School patronage

smacl

waterfaerie wrote: »

I intend to try, anyway. There will be no invisible being coercing my daughter to "be good" with the threat of reward or punishment, be it God or Santa.

Funny, the Easter bunny was never a thing even just 20 years ago so it's not really a tradition, nor was decorating the house for Easter. The "traditions" get more and more in your face each year until, as you say, it's difficult to avoid them.

Best of luck with it. I never celebrated Christmas myself as an adult before having kids, but once the kids arrived the pressure came on. Christmas, Halloween, Easter and New years eve are on the list still, though we're past the Santa and Tooth Fairy stage. Mother in law was mildly peeved that we never Christened the kids, but not letting her buy them presents at Christmas or chocolate eggs at Easter would have been a bridge too far.

waterfaerie

This will be the first year so we'll see how it goes!

evolving_doors

O holy Night ---- Music by a Jew, Words by an Atheist
:pac:

smacl

recedite wrote: »

IMO it is not appropriate to participate in a religious celebration unless (a) you are properly committed to the religion or (b) somebody who is a bona fide member of the religion has invited you to celebrate it with them.

Are the ET schools not worried that they are getting into a form of cultural appropriation by adopting every religious cultural festival as their own?

Just because an event has a religious theme doesn't make it a form of religious worship nor does it make sacrosanct. If you're in a choir for example, you don't have to be a Christian to sing Handel's Messiah. I'd suggest you're giving these religion's rather more authority than they deserve.

smacl

waterfaerie wrote: »

This will be the first year so we'll see how it goes!

To be fair to my wife's mum, she did a bucket load of babysitting when the kids were young and we were both working, so allowing her to spoil them on these occasions is entirely reasonable. Keeping everyone you care about happy is the trick.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Just because an event has a religious theme doesn't make it a form of religious worship nor does it make sacrosanct. If you're in a choir for example, you don't have to be a Christian to sing Handel's Messiah. I'd suggest you're giving these religion's rather more authority than they deserve.

You're conflating two completely different things, just trying to prove your point.
A lot of choral music (and "gospel" singing) was written as religious music, but people may still enjoy it, and may choose to participate or listen to it in their spare time.

Drama, on the other hand, is mostly secular. And nativity plays are not exactly noteworthy for their clever plots and dialogue.

Why compel kids to participate in purely religious rituals/celebrations in a state funded school?
The answer I suppose, lies in the fact that ET schools are multi-denominational schools, as opposed to non-denominational. So their ethos is to participate in multiple, or all, religions.

Hotblack Desiato

The idea of participating* in religions in which one does not believe is offensive both to religious believers, and non-believers.

If this is ET policy, they really need to re-think.



* as opposed to attending - although I'd not be happy with my child if enrolled in ET being made to attend a religious ceremony of any kind.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

IMO it is not appropriate to participate in a religious celebration unless (a) you are properly committed to the religion or (b) somebody who is a bona fide member of the religion has invited you to celebrate it with them.

A religiously themed performance that includes neither worship, involvement of the clergy nor any suggestion that those taking part share the beliefs of those they're portraying is just that, a religiously themed performance.

Are the ET schools not worried that they are getting into a form of cultural appropriation by adopting every religious cultural festival as their own?

Until such time as members of that culture object, then no. From my understanding, the reverse is more often the case, with those with different traditions keen to explain and explore those traditions with others.

One of my kids was in a Gaelscoil at primary level, and they decided to have a "carol service" in addition to the nativity play. I casually mentioned to the principal that while a "carol service" is the main event at a CoI school, it is a specific liturgical event which involves having a clergyman, prayers, and a specific format. "But we won't be having any of that" she said", "we'll just have the carols".
"Then its not a carol service, its a carol singing event" I said.

Anyway, at that point I could see I was becoming a persona non grata, so I dropped it, and the "Carol Service" became a new annual "tradition" at the school.

So what you're saying is that the Carol singing event was a religiously themed performance that didn't involve any actual worship and hence wasn't a service? I'm struggling to see the difference between that and the ET including Diwali as part of their end of year play.

Nick Park

evolving_doors wrote: »

O holy Night ---- Music by a Jew, Words by an Atheist
:pac:

That's half true. The lyrics were written by an atheist.

It was also used as a political campaign song by abolitionists in North America when they campaigned against slavery. ("Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother; And in His name all oppression shall cease")

Apparently the atheist guy who wrote it was protesting about the wealth and corruption of the church, and tried to imagine what the church would look like if they really believed the Christmas story. Which makes it one of my favourite Christmas carols.

