NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

Turtwig

the culture of deference wrote: »

What age do they need to get into kids heads at to have the most impact.

8+. 8-10 is regarded as the optimal age for introducing a child to supernatural events and explanations in the US. This is the time such explanations have the most appeal to a child. By the time they reach 12 they usually have learned about science and evolution and that appeal is somewhat lost. Unless of course they haven't been taught science, in which case that appeal says open until they die.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Its a load of bollox isnt it?

the culture of deference

Malty_T wrote: »

8+. 8-10 is regarded as the optimal age for introducing a child to supernatural events and explanations in the US. This is the time such explanations have the most appeal to a child. By the time they reach 12 they usually have learned about science and evolution and that appeal is somewhat lost. Unless of course they haven't been taught science, in which case that appeal says open until they die.

That explains a lot about Ireland then

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

8+. 8-10 is regarded as the optimal age for introducing a child to supernatural events and explanations in the US. This is the time such explanations have the most appeal to a child. By the time they reach 12 they usually have learned about science and evolution and that appeal is somewhat lost. Unless of course they haven't been taught science, in which case that appeal says open until they die.

Neither present a huge difficulty for Christianity.

As for the 8 - 10 thing. I really don't agree. I agree with you that one could only hope for a Cartesian re-examination of what one was taught in ones youth but the idea that that of necessity means rejecting faith is wholly absurd.

the culture of deference wrote: »

Whats the point then?

What age do they need to get into kids heads at to have the most impact.

I've already mentioned what their point is. To simply introduce what Christianity is (in terms of a Christian school) and allow for people to make up their own minds later. That's all I'd expect from a faith school. I wouldn't expect a full personal commitment to Christian principles until late teenage years to early twenties.

I would presume similar for those of other religions. I would defend the general choice for parents whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist given that there is sufficient demand for such schools.

Psydeshow

Malty_T wrote: »

8+. 8-10 is regarded as the optimal age for introducing a child to supernatural events and explanations in the US. This is the time such explanations have the most appeal to a child. By the time they reach 12 they usually have learned about science and evolution and that appeal is somewhat lost. Unless of course they haven't been taught science, in which case that appeal says open until they die.

It's important to remember in this discussion (when people begin to compare evolution and faith) that the theory of evolution is just that at the moment ... a theory. While the available evidence points towards it, it has never been proven (and would be bloody difficult to do so).

So teaching evolution in schools could be regarded as indoctrination to a belief sytem itself.

I say this as a scientist...

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

I agree with you that one could only hope for a Cartesian re-examination of what one was taught in ones youth but the idea that that of necessity means rejecting faith is wholly absurd.

You see I never said this Jakkass. Read my post again please. Then read it again and again how you could even construe this suggestion from my post is mind boggling.

Psydeshow

Psydeshow wrote: »

It's important to remember in this discussion (when people begin to compare evolution and faith) that the theory of evolution is just that at the moment ... a theory. While the available evidence points towards it, it has never been proven (and would be bloody difficult to do so).

So teaching evolution in schools could be regarded as indoctrination to a belief sytem itself.

I say this as a scientist...

Does not compute.

How a scientist, as you claim you are, could so horribly misunderstand what constitutes a theory is beyond me.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

You see I never said this Jakkass. Read my post again please. Then read it again and again how you could even construe this suggestion from my post is mind boggling.

I'm reading your post. I'm just questioning how evolution and science of necessity change anything. You claim that the "appeal is lost". That's a valid question given what you've posted.

Again, the accusations are getting a little bit tiresome.

Delirium

Finally found a document that outlines what Ofsted look for when rating equality/diversity/community cohesion.

First issue I have with it is that it doesn't define what community cohesion is. So I still have no idea how they determine a rating.

Next is that the report is only graded 1-4, 1 being the best and 4 being the worst. It's too small a range for me, I'd prefer a 1-10 system.

The diversity/equality issue is how the school treats its students and discussion of topics. So a predominately Catholic school might get a 2 or even a 1 for equality, whereas a secular school with a greater mix of backgrounds might struggle to get a 2.

Even though the secular would require more effort to treat all students as equal and to ensure religious/racial bullying didn't occur.

The report has no requirement on inspectors to check out any of the schools admissions policies, so any faith school that discriminates based on religion as part of their admissions policy wouldn't get a bad mark against them in the inspection.

The inspection isn't rigorous enough for my liking, so the Ofsted report may go with what philologos has said. But I don't put much stock in it as I find it sorely lacking.

Link to the Guidelines for Equality and Diversity Inspections for Ofsted.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I've already mentioned what their point is. To simply introduce what Christianity is (in terms of a Christian school) and allow for people to make up their own minds later.

It's my understanding thats exactly what the Educate Together model does with various faiths. I'd expect a secular school to do the same so I really don't see why a faith school is required.

