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

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Barrington: If you read back on the thread you'll see I advocate the existence of secular schools. I think faith schools should still exist though. I think a percent of 60% secular to 40% faith schools is reasonable.

And I feel that that would be a huge step in the right direction, and would hugely welcome such a change. But I wouldn't care if there were more faith schools than secular schools, so long as they weren't funded by the State. I don't think the State should fund any school which is dedicated to the teaching of one particular faith. As I said last night, I'm all for religious organisations setting up religious schools, so long as they pay for them, and the school still meets standards set by the Department of Education.

Tordelback

crucamim wrote: »

P.S. The taxpayers do not totally fund the Faith schools. The owners of a denominational school have to provide some of the funds.

The state (and yes, that means taxpayers) doesn't fully fund any school - state funding always provides less than the minimum required, when maintenance, materials, books and upkeep is considered (all of which are essential by any definition). Never mind any sort of fieldtrip or extra-curricular activity, which some might think were key parts of a rounded education. Either parents, communities or (deep sigh) religious organisations always have to make up the shortfall. Five minutes at any school board or parents' association meeting would tell you that.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

koth: by whom is probably the best question to ask?

what is that about?

Care to answer the questions I asked?

koth wrote: »

So tax payers should fund schools so religious groups can promote their religion to children?

Why not have Man Utd. primary schools then for parents that want to raise their kids to support Man Utd?

philologos

koth wrote: »

what is that about?

Care to answer the questions I asked?

Who argues that? That's what I'm asking.

As for football, I don't think anyone would object to it being a part of the school day at break time, but for taking up class time by it yeah I agree with you it wouldn't be on. I don't compare moral and spiritual education to supporting a football team. You could argue that I'm being inconsistent in some way by saying this but I really don't think I am.

getz

philologos wrote: »

Who argues that? That's what I'm asking.

As for football, I don't think anyone would object to it being a part of the school day at break time, but for taking up class time by it yeah I agree with you it wouldn't be on. I don't compare moral and spiritual education to supporting a football team. You could argue that I'm being inconsistent in some way by saying this but I really don't think I am.

all schools in the UK have sport lessons,its part of the education system. why does everyone in ireland keep on linking religion with morality ? its anything but.

robindch

getz wrote: »

why does everyone in ireland keep on linking religion with morality?

The vast majority of religious people do it, not just those in Ireland.

They link them because (a) the religious tell them they're linked and (b) the religions use people's habit of dealing irrationally with the Problem of Authority (moral and political).

philologos

Barrington wrote: »

And I feel that that would be a huge step in the right direction, and would hugely welcome such a change. But I wouldn't care if there were more faith schools than secular schools, so long as they weren't funded by the State. I don't think the State should fund any school which is dedicated to the teaching of one particular faith. As I said last night, I'm all for religious organisations setting up religious schools, so long as they pay for them, and the school still meets standards set by the Department of Education.

Again, I really don't find that a reasonable request if there are people of faith paying taxes and if they feel that it is important that their children receive spiritual and moral education at school.

How does it affect people who want to send their children to a secular school if people want to do this for their children and they have choice for a secular school (which they should have)?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Again, I really don't find that a reasonable request if there are people of faith paying taxes and if they feel that it is important that their children receive spiritual and moral education at school.

Luckily this argument is not contingent on what you find reasonable, because reason ain't your strong suit.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Luckily this argument is not contingent on what you find reasonable, because reason ain't your strong suit.

Your opinion of what reason is is valuable to the discussion how? :pac:

Dades

philologos wrote: »

How does it affect people who want to send their children to a secular school if people want to do this for their children and they have choice for a secular school (which they should have)?

A situation you refuse to accept is largely unworkable as many will still have to travel large distances to find such a school. Communities will be fractured as kids who live next door to each other are sent to different schools - why? Because they are different?

No, because some parents don't want two or three hours of religious schooling a week interfering with their own lives, and won't admit that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what time of the day children are rounded up and told what to believe.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Who argues that? That's what I'm asking.

you do by proposing that we have faith schools.

As for football, I don't think anyone would object to it being a part of the school day at break time, but for taking up class time by it yeah I agree with you it wouldn't be on. I don't compare moral and spiritual education to supporting a football team. You could argue that I'm being inconsistent in some way by saying this but I really don't think I am.

But I thought you're all for choice if the demand warranted it.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

A situation you refuse to accept is largely unworkable as many will still have to travel large distances to find such a school. Communities will be fractured as kids who live next door to each other are sent to different schools - why? Because they are different?