The story about the music composer (Adolfe Adam) being a Jew appears in numerous internet stories, but with no source references. According to Wikipedia he was buried after a Catholic funeral service.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The idea of participating* in religions in which one does not believe is offensive both to religious believers, and non-believers.

You seem to be seeking offense on behalf of other people where one side has not intended to cause it and the other side do not appear to have taken it. At the same time, which of us on this forum honestly care about offending the religious sensibilities of others when we live in country where organised religion has been in a position where it has abused and discriminated against those who stood up to it for decades. I for one don't think religious belief deserves any such special privilege.

As per my previous post, I don't for a moment believe that exploring the myriad of traditions that exist out there amounts to religious instruction. At the same time, I'm also of the opinion that not exploring them encourages ignorance. For example, when I see posts in the funnies thread where someone honestly suggested that Dara O'Brien would most likely be murdered if he took a poke at Islam, I'm appalled at the level of ignorance, and I wouldn't want my kids to be that ignorant. The idea of exploring religion, say by reading the bible critically, seems valued by many posters here, and I fail to understand why that exploration should not form part of school education. So if you were to ask my youngest what she though about Islam she tell you about how it restricts women's behaviour while giving men free rein rather than suggesting Muslims are all a bunch of crazed terrorists and fanatics. She has a number of Muslim classmates, she's had a poke around the mosque on a school tour, she's asked myself and her mum what we think, and she's in a position to come to an informed opinion of her own.

If this is ET policy, they really need to re-think.

If you're looking to have policy changed in this country to reduce levels of religious interference, I'd humbly suggest that ET are going to be pretty much bottom of your list.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

A religiously themed performance that includes neither worship, involvement of the clergy nor any suggestion that those taking part share the beliefs of those they're portraying is just that, a religiously themed performance.

At what point does it become a travesty of a religious celebration?
Either you participate in the religious celebration, or you don't. Otherwise you are in danger of just making a mockery of it.

Take for example the Muslim Eid celebration. I'd have no problem with discussing it in a religion class. Discuss how this celebration recalls Abraham's willingness to slaughter his own son, when commanded to do so by a voice in his head.
However, getting non-muslim kids to perform a little drama in which a kid dressed up as a sheep gets slaughtered on stage in the school would be a step too far.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

At what point does it become a travesty of a religious celebration?
Either you participate in the religious celebration, or you don't. Otherwise you are in danger of just making a mockery of it.

Take for example the Muslim Eid celebration. I'd have no problem with discussing it in a religion class. Discuss how this celebration recalls Abraham's willingness to slaughter his own son, when commanded to do so by a voice in his head.
However, getting non-muslim kids to perform a little drama in which a kid dressed up as a sheep gets slaughtered on stage in the school would be a step too far.

My opinion, particularly where young kids are involved, is that it comes down to intent, i.e. it is a mockery only if the primary intent is to mock. As for a bit of savagery or irreverent humour in a play, I reckon that's the bit the kids like most, though my girls are admittedly more 'Lord of the flies' that 'Little lord Fauntleroy'.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

You seem to be seeking offense on behalf of other people where one side has not intended to cause it and the other side do not appear to have taken it.

Not seeking offence on behalf of others, just pointing out that some believers would take offence in that scenario (not that I believe such offence is justified)
And as a non-religious parent I would be very disgruntled if a child of mine (whether opted out of religion in a denominational school, or attending an ET) was asked/forced to take part in a religious ceremony.
There's no need for either of these things to happen, if those responsible for schools exercise a bit of clue.

At the same time, which of us on this forum honestly care about offending the religious sensibilities of others when we live in country where organised religion has been in a position where it has abused and discriminated against those who stood up to it for decades. I for one don't think religious belief deserves any such special privilege.

Agreed, absolutely.

As per my previous post, I don't for a moment believe that exploring the myriad of traditions that exist out there amounts to religious instruction. At the same time, I'm also of the opinion that not exploring them encourages ignorance.

You don't explore French or History, you learn about it. 'Exploring' in relaiton to a religion, to me, suggests something getting closer to participation or indoctrination rather than education.

For example, when I see posts in the funnies thread where someone honestly suggested that Dara O'Brien would most likely be murdered if he took a poke at Islam, I'm appalled at the level of ignorance, and I wouldn't want my kids to be that ignorant.