Turtwig

Psydeshow wrote: »

It's important to remember in this discussion (when people begin to compare evolution and faith) that the theory of evolution is just that at the moment ... a theory. While the available evidence points towards it, it has never been proven (and would be bloody difficult to do so).

So teaching evolution in schools could be regarded as indoctrination to a belief sytem itself.

I say this as a scientist...

As a scientist you should know that no theory can ever be proven. At the risk of going off topic, teaching a kid the current consensus is all we can do. I'm not sure how that would constitute indoctrination. Religious indoctrination is usually about accepting idea, practicing certain rituals and attending various ceremonies. Scientific "indoctrination" is about teaching skepticism, not really an indoctrination.

Also, I am not comparing evolution and faith. I was just pointing out that what we know of developmental neuroscience shows that kids around the age group of 8-10 appear to be the most receptive to supernatural explanations and ideas in the US when compared to other age groups. That's just peer reviewed research. The hypothesis is that when the children are introduced to more naturalistic methodology they tend to become less receptive to supernatural ideas.

Mark Hamill

Psydeshow wrote: »

It's important to remember in this discussion (when people begin to compare evolution and faith) that the theory of evolution is just that at the moment ... a theory. While the available evidence points towards it, it has never been proven (and would be bloody difficult to do so).

So teaching evolution in schools could be regarded as indoctrination to a belief sytem itself.

I say this as a scientist...

A political scientist?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

As a scientist you should know that no theory can ever be proven. At the risk of going off topic, teaching a kid the current consensus is all we can do. I'm not sure how that would constitute indoctrination. Religious indoctrination is usually about accepting idea, practicing certain rituals and attending various ceremonies. Scientific "indoctrination" is about teaching skepticism, not really an indoctrination.

Indoctrination in general would be coercing people to accept that an idea is true and religious indoctrination would be about forcing people to accept creeds and forcing people to go through certain rituals / ceremonies against their will.

I don't believe that must be the case in faith schools. One can learn about Christianity / Judaism / Islam etc and not accept it. However, if they decide to that's up to them entirely.

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, I am not comparing evolution and faith. I was just pointing out that what we know of developmental neuroscience shows that kids around the age group of 8-10 appear to be the most receptive to supernatural explanations and ideas in the US when compared to other age groups. That's just peer reviewed research. The hypothesis is that when the children are introduced to more naturalistic methodology they tend to become less receptive to supernatural ideas.

Can you link to this? It seems interesting.

the culture of deference wrote: »

What % of our population is actually full blown practising catholic. Is it more than 20%.

Read the post again. I was saying that I don't believe that our society is secular, and I was saying that I don't believe that our society should be. I believe the Government should work on a secular basis but I don't believe that society being secular is a good thing. I prefer the idea of pluralism.

crucamim

CiaranMT wrote: »

But this would seem to be the reasonable middle ground to me. Remove direct influence of one religion in school, and replace it with a comprehensive education in the varying religions of the world. A little idealistic, though.

That would be all right in schools which are established as secular schools. All schools owned by the State should be secular schools.

BUT, the Catholic Church must be allowed to control the schools which it owns. Just as the Church of Ireland must be allowed to control the schools which it owns. Nobody has a right to a secular education in a school owned by a Church - just as nobody has a right to play rugby in Croke Park without the permission of the GAA - just as nobody has a right to live in my home without my permission.

I find it strange that secularists are not permitted to establish religion-free schools. Schools without religion are good - for those who want them. It is surprising that the Minister for Education, Mr Ruari Quinn has not changed the law to permit the establishment of religion-free schools.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

I'm reading your post. I'm just questioning how evolution and science of necessity change anything. You claim that the "appeal is lost". That's a valid question given what you've posted.

Again, the accusations are getting a little bit tiresome.

Oh I thought you were saying that I was suggesting evolution means a rejection of faith. Sorry my brain is somewhat fried.

Not at all, I'm just saying that researchers found that kids in the age group of 8-10 are the most likely to explain anything they cannot understand via supernatural explanations. If they don't learn a naturalistic explanation then they will invoke all sorts of weird and wonderful explanations for concepts such as gravity, life, sunlight. I'm not saying that learning these naturalistic explanations makes them reject supernatural ones. It just makes them less likely to concoct their own supernatural explanation in the first place. And also accept other supernatural explanations that they may not yet be aware of. I'm pretty sure this a good thing as far as Christianity is concerned.:D

crucamim

yawha wrote: »

Secular = NEUTRAL.

Not non-religious, or Atheist, or Agnostic, or Humanist or Pastafarian, NEUTRAL.

A secular school doesn't tell children that God doesn't exist, it simply doesn't teach any religion.

