with the teaching of religion in schools you should at least say what you disagree with and why or are you just anti for the sake of it.

Zillah

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is the grand total of 56 ET primary schools in the whole of the country. By the way they are thrown around as the panacea to all arguments against the current education system you would think they were on every corner - but alas that is not the case, not even close.

I think they are something of a panacea, it's just that there are not enough of them

ArthurDent

CDfm wrote: »

if you disagree with the teaching of religion in schools you should at least say what you disagree with and why or are you just anti for the sake of it.

so AGAIN we will go for a "answer a question with a straight answer" will ya - you made the point that "The cultural perspective should be the choice of the parents and not the state. " and you've danced around this for the past 6 hours

What cultural perspective of education will be lost by the removal of doctrinal instruction

eamo127

Zillah wrote: »

They are really really awesome, have a huge waiting list, and are dwarfed in number by the thousands of Catholic run schools all around the country.

Not where I live - people are pulling kids out of them at an awful rate simply because of discipline and bad education issues. I know a guy who helped set up an educate together school here and is as anti-religious as you can get.

He eventually pulled his 3 kids out of the school and has them in a catholic school now. I wonder how long he can resist pushing his artiest religion views on our school.

ArthurDent

:eek:

eamo127 wrote: »

Not where I live - people are pulling kids out of them at an awful rate simply because of discipline and bad education issues. I know a guy who helped set up an educate together school here and is as anti-religious as you can get.

He eventually pulled his 3 kids out of the school and has them in a catholic school now. I wonder how long he can resist pushing his artiest religion views on our school.

and you can classify all ET schools on your second hand knowledge of how many 1,2?

Of course there are going to be short comings in individual schools (even Catholic ones shock horror ), but does that mean they are all the same?

eamo127

CDfm wrote: »

I am just taking a Nietchzean definition of education so I posed the question based on subject of the thread.

The cultural perspective should be the choice of the parents and not the state.

I couldn't agree more.

Zillah

ArthurDent wrote: »

What cultural perspective of education will be lost by the removal of doctrinal instruction

I think you can guess the answer based on the question.

"What fruit is missing from the fruit salad if we take out the oranges?"

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am perhaps giving cdfm a little more credit. Schools do hurling, basketball, art, drama etc, all of which would be considered more cultural inculcation than "education", such as math, english or biology.

The point at which I draw a distinction, however, is that religious indoctrination is inherently partisan. You don't get families each claiming that each other's choice of sport makes them evil, deluded or inherently different. You don't have people teaching abitrary morality based on a particular play that the drama group is putting on. And you certainly don't forbid a non-painter from attending your school just because you teach art at the school. Finally, and most importantly, a rugby school does not teach unverifiable ludicrous notions about the nature of the universe as though they were true. That's the opposite of education.

eamo127

Zillah wrote: »

Finally, and most importantly, a rugby school does not teach unverifiable ludicrous notions about the nature of the universe as though they were true. That's the opposite of education.

So true, like the way climate change propaganda is indoctrinated into our children and thought as irrefutable fact despite the real evidence to the contrary.

Zillah

eamo127 wrote: »

So true, like the way climate change propaganda is indoctrinated into our children and thought as irrefutable fact despite the real evidence to the contrary.

You're an idiot.

(I die willingly)

ArthurDent

Zillah wrote: »

I think you can guess the answer based on the question.

"What fruit is missing from the fruit salad if we take out the oranges?"

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am perhaps giving cdfm a little more credit. Schools do hurling, basketball, art, drama etc, all of which would be considered more cultural inculcation than "education", such as math, english or biology.

The point at which I draw a distinction, however, is that religious indoctrination is inherently partisan. You don't get families each claiming that each other's choice of sport makes them evil, deluded or inherently different. You don't have people teaching abitrary morality based on a particular play that the drama group is putting on. And you certainly don't forbid a non-painter from attending your school just because you teach art at the school. Finally, and most importantly, a rugby school does not teach unverifiable ludicrous notions about the nature of the universe as though they were true. That's the opposite of education.

yes but it was he who brought up the cultural aspect not me and has been dancing around it all evening. I am in no way opposed to religious education in school (I'm not even an atheist shhh- probably shouldn't even be on this forum ) - but the notion that doctrinal instruction for one group to the exclusion of all others is wrong in my opinion and I personally don't favour any doctrinal instruction in publically funded schools

Zillah

ArthurDent wrote: »

yes but it was he who brought up the cultural aspect not me and has been dancing around it all evening. I am in no way opposed to religious education in school (I'm not even an atheist shhh- probably shouldn't even be on this forum ) - but the notion that doctrinal instruction for one group to the exclusion of all others is wrong in my opinion and I personally don't favour any doctrinal instruction in publically funded schools

Well yes, that's pretty much what my whole last paragraph was about. Except the 'not an atheist' part :pac:

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

The cultural perspective should be the choice of the parents and not the state.

If that's true, then why are 96% of the state's schools providing just one "cultural perspective"?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

If that's true, then why are 96% of the state's schools providing just one "cultural perspective"?

