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

B_Fanatic

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but I've been told that Leaving Cert Religion is taken from a very biased christian standpoint, and it primarily deals with christianity, leaving only an odd few pages on other topics.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

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.

I don't see how that would be an issue if everyone who wanted a secular school could get one. That's really what the result of making it 60% 40% would do. I wouldn't even advocate what happened in the above situation so arguing it with me seems a little fruitless. I've consistently said that things need to change on this thread.

goose2005

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.

"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating 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." - Sounds about right. At no point in religious "formation" does anyone play "devil's advocate," Catholicism is presented as a fact and that's that.

And by the way, rejecting Islam is punishable by death.



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.[/QUOTE]

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how that would be an issue if everyone who wanted a secular school could get one.

Knasher made a very good point on it though.
Anyway the taxpayer money is not there for parents to foist the job of indoctrinating their kids onto someone else just like it's not there to cover music lessons or whathaveyou

philologos

B_Fanatic wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but I've been told that Leaving Cert Religion is taken from a very biased christian standpoint, and it primarily deals with christianity, leaving only an odd few pages on other topics.

Having sat that exam a few years ago that's not true.

There are sections on World Religions, Christianity, Morality, Search for Meaning and Values (a lot of philosophy in this section and looking at secular humanism etc) and so on and students can choose to ignore the Christianity section altogether if they don't want to answer exclusively on Christianity.

bluewolf wrote: »

Knasher made a very good point on it though.
Anyway the taxpayer money is not there for parents to foist the job of indoctrinating their kids onto someone else just like it's not there to cover music lessons or whathaveyou

If the taxpayers were all or even mostly non-believers I'd be inclined to agree with you, but they aren't and as a result people of faith should have a say in how their taxes are spent on a political level.

I really find it a stretch to regard most faith schools as "indoctrinating".

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how that would be an issue if everyone who wanted a secular school could get one. That's really what the result of making it 60% 40% would do. I wouldn't even advocate what happened in the above situation so arguing it with me seems a little fruitless. I've consistently said that things need to change on this thread.

Only as long as the position of faith being essential as literacy, numeracy, science is kept, then you're up for change is it?

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

I really find it a stretch to regard most faith schools as "indoctrinating".

Since you want them as distinct from general ethics classes, I doubt that you could possibly find it as a stretch.
Plus they're eh, faith schools. That's what they're there to do...

If the taxpayers were all or even mostly non-believers I'd be inclined to agree with you, but they aren't and as a result people of faith should have a say in how their taxes are spent on a political level.

let them pay tithes and have the churches/mosques do it instead

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I really find it a stretch to regard most faith schools as "indoctrinating".

How do you come to that conclusion? They're faith schools?

CerebralCortex

bluewolf wrote: »

Since you want them as distinct from general ethics classes, I doubt that you could possibly find it as a stretch.


let them pay tithes and have the churches/mosques do it instead

Again simple and fair, and just more appropriate for a free, secular country. Unfortunately the majority rules.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how that would be an issue if everyone who wanted a secular school could get one.

Because that's not going to happen where there's only one school in the locality, and that one school is controlled by some religious organization and there is no reasonable alternative to sending your kid there.

Recall that Dutch chap from earlier on in the year who made a deal with the local school that his kid would be excused from indoctrination, but as it subsequently turned out, the school ignored the agreement and attempted to indoctrinate him anyway. The parent objected repeatedly, the school ignored it repeatedly, so the parent took his kid out of school and now ships him to the Educate Together in the next town. Twenty miles away. Twice a day.

As I said, 60% of schools which do not carry out mandatory religious indoctrination is a great start, but it's 40% short of where it should be.

robindch

Now, if only the religions owned large buildings in which lots of people could sit while receiving their instructions on what to believe. That would be a potential solution, wouldn't it? Keep the schools free of indoctrination, and the religious can do whatever they like in their own time.

Ideas anybody about what kind of buildings might be suitable for that?

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

Now, if only the religions owned large buildings in which lots of people could sit while receiving their instructions on what to believe. That would be a potential solution, wouldn't it? Keep the schools free of indoctrination, and the religious can do whatever they like in their own time.

Ideas anybody about what kind of buildings might be suitable for that?