If all schools were secular, all children would go to school together every day and learn about Maths, English, Irish etc. and then on the weekends, those with parents wishing to bring them up in their faith would bring them to Church/Sunday School/Satanist Rituals/whatever and educate them about what they believe in.

No minorities having to send their children to schools which teach things they don't agree with, no children feeling left out. Practical, win-win situation for everybody.

Hell, I'd even support the government funding religious organisations to aid them in providing religious education on weekends for children with parents of faith (with similar funding going towards weekend activities/sports for non-religious children).

No, thank you. Catholic schools exist to promote Catholicism. Protestant schools exist to promote Protestantism. I think that secularists should be permitted to establish schools in which their children could be educated without their being exposed to any religious belief.

Secularists have a right to be secularists. Muslims have a right to be Muslims. Protestants have a right to be Protestants. And Catholics have a right to be Catholics.

AhSureTisGrand

crucamim wrote: »

Catholic schools exist to promote Catholicism. Protestant schools exist to promote Protestantism.

And secular schools exist to educate children

crucamim

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How?

I am all for schools teaching a variety of religions/beliefs and not subscribing to just one, because the demand for such is there.

I have no issue with faiths funding their own schools if necessary.

Why should people of faith fund their own schools if secularists are also not required to fund theirs? Why should a Catholic pay tax to educate your children if you are not required to pay tax to educate his children?

crucamim

crucamim wrote: »

No, thank you. Catholic schools exist to promote Catholicism. Protestant schools exist to promote Protestantism. I think that secularists should be permitted to establish schools in which their children could be educated without their being exposed to any religious belief.

Secularists have a right to be secularists. Muslims have a right to be Muslims. Protestants have a right to be Protestants. And Catholics have a right to be Catholics.

You do realise that one can be both a Muslim, or a Protestant or a Catholic, and a secularist? Being religious does not preclude a person from being a secularist.

Psydeshow

Malty_T wrote: »

As a scientist you should know that no theory can ever be proven. At the risk of going off topic, teaching a kid the current consensus is all we can do.

Also, I am not comparing evolution and faith. I was just pointing out that what we know of developmental neuroscience shows that kids around the age group of 8-10 appear to be the most receptive to supernatural explanations and ideas in the US when compared to other age groups.

In response to the second part of the above (edited) post fair enough, my bad for misinterpreting.

As for the first part, a theory is the best hypothesis based on the available evidence, but should then be submitted to empirical testing. If the theories' predictions subsequently accurately predict the outcomes then you can say you have proved your theory (according to the prevailing paradigm of the subject).

Evolution as a theory would require predictions into the future, but all we can do is compare pre existing evidence, ie fossil evidence, which is (part of) what the theory was built from in the first place so can't be used to verify it.

So in short yes indoctrination was probably a strong word to put on it, but to approach it with pure logic one has to say that the theory is not fact, so I would prefer the teaching of scientific method over either really.

At the risk of going off topic Pm me if you want to continue the conversation down this line I'd suggest.

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

No, thank you. Catholic schools exist to promote Catholicism. Protestant schools exist to promote Protestantism. I think that secularists should be permitted to establish schools in which their children could be educated without their being exposed to any religious belief.

Secularists have a right to be secularists. Muslims have a right to be Muslims. Protestants have a right to be Protestants. And Catholics have a right to be Catholics.

You realise that plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews etc. are secularists. Secular schools do educate children about religions, like Educate Together schools for example.

crucamim

Robert ninja wrote: »

"Faith schools teach you what to learn. Secular schools teach you how to learn."

If you really believe that, it might be wise to send your children to a secular school. Please do not interfere with the rights of people who want faith schools for their children.

"Classes dedicated to colouring in jesus are a waste of time."

You might think that and you might be right. But practising Catholics (and Protestants) might think something else.

"I don't think that needs any school time or resources."

Catholics might think otherwise.

"I think parents in modern days see their true frailty and weakness of religion."

Some parents do. Others do not.

"The Catholic Church has the worst reputation it ever could have and there's very little need for religion anymore."

You might think that. Catholics tend to disagree.

philologos

koth wrote: »

You realise that plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews etc. are secularists. Secular schools do educate children about religions, like Educate Together schools for example.

Agreed. In the sense of Government not favouring any one religion over another. It's something I can sympathise with as well.

I don't see how providing faith schools violates this principle given that there would be both faith & secular schools and schools for varying faiths. I don't see how this violates that principle of not favouring any faith over another.

I guess in saying that I am broadly supportive of secularism I mean I am supportive of a political model which doesn't favour any faith over another. I also mean that I support a political model where decisions are based solely on merit and a political model where differing demographics can be a part of the bigger discussion Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc so that we can work out this stuff together rather than any one group attempting to ram in legislation to the detriment of others. Political consensus and compromise seems best in all things including on this issue and this issue doesn't seem the preclude the idea of secularism.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Agreed. In the sense of Government not favouring any one religion over another. It's something I can sympathise with as well.