I've no reason to believe that "communities will be fractured". As I've said it isn't just people of denomination X that go to faith school X. A lot of the time other parents want to bring their children to those schools. My own education wasn't characterised by what you describe.

I'm actually advocating for 6 out of 10 schools to be non-denominational. 4 in 10 to be faith schools. I don't see how that is a difficult number in terms of commuting there should be faith schools nearby and secular schools nearby. That seems to be an ample amount of both.

Dades wrote: »

No, because some parents don't want two or three hours of religious schooling a week interfering with their own lives, and won't admit that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference at what time of the day kids are told what to believe.

I agree. That's why I think there should be more secular schools. What is so difficult about this?

koth wrote: »

you do by proposing that we have faith schools.

I'm talking about what you said about the UN a few posts ago. Who argues that it breaches this:

Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

I don't see how faith schools chain freedom of thought, conscience or religion.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

That's why I think there should be more secular schools. What is so difficult about this?

So, for the umpteenth time, what do you propose to do about it?

1. Build more schools
2. Transfer schools from religious control to non-religious control
3. Something else.

If you don't want to answer this question, then please say so.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

So, for the umpteenth time, what do you propose to do about it?

1. Build more schools
2. Transfer schools from religious control to non-religious control
3. Something else.

If you don't want to answer this question, then please say so.

2 is already happening.
Due to population growth in Ireland there will be thousands of more children at school due to high birth rates in the coming years so 1 is inevitable. Ruairí Quinn has suggested that roughly €300mn will have to be spent on 20 new primary and 20 new secondary schools by 2017. Where I live right now there is a huge demand for schools which will mean that more will have to be built in that area in the coming years. There are 5 Educate Together schools between Lucan and Adamstown alone and there is a campaign to build an Educate Together secondary school even though VEC schools in the area are already run on a secular basis.

So a combination of 2 and 1.

Dades

philologos wrote: »

I'm actually advocating for 6 out of 10 schools to be non-denominational. 4 in 10 to be faith schools. I don't see how that is a difficult number in terms of commuting there should be faith schools nearby and secular schools nearby. That seems to be an ample amount of both.

Many communities only have one school, and even those that don't should at least have the option of going to the local one, without having to seek out a particular school. That goes for both non-religious and religious alike. Everybody will potentially be affected.

philologos wrote: »

I agree. That's why I think there should be more secular schools. What is so difficult about this?

What is so difficult with avoiding all the expense and logistical nightmares of creating a whole new breed of school system when you could just move RE blocks to after 3pm?

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Many communities only have one school, and even those that don't should at least have the option of going to the local one, without having to seek out a particular school. That goes for both non-religious and religious alike. Everybody will potentially be affected.

I've already dealt with that earlier in the thread. If there is one it should be non-denominational.

Dades wrote: »

What is so difficult with avoiding all the expense and logistical nightmares of creating a whole new breed of school system when you could just move RE blocks to after 3pm?

There is no more expense involved than forcing all faith schools to be secular.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I'm talking about what you said about the UN a few posts ago. Who argues that it breaches this:


I don't see how faith schools chain freedom of thought, conscience or religion.

you can't see how religious indoctrination breeches the rule on freedom of religion? Schools are teaching religion as fact, there the child isn't free to make up their own mind.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Ruairí Quinn has suggested that roughly €300mn will have to be spent on 20 new primary and 20 new secondary schools by 2017.

20 new primary schools is an increase of two thirds of one percent in the number nationally.

From your 60/40 figure above, you're in favour therefore, of removing around 2,400 schools from religious control and placing them under non-religious control?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I'm actually advocating for 6 out of 10 schools to be non-denominational. 4 in 10 to be faith schools. I don't see how that is a difficult number in terms of commuting there should be faith schools nearby and secular schools nearby. That seems to be an ample amount of both.

You do realise we live in Ireland? Dispersed and under populated don't ring any bells?

philologos

I don't consider faith schools to be "indoctrination". Introducing someone to the concept of Christianity isn't the same as forcing them to believe in it. As such one can freely reject or accept Christianity at any point. The same is true of Islam and so on.

I find the use of the term "indoctrination" in this forum to be nothing more than mere hysteria.

Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

I can't say that ever characterised my education at any level.

robindch: How many schools are there in Ireland? If that figure is correct for 60% then the answer is yes.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I don't consider faith schools to be "indoctrination". Introducing someone to the concept of Christianity isn't the same as forcing them to believe in it. As such one can freely reject or accept Christianity at any point. The same is true of Islam and so on.

I find the use of the term "indoctrination" in this forum to be nothing more than mere hysteria.

I can't say that ever characterised my education at any level.