GAA stadiums?... ...No wait churches yes, it's obvious how could I have missed it

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Since you want them as distinct from general ethics classes, I doubt that you could possibly find it as a stretch.
Plus they're eh, faith schools. That's what they're there to do...

Of course it's a stretch. One can very easily learn about an ethical system and reject it. Nothing is precluding questioning or skeptical thought being applied to this. In fact I would encourage that because it is generally by questioning and skeptical enquiry that one determines if something is worthwhile. It's pretty much the reason why I'm here on this forum arguing from the position I do.

I learned about utilitarianism in the Bentham / Stuart Mill sense of it. I can reject this though. There is nothing saying that once I learn about something that I am guaranteed to find it reasonable.

bluewolf wrote: »

let them pay tithes and have the churches/mosques do it instead

I don't see why they should have to. Christians pay tax, Jews pay tax, Muslims pay tax and so on. As such they should collectively be able to contact their TD and express the importance of faith schooling to them. That's their democratic right as far as I see it.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

Of course it's a stretch. One can very easily learn about an ethical system and reject it.

not when one is a gullible child under 12:

"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating 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 don't see why they should have to. Christians pay tax, Jews pay tax, Muslims pay tax and so on. As such they should collectively be able to contact their TD and express the importance of faith schooling to them. That's their democratic right as far as I see it.

They can send the kids off to the local already-existing religious buildings. I don't see why they shouldn't, if this faith learning is so important to them.
It is not the place of the schools to be catering to every single parent's different branch of religion and what extras they want on school time

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Then start off with all schools being secular and let's see how many of these religious people want the faith schools and want to get some extra ones in their own areas. Let them campaign for them instead of having it as a default.
Failing that they can send the kids off to the local already-existing religious buildings. I don't see why they shouldn't.
It is not the place of the schools to be catering to every single parent's different branch of religion and what extras they want on school time

This stuff is being worked out now by the Government. It would be absurd to make all schools secular and then make more faith schools when we already have faith schools.

What should be up for discussion is providing more secular schools, which I'm all for. However, not to the detriment of others having a choice in terms of their child's education.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

This stuff is being worked out now by the Government. It would be absurd to make all schools secular and then make more faith schools when we already have faith schools.

If we didn't already have faith schools we wouldn't need to make them secular :rolleyes:

What should be up for discussion is providing more secular schools, which I'm all for. However, not to the detriment of others having a choice in terms of their child's education.

They DO have a choice. They have churches up and down the country, a synagogue, and some mosques. Plenty of places for them to send the kids to learn about their own personal beliefs if they don't want to sit down with the child themselves.
You still have not explained why religious instruction cannot be done outside school hours in the same manner as other non-school activities beyond "they do it now and i dont see why not". Why exactly is this any different to all the other things children do outside school?

CerebralCortex

bluewolf wrote: »

If we didn't already have faith schools we wouldn't need to make them secular :rolleyes:


They DO have a choice. They have churches up and down the country, a synagogue, and some mosques. Plenty of places for them to send the kids to learn about their own personal beliefs if they don't want to sit down with the child themselves.
You still have not explained why religious instruction cannot be done outside school hours in the same manner as other non-school activities beyond "they do it now and i dont see why not". Why exactly is this any different to all the other things children do outside school?

Yes indeed we're still waiting for an answer to that one P?

philologos

I've answered that already. It could be done after school, but I don't see why it should be of necessity. Faith schools already exist and do for the most part a better job than secular schools statistically. Why should we get rid of them is what I'm interested in. So far I'm not really convinced we should.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

I've answered that already. It could be done after school, but I don't see why it should be of necessity. Faith schools already exist and do for the most part a better job than secular schools statistically. Why should we get rid of them is what I'm interested in. So far I'm not really convinced we should.

Discrimination and lack of equal rights for all still not a good enough reason?

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

I've answered that already. It could be done after school, but I don't see why it should be of necessity.

I didn't ask you if it could be done, I'm asking why they are any different to other outside-school activities. All you've said is "because they currently are done in school".

Are you saying that if education was 100% secular now you would be happy for all religious instruction to be done outside school, and you're just happy keeping things as they are for the sake of it?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Faith schools already exist and do for the most part a better job than secular schools statistically.

Been over that.