I don't see how providing faith schools violates this principle given that there would be both faith & secular schools and schools for varying faiths. I don't see how this violates that principle of not favouring any faith over another.

But we still have no answer why religious instruction has to happen during the school day. After school/weekends should be more than appropriate to get the religious instruction done.

I guess in saying that I am broadly supportive of secularism I mean I am supportive of a political model which doesn't favour any faith over another. I also mean that I support a political model where decisions are based solely on merit and a political model where differing demographics can be a part of the bigger discussion Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc so that we can work out this stuff together rather than any one group attempting to ram in legislation to the detriment of others. Political consensus and compromise seems best in all things including on this issue and this issue doesn't seem the preclude the idea of secularism.

The government allowing sectarian schools to be set up isn't a good idea.

How could separating kids based on religious lines help kids grow up in an increasing diverse society? I would think that faith schools would mean that kids are less likely to be able to cope with diversity compared to a secular school model.

crucamim

philologos wrote: »

"Ours is severely broken in that it favours the RCC to other groups in society."

In what way do the education laws of Eire favur the RCC? I had been led to believe that they favour the fee-paying Protestant schools. Perhaps my information is out of date.

"I'm sure there would be quite a few teachers who wouldn't be happy about working in a secular school."

Teachers, who would not be happy working in a secular school, should not seek employment in such a school. Likewise a teacher, who would not be happy working in a Catholic school, should not seek employment in such a school.

Turtwig

Psydeshow wrote: »

In response to the second part of the above (edited) post fair enough, my bad for misinterpreting.

As for the first part, a theory is the best hypothesis based on the available evidence, but should then be submitted to empirical testing. If the theories' predictions subsequently accurately predict the outcomes then you can say you have proved your theory (according to the prevailing paradigm of the subject).

Evolution as a theory would require predictions into the future, but all we can do is compare pre existing evidence, ie fossil evidence, which is (part of) what the theory was built from in the first place so can't be used to verify it.

So in short yes indoctrination was probably a strong word to put on it, but to approach it with pure logic one has to say that the theory is not fact, so I would prefer the teaching of scientific method over either really.

At the risk of going off topic Pm me if you want to continue the conversation down this line I'd suggest.

This is is a common misconception about evolution. Researchers often use the theory to make predictions and then test those predictions The best example is probably the fusion of Chromosome 2 which was found only recently. When genetics was first discovered we found humans had only 46 Chromosomes and the other great apes had 48. This would imply that Natural Selection is wrong as we couldn't have evolved directly from a common ape ancestor. Unless of course two pairs of Chromosomes had fused. Lo and Behold we eventually found that fusion. Prediction, Experiment, Result. Hang on? that's science! The deactivation of the ability to absorb Vitamin C is another. The prediction was made in the 1950s and woot we found evidence of it in the 90s iirc.:D
There are tonnes of other examples and predictions made from the theory that are tested and refined.


At a guess I'd say you're not a biologist anyways.

But, yeah, you can never say you proved your theory.

crucamim

koth wrote: »

"But we still have no answer why religious instruction has to happen during the school day. After school/weekends should be more than appropriate to get the religious instruction done."

Leave that to the authorities of each school to decide.

"The government allowing sectarian schools to be set up isn't a good idea."

Some people think that. I disagree. I think that Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc have a right to their own schools.

"How could separating kids based on religious lines help kids grow up in an increasing diverse society?"

Why should Catholics lose their schools just because foreigners who are not Catholics have settled in Ireland?

"I would think that faith schools would mean that kids are less likely to be able to cope with diversity compared to a secular school model."

I find it ironic that a person who wants children to be able to cope with diversity wants to prevent diversity of choice in education.

philologos

crucamim wrote: »

"Ours is severely broken in that it favours the RCC to other groups in society."

92% of schools in the Republic of Ireland are under the patronage of the RCC even when the generous census figures of 2006 say that 16% of people in Ireland aren't Roman Catholics. At the very least logically there should be 16% of schools for non-Roman Catholics.

crucamim wrote: »

Teachers, who would not be happy working in a secular school, should not seek employment in such a school. Likewise a teacher, who would not be happy working in a Catholic school, should not seek employment in such a school.

I agree with you.

Knasher

crucamim wrote: »

I find it ironic that a person who wants children to be able to cope with diversity wants to prevent diversity of choice in education.

I find it weird that anybody would think that segregating kids so that they don't interact with anybody who hold a different religious belief is anything more than religious segregation.

Turtwig

crucamim wrote: »

I find it ironic that a person who wants children to be able to cope with diversity wants to prevent diversity of choice in education.

Where is the bloody irony there? You are segregating the kids from each other.