And I've said that was exactly how all of my primary education was, so personally indoctrination is more than appropriate for describing faith schools.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Again, I really don't find that a reasonable request if there are people of faith paying taxes and if they feel that it is important that their children receive spiritual and moral education at school.

How does it affect people who want to send their children to a secular school if people want to do this for their children and they have choice for a secular school (which they should have)?

It's a fair point, and as a country with a large religious population, it's not an unfair proposal. But again, my problem is State/taxpayer funding. The State should not be paying for any school which promotes one religion over another. I just fail to see the reason for it. You mentioned spiritual and moral education in a previous post. Every school, religious or not, should teach morals and ethics (perhaps in a Religious Education class which teaches about all religions rather than promoting one). Spiritual education on the other hand, I fail to see why that should be the responsibility of a State funded school, or why time should be put aside for that. Again, perhaps as part of a Religious Education class, teaching it as a concept and idea which is part of many religious beliefs.

AhSureTisGrand

philologos wrote: »

I can't say that ever characterised my education at any level.

Lucky you.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

How many schools are there in Ireland? If that figure is correct for 60% then the answer is yes.

Around 3900, between primary and secondary.

60/40 isn't great -- it'll still leave 40% of the population who will have to deal on a daily basis with the possibility of religious discrimination. But it's certainly a start.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

60/40 isn't great -- it'll still leave 40% of the population who will have to deal on a daily basis with the possibility of religious discrimination. But it's certainly a start.

What do you mean by "religious discrimination"?

Barrington: ultimately Christian morality differs from secular morality (and indeed spirituality isn't separate from morality), as is the case in many other religions. As such it isn't as easy as saying ah sure won't they learn about morality? If parents want the best for their child and they feel that secular morality isn't enough they should have a choice of faith school in my view anyhow.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Barrington: ultimately Christian morality differs from secular morality (and indeed spirituality isn't separate from morality), as is the case in many other religions. As such it isn't as easy as saying ah sure won't they learn about morality? If parents want the best for their child and they feel that secular morality isn't enough they should have a choice of faith school in my view anyhow.

I would disagree, but I feel that would be a bigger issue.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

If parents want the best for their child and they feel that secular morality isn't enough they should have a choice of faith school in my view anyhow.

If they want the best and feel it isn't enough then send them to a sunday school or educate them on their own time. The schools are not there for parents to inflict their own brand of doctrine. Or at least, they shouldn't be.
If the parents want what's best for their child and feel that includes music lessons or any other extracurricular stuff, they do it outside of school hours. Same for this, as far as I am concerned

CerebralCortex

bluewolf wrote: »

If they want the best and feel it isn't enough then send them to a sunday school or educate them on their own time. The schools are not there for parents to inflict their own brand of doctrine. Or at least, they shouldn't be.
If the parents want what's best for their child and feel that includes music lessons or any other extracurricular stuff, they do it outside of school hours. Same for this, as far as I am concerned

Simplest solution, best solution.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

I've already dealt with that earlier in the thread. If there is one it should be non-denominational.

Even in towns that have a large enough population to support multiple schools, I don't see how faith based schools could exist equitably alongside non-faith based schools. Inevitably schools in an area get compared and avoiding other variables like fees, the better schools always have a higher demand. If a faith based school ends up being better then parents will be faced with the same choice as they have now, either compromise their child's education by sending them to a lesser school (by which I mean either further away or with a lower educational standard) or compromise their beliefs and send them to the faith based school. In the opposite situation the secular school will fill up first and parents will be forced with the same choice.

The only two workarounds for this that I can see are either all schools have a strict admission requirements, allowing only the religious access to the faith based school and non religious access to the non faith based school; which would obviously be deeply discriminatory and unfair. Or to have so much excess capacity in every school that there is always enough free spaces for anybody who applies; which is obviously extremely wasteful and most likely infeasible.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean by "religious discrimination"?

What has been said already -- kids or their parents being frozen out because parents don't want their kids being involved with the religious rituals mandated by the religious organizations which control the school.

For example -- last year, I was made feel like a complete twat when I asked the head mistress at my kid's pre-school why my kid suddenly started doing something like praying one evening, having made it politely but firmly clear to the school at the start of the year that neither myself nor the missus wanted our kid interacting with religion in any way.

When I inquired next morning how she might have picked up on this, the headmistress said she'd look into it and added "We don't have anybody like you in our school, er, nobody with your opinions in the school. Everybody in my class, for example, receives a full faith formation." . Then went on to say that the local priest was a nice guy and gave sweets to the kids (urgh, facepalm).

I could give plenty more examples - you get the idea.