Schools in the UK which are controlled by religious organizations do slightly better since they reject more below-average pupils. This is not a point you've addressed.

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

Been over that.

Schools in the UK which are controlled by religious organizations do slightly better since they reject more below-average pupils. This is not a point you've addressed.

And we've established that Ireland is ahead of the UK in OECD rankings.

robindch

CerebralCortex wrote: »

And we've established that Ireland is ahead of the UK in OECD rankings.

Interestingly, the same report (AFAIR) concluded that even though the religious schools selectively took the brighter pupils, they still performed worse than they should have, given that they were brighter to start with. Not unexpected given that they're wasting time on religion.

Can you imagine where both countries would be if the time the nation spent learning religious stories was spent, like, learning something useful?

Wasn't Finland at or near the top of the international school result league tables from earlier in the thread? Well, scroll down to the bottom of this page to see the Finns cutting classroom myth-time by more than half over the last eighty years.

http://www.ortoweb.fi/religedsaine.htm

I'm inclined to think the two might be connected.

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

Interestingly, the same report (AFAIR) concluded that even though the religious schools selectively took the brighter pupils, they still performed worse than they should have, given that they were brighter to start with. Not unexpected given that they're wasting time on religion.

Can you imagine where both countries would be if the time the nation spent learning religious stories was spent, like, learning something useful?

Wasn't Finland at or near the top of the international school result league tables from earlier in the thread? Well, scroll down to the bottom of this page to see the Finns cutting classroom myth-time by more than half over the last eighty years.

http://www.ortoweb.fi/religedsaine.htm

I'm inclined to think the two might be connected.

There may be a correlation. I know when is was wasting time on confirmation and all that nonsense I could have been introduced to things like algebra, at 11 or 12 years of age they're not too difficult as concepts.

robindch

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I could have been introduced to things like algebra, at 11 or 12 years of age they're not too difficult as concepts.

Rather than, say, trying christian geometry -- squaring the religious triangle.

Fun to note too that the Finnish link above mentioned that religion is "unequivocally" among the least favorite school subjects (so there's grounds for hope within Finnish schools there ). So I detect some friction within the schools -- where the pupils probably know they're being taught a crock and that the class is almost certainly thought of as doss time, as it frequently is here -- and I suspect that this attitude might well be seen as detrimental to other areas and authorities within the school.

Delirium

CerebralCortex wrote: »

There may be a correlation. I know when is was wasting time on confirmation and all that nonsense I could have been introduced to things like algebra, at 11 or 12 years of age they're not too difficult as concepts.

Actually did algebra in 6th class as we also had a 7th class, which was like a prep class for some students who weren't ready for secondary school. They shared the room with 6th class as they only ever had 5 students max in the class.

So when any 6th class pupils had free time we were allowed work on stuff with the 7th class pupils.

Dades

philologos wrote: »

Faith schools already exist and do for the most part a better job than secular schools statistically. Why should we get rid of them is what I'm interested in. So far I'm not really convinced we should.

If faith schools do better (hard to tell when they account for 90% + of schools) they don't do it because of the faith associated, they just have better teachers or facilities or sit in better areas.

Is moving RE to after school hours going to cause a slide in results? Hardly.

CerebralCortex

koth wrote: »

Actually did algebra in 6th class as we also had a 7th class, which was like a prep class for some students who weren't ready for secondary school. They shared the room with 6th class as they only ever had 5 students max in the class.

So when any 6th class pupils had free time we were allowed work on stuff with the 7th class pupils.

Awesome!

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

Rather than, say, trying christian geometry -- squaring the religious triangle.

Fun to note too that the Finnish link above mentioned that religion is "unequivocally" among the least favorite school subjects (so there's grounds for hope within Finnish schools there ). So I detect some friction within the schools -- where the pupils probably know they're being taught a crock and that the class is almost certainly thought of as doss time, as it frequently is here -- and I suspect that this attitude might well be seen as detrimental to other areas and authorities within the school.

The Finnish model or the South Korean would do me if I had kids... ...actually it doesn't matter if I have kids or not if I'm going to live in a society I'd want the people to be educated as best as is possible.

Delirium

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Awesome!

It was. Gave me lots of motivation to get 6th class work/study done quickly in the classroom:D