It would be appallingly ignorant to suggest that all or most muslims would support such a thing. But it doesn't need most, or many, to support such an action, just one lunatic to carry it out. As Theo van Gogh, for example, found out.

The idea of exploring religion, say by reading the bible critically, seems valued by many posters here, and I fail to understand why that exploration should not form part of school education.

That is completely inappropriate to do in an educational context whether the intent is to indoctrinate or not.
We don't have school classes where kids look for 'truths' and 'hidden meanings' in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

So if you were to ask my youngest what she though about Islam she tell you about how it restricts women's behaviour while giving men free rein rather than suggesting Muslims are all a bunch of crazed terrorists and fanatics. She has a number of Muslim classmates, she's had a poke around the mosque on a school tour, she's asked myself and her mum what we think, and she's in a position to come to an informed opinion of her own.

Do you think the school should have her and her classmates reading the koran?

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not seeking offence on behalf of others, just pointing out that some believers would take offence in that scenario (not that I believe such offence is justified)

Some believers might take offence if you taught their kids evolution in science. Others might take offence if you talk about equality. I certainly wouldn't want my child's education compromised based on someone else's rather questionable religious beliefs.

And as a non-religious parent I would be very disgruntled if a child of mine (whether opted out of religion in a denominational school, or attending an ET) was asked/forced to take part in a religious ceremony. There's no need for either of these things to happen, if those responsible for schools exercise a bit of clue.

Agreed if you consider there's an element of indoctrination. Having seen my kids involved in these plays, I personally don't. You might, in which case I'd imagine if you voiced your concerns your child would not be made take part.

You don't explore French or History, you learn about it. 'Exploring' in relation to a religion, to me, suggests something getting closer to participation or indoctrination rather than education.

I disagree entirely. If you take exploration out of education you're left with learning by rote. In my opinion effective education needs to be immersive, where teachers guide students to make their own discoveries and then critically discuss what they've learnt as a group. Teaching any subject by rote is doctrinaire.

It would be appallingly ignorant to suggest that all or most muslims would support such a thing. But it doesn't need most, or many, to support such an action, just one lunatic to carry it out. As Theo van Gogh, for example, found out.

As per my comment in the funnies thread, you have to get across the gap between 'likely killed' and 'possibly killed'. Likely has a probability of 50% or more. Do you think it is a reasonable assertion that more than 50% of comedians that take a dig at Islam will be slaughtered by a Muslim fanatic?

That is completely inappropriate to do in an educational context whether the intent is to indoctrinate or not. We don't have school classes where kids look for 'truths' and 'hidden meanings' in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Funny enough we read 'The Hobbit' in first year in secondary class, and yes we did discuss what the Tolkien meant in various passages. Reading any novel, essay or poem in school involves searching for meaning and intent. Why else do we read? We're under no obligation to agree with the authors point of view.

Do you think the school should have her and her classmates reading the koran?

Much like the bible I'd say they'd find it unwieldy an uninteresting, but I wouldn't mind her being given an objective overview of what it contained. I'm of the opinion that we should limit censorship to what is harmful rather than what someone else might find distasteful. I don't believe religious texts are harmful (or even that persuasive) unless presented as long term religious instruction.

waterfaerie

smacl wrote: »

Agreed if you consider there's an element of indoctrination. Having seen my kids involved in these plays, I personally don't. You might, in which case I'd imagine if you voiced your concerns your child would not be made take part.

It's not so much indoctrination as it is giving the impression that one religion is more important than all of the other religions in this country. It's just pandering to the "cultural catholics". It's also a step too far in that it's celebrating rather than learning about or examining a celebration. Parents choose ET schools so that they don't have to worry about "opting out" of these things. Why not have a play that nobody would consider opting out of? Most ET schools do that so there's no reason why they all shouldn't.

smacl wrote: »

I disagree entirely. If you take exploration out of education you're left with learning by rote. In my opinion effective education needs to be immersive, where teachers guide students to make their own discoveries and then critically discuss what they've learnt as a group. Teaching any subject by rote is doctrinaire.

I absolutely agree with you about exploration vs rote learning but you don't need to analyse different religious beliefs in order to explore. There is so much to life that can be explored!

If anything, the nativity play is the definition of rote learning. Aside from the reciting of lines that have been learned by rote, what could be more "rote" than doing the same play year in year out? If you want to explore drama and / or music, there is far more enriching material that can be used and there are and far more meaningful activities that can be undertaken.

smacl wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that we should limit censorship to what is harmful rather than what someone else might find distasteful. I don't believe religious texts are harmful (or even that persuasive) unless presented as long term religious instruction.