I am not justifying it and used a nietzchean definition of education to identify the aspect of schooling which is offensive

i support ETs aims and what its doing but religous ethos is just one part of the cultural issue

so if someone wants that they must have a position of the ethos they want ie are they anti-sport too and should school gaa teams go to because they disagree with the organisation. do they propose abolishing all extra curricullar activities too.

Ickle Magoo

It's not a question of being anti-anything. In this country it is perfectly legit for state funded primary schools to discriminate against children based on their/their parents religion or lack of. To liken the situation to the frankly ridiculous suggestion that any parent is "anti-sport" let alone wanting to prevent their child's school participating in Irish football is just grasping at straws. If there is any GAA team that currently bases it's team selections on who has a baptismal cert, then it's a valid argument, until then, silly point.

If primary schools were refusing to enrol children based on their colour then there would be an almighty stink from all sides, because it's based on a religion that suits the majority, suddenly discrimination against 5 yr olds is not only okay but to demand otherwise is trying to destroy the fabric of Irish culture?! *palms head*

CDfm

You are going to have a cultural ethos in schools etc that reflects societies aspirations/belief system and those of the parents.

The school issue is a constitutional issue and there is loads wrong with the consitution.

So when you get action like you have with the funding of protestant schools - that is not a good thing.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

To liken the situation to the frankly ridiculous suggestion that any parent is "anti-sport" let alone wanting to prevent their child's school participating in Irish football is just grasping at straws. If there is any GAA team that currently bases it's team selections on who has a baptismal cert, then it's a valid argument, until then, silly point.

I used the GAA as from a political ideology standpoint its heritage was quite anti-British and republican.

If primary schools were refusing to enrol children based on their colour then there would be an almighty stink from all sides, because it's based on a religion that suits the majority, suddenly discrimination against 5 yr olds is not only okay but to demand otherwise is trying to destroy the fabric of Irish culture?! *palms head*

If it is based on the fact that there is a demand for schools the Irish Model has had the supply of schools based on a particular model and the community.

ET can do it. The Gaelscoil can do it. Islamic schools can do it. The Japenese Community can do it, The Jewish Community can do it.

For all the talk the clever scientific atheists have not been able to muster any support for their schools. In fact, Ive never seen a proposal anywhere for an atheist school.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think the argument is for the creation of "athiest" schools, certainly not by me as that would discriminate against children from religious families - and that's just the opposing position from the one we currently have to put up with.

For me, the argument is that schools that wish to be able to discriminate against any member of the public should not expect to be funded by that public. Anyone who is in favour of such a primary school and supports the exclusion of children who do not share the same religious or cultural basis as their own, should be prepared to fork out for them. State funded schools for the whole public population is completely fair and inclusive, it's the promotion and support of religious specific schools that are causing/cause a sectarian split in education, which is sad state of affairs in this day and age. If parents want to educate their children in their own specific religion, why not take them to mass? Why expect the state to fund exclusive education at the expense of other children in the community?

CDfm

Its not state funded that way -its funded by taxes paid by people. There is not a magic Santa Claus that pays for education. We are in a democracy and the constitution was adopted by the people. This is how it works.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

If it is based on the fact that there is a demand for schools the Irish Model has had the supply of schools based on a particular model and the community.

Historically the UK has a white population, there are parts of the UK that have voted in BNP as the party promoting their "model". Should discrimination against ethnic minorities be allowed in those schools? If discrimination in 2009 is wrong, then it's just wrong - it shouldn't matter if it's a minority being discriminated against or that they have historically always been discriminated against. Quite the opposite, imo.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

Its not state funded that way -its funded by taxes paid by people. There is not a magic Santa Claus that pays for education. We are in a democracy and the constitution was adopted by the people. This is how it works.

I guess that depends on your definition of democracy. You probably view it as completely democratic because it is a system you agree with. A system that can legally discriminate against children would not come under my definition of democratic, nor that of the Human Rights charter.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I used the GAA as from a political ideology standpoint its heritage was quite anti-British and republican.



If it is based on the fact that there is a demand for schools the Irish Model has had the supply of schools based on a particular model and the community.

ET can do it. The Gaelscoil can do it. Islamic schools can do it. The Japenese Community can do it, The Jewish Community can do it.

For all the talk the clever scientific atheists have not been able to muster any support for their schools. In fact, Ive never seen a proposal anywhere for an atheist school.

I don't even know what an atheist school is, I want the state curriculum taught in schools. But if you define an atheist school as secular schools then just look at pretty much every developed country in the world

As for there being a demand, there used to be a demand for black people to sit at the back of the bus but since then we've realised that such discrimination is wrong.......apparently unless it's against 5 year old kids

eoin5

ArthurDent wrote: »

agree but ultimately parents have the last call - they cannot be forced to let their children participate in something they thinkl is against their beliefs (so can withdraw child from religion class etc)

They have to work between tolerances. Can they withdraw their children from education completely? How about vaccines and life saving transfusions?