I agree. I don't think we should censor the bible, the koran or any other such text but I don't see the need to read them in school, especially at primary level. It's just not necessary. There is so much wonderful literature of all different genres, from all around the world that can be explored. Also, if you want to study the culture and practices of religious people, reading their holy texts is not really the best place to start as it's not usually an accurate reflection of their lives.

smacl

waterfaerie wrote: »

It's not so much indoctrination as it is giving the impression that one religion is more important than all of the other religions in this country. It's just pandering to the "cultural catholics". It's also a step too far in that it's celebrating rather than learning about or examining a celebration. Parents choose ET schools so that they don't have to worry about "opting out" of these things. Why not have a play that nobody would consider opting out of? Most ET schools do that so there's no reason why they all shouldn't.

Only if Christian themed plays get a disproportionate amount of attention. In the ET primary my two attended (RMDS) this wasn't the case. Your experience in other ET schools may be different, at which point I'd tend to raise your objections. I certainly didn't see any pandering to any religious groups, nearest my youngest got to anything Christian was singing in Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat. She was in the Diwali play one year, which I thought was fine. ET are firm on any religious instruction / faith formation only being provided on an opt-in basis, from their FAQ

Q : Are Educate Together schools anti-religious?


A : No, they are equality-based. The schools provide an environment in which the spiritual background of each child is equally respected whatever their family’s viewpoint. Our Ethical Education Curriculum, called Learn Together, has four strands. One specific strand aims to develop in children a critical knowledge, understanding and awareness of the teachings of religious and non-theistic belief systems and how these systems relate to our shared human experience. The Learn Together curriculum aims to inform rather than instruct. It teaches children about religions rather than teaching that one is “the right way to think”. We believe that specific religious formation is the responsibility of parents and religious organisations outside school. Within the school we aim to ensure that no child has to be set apart as a result of their religion. We also understand that many parents want their children to receive formal religious instruction. With this in mind, our school boards may facilitate the organisation of voluntary faith formation classes. These may be organised with the assistance of the relevant religious authorities, but must only take place as an 'opt-in' activity, outside the compulsory school day.

I absolutely agree with you about exploration vs rote learning but you don't need to analyse different religious beliefs in order to explore. There is so much to life that can be explored!

If anything, the nativity play is the definition of rote learning. Aside from the reciting of lines that have been learned by rote, what could be more "rote" than doing the same play year in year out? If you want to explore drama and / or music, there is far more enriching material that can be used and there are and far more meaningful activities that can be undertaken.

You don't need to analyse different religious beliefs but where your mission statement involves "Respecting and celebrating the different and unique identities of all." there's value in exploring the range of traditions that different students come from. I'd rather a school that acknowledged and celebrated diversity rather than one that enforced uniformity. As for plays and music, they invariably involve learning by rote, this has nothing to do with religion. I'd agree that the nativity is pretty dull stuff, though some of the plays from other traditions are a bit more interesting as they offer a bit of novelty. That said, most school plays at primary level are more a chance to dress up and act as examine anything too deep.

I agree. I don't think we should censor the bible, the koran or any other such text but I don't see the need to read them in school, especially at primary level. It's just not necessary. There is so much wonderful literature of all different genres, from all around the world that can be explored. Also, if you want to study the culture and practices of religious people, reading their holy texts is not really the best place to start as it's not usually an accurate reflection of their lives.

I didn't suggest there was a need to read any religious text in school though, merely that I wouldn't object to kids being given an overview of what they contained. Personally, I know very little about most world religions that underpin many cultures, and when working and travelling through places such as the Middle East, would have benefited from knowing a bit more. Ireland isn't the parochial backwater that it once was, IMHO having a broad understanding of traditions and values of other societies is becoming increasingly important.

robindch

In the wake of the problems in St Flannan's in Ennis earlier in the year, when the local bishop appointed, as head master, the only available priest without apparently advertizing the position, consulting anybody or interviewing anybody:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/upset-all-round-as-priest-made-principal-of-ennis-school-1.3131323

Irish Times wrote:

The appointment of the only priest on the staff of St Flannan’s Diocesan College, Ennis, as its new principal is continuing to cause reverberations among staff, parents and others involved with the school. People who have spoken to The Irish Times are strongly critical of the way Fr Ignatius McCormack (44) was appointed to the post by Bishop of Killaloe Fintan Monahan without it being advertised.