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I guess that depends on your definition of democracy. You probably view it as completely democratic because it is a system you agree with. A system that can legally discriminate against children would not come under my definition of democratic, nor that of the Human Rights charter.

Ah well. You just want to get rid of religion from the schools because it doesn't accord with your beliefs.

Rhetoric like democracy and discrimination is all fine and dandy but only because yours is the minority view.

The thing is that those who don't agree with you are also thinking of their children and thats democracy. The majority get to choose the application of the resources.

You will be assimilated

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Its not state funded that way -its funded by taxes paid by people. There is not a magic Santa Claus that pays for education. We are in a democracy and the constitution was adopted by the people. This is how it works.

Hang on a second here. Unless I've misunderstood here you just said "it's not state funded, it's funded by taxes". What do you think "state funded" means?


And could you please give me a justification for why you should get preferential treatment and the right to exclude other people and ideologies in a publicly funded institution that we both pay for equally? That is really the only question that matters, all that stuff about the right to cultural education etc etc etc is just changing the subject

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Ah well. You just want to get rid of religion from the schools because it doesn't accord with your beliefs.

Rhetoric like democracy and discrimination is all fine and dandy but only because yours is the minority view.

The thing is that those who don't agree with you are also thinking of their children and thats democracy. The majority get to choose the application of the resources.

You will be assimilated

Can the majority choose that they want only Irish culture taught in schools and reserve the right to exclude foreign people and cultures?

CDfm

eoin5 wrote: »

They have to work between tolerances. Can they withdraw their children from education completely? How about vaccines and life saving transfusions?

The parents do have the last call and under the constitution can home school or arrange alternatives.

So Arthur Dent is totally correct here.

If you have enough parents or supporters an atheist school is feasible but atheists have to want it and put in the effort to make it happen.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can the majority choose that they want only Irish culture taught in schools and reserve the right to exclude foreign people and cultures?

But this debate isnt really about that - its about getting rid of religion from schools. The foreign question is a side issue. If you have one vegetarian at a wedding you dont give all the guests vegetarian food.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

If you have enough parents or supporters an atheist school is feasible but atheists have to want it and put in the effort to make it happen.

What is an atheist school?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But this debate isnt really about that - its about getting rid of religion from schools. The foreign question is a side issue. If you have one vegetarian at a wedding you dont give all the guests vegetarian food.

Please answer the question. You said

CDfm wrote: »

Rhetoric like democracy and discrimination is all fine and dandy but only because yours is the minority view.

The thing is that those who don't agree with you are also thinking of their children and thats democracy. The majority get to choose the application of the resources.

If the majority can exclude cultures and people based on their religion, why not their race or nationality?


edit: Also, you don't give everyone vegetarian food but nor do you exclude the vegetarian from the wedding or force him to eat a steak
edit: or force him to pay for his own chef and catering crew when everyone gets it for free

Sam Vimes

And remember CDfm, this isn't about getting rid of religion from schools, we're talking about allowing others in.

But if we were talking about removing religion, we're not talking about removing it from schools, we're talking about removing it from public schools. You can have all the religion you want and exclude all the people and ideologies you want as long as you pay for it yourself like everyone else has to.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Please answer the question. You said


If the majority can exclude cultures and people based on their religion, why not their race or nationality?


edit: Also, you don't give everyone vegetarian food but nor do you exclude the vegetarian from the wedding or force him to eat a steak

I am pro-choice.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And remember CDfm, this isn't about getting rid of religion from schools, we're talking about allowing others in.

But if we were talking about removing religion, we're not talking about removing it from schools, we're talking about removing it from public schools. You can have all the religion you want and exclude all the people and ideologies you want as long as you pay for it yourself like everyone else has to.

I have no problem with atheist schools or state funded atheist schools or state funded faith schools or multi denominational schools.

If they supply the basics lets have em.

I think though you would have a hard time say in Donegal trying to persuade a village to have an atheist school. Its political and if TDs dont think the public will wear another reduction in the drink driving limit dont see this happening.

Schools are not public or state owned that way and you are loosing the connection to the voters and taxpayers. Its a political decision too. You can have it if there is enough public support- otherwise its academic.

Communities get together for community centres, sports facilities , swimming pools etc. I dont know how many commited atheists you have in Ireland but they cant get together for 1 itty bitty school.

getz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Hang on a second here. Unless I've misunderstood here you just said "it's not state funded, it's funded by taxes". What do you think "state funded" means?


And could you please give me a justification for why you should get preferential treatment and the right to exclude other people and ideologies in a publicly funded institution that we both pay for equally? That is really the only question that matters, all that stuff about the right to cultural education etc etc etc is just changing the subject

under the EU charter every child has a right by law[within the EU] to goverment funded education,so in fact if any religious school refuses to except a a child of another domination,and this does happen in some parts of ireland where the religious take up is so full ,so if say, the child turned down is a non catholic,the state by EU LAW has to provide education for it,