Anyhow, it seems somebody in Leinster House took notice and there now seem to be moves afoot to prevent this happening in future:

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2017/1219/928350-church-control-of-school-employment-to-be-scrapped/

RTE wrote:

The Department of Education intends to scrap provisions that allow the Catholic church to bypass employment laws and appoint nuns and priests of their choosing to State jobs in schools in Ireland.

Hotblack Desiato

It's a good thing and also completely pathetic at the same time.

Have to laugh at a teacher's union saying they will speak out against injustice and in favour of openness and transparency in appointments - that'd be a first. They've been complicit in the religious oppression of their own members ever since the foundation of the state.

recedite

scrap provisions that allow the Catholic church to bypass employment laws

This might affect school/college/university chaplains too?

seamus

recedite wrote: »

This might affect school/college/university chaplains too?

"Must be a consecrated catholic priest" can be a legitimate part of a job description if you can show that it's necessary, to be fair.

Employment laws also typically don't apply to volunteer positions, so there's always that. If they want to offer chaplaincy services, I don't see why they would need to be paid.

recedite

The point is that chaplaincy positions
(a) have nice salaries attached, and
(b) are supposed to "support" all students, not just those of any one faith, therefore being anointed into any one faith cannot be part of the job description.
At the end of the day, if these posts are necessary at all, they are really a psychologist/counselling role, and there are other appropriate qualifications for such things.

Bass Reeves

recedite wrote: »

The point is that chaplaincy positions
(a) have nice salaries attached, and
(b) are supposed to "support" all students, not just those of any one faith, therefore being anointed into any one faith cannot be part of the job description.
At the end of the day, if these posts are necessary at all, they are really a psychologist/counselling role, and there are other appropriate qualifications for such things.

Just because a chaplaincy position has a nice salary and is supposed to support all students will not preclude a member if a religious order for having the qualification. After all it was for religious orders that chaplaincy services originates. Therefore it is it not unreasonable that of it is an option that religious ethos schools would employ a Priest, a Rector, a Rabbi or an Inman as a Chaplin if they were available. However in general it will not be the norm from now on but the exception

smacl

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Just because a chaplaincy position has a nice salary and is supposed to support all students will not preclude a member if a religious order for having the qualification. After all it was for religious orders that chaplaincy services originates. Therefore it is it not unreasonable that of it is an option that religious ethos schools would employ a Priest, a Rector, a Rabbi or an Inman as a Chaplin if they were available. However in general it will not be the norm from now on but the exception

Every school should have an Inman

recedite

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Just because a chaplaincy position has a nice salary and is supposed to support all students will not preclude a member if a religious order for having the qualification. After all it was for religious orders that chaplaincy services originates. Therefore it is it not unreasonable that of it is an option that religious ethos schools would employ a Priest, a Rector, a Rabbi or an Inman as a Chaplin if they were available. However in general it will not be the norm from now on but the exception

I totally agree they should be allowed apply for the job, in the normal way, along with all the other candidates.
I was asking whether the proposed new Dept of Ed rules applying to school principals will also apply to chaplains? ie that they will not be allowed to bypass normal competitive recruitment procedures that apply generally to any candidates applying for jobs on the state payroll.
I don't mean "normally" bypassing the rules, or just occasionally as "an exception". I mean never.

magicbastarder

Catholic groups warn of legal action over ‘Baptism barrier’ removal

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/catholic-groups-warn-of-legal-action-over-baptism-barrier-removal-1.3343230

they've a wonderful sense of irony:

It cites a series of High Court and Supreme Court judgments where it is clear that “religious freedom and parental rights are paramount”. This, it says, conflicts with the Government plans to prohibit Catholic schools from using religion as a criteria of entry.

seamus

Hilarious. "Removing our right to discriminate on the basis of religion is religious discrimination against us!"

I'm continually reminded of this great chart;

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Every school should have an Inman

As a Chaplin

Odhinn

robindch wrote: »

In the wake of the problems in St Flannan's in Ennis earlier in the year, when the local bishop appointed, as head master, the only available priest without apparently advertizing the position, consulting anybody or interviewing anybody:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/upset-all-round-as-priest-made-principal-of-ennis-school-1.3131323

Bigoted as it may be, the notion of a priest in charge of any school horrifies me. They're loyal to their order,persons within that order, the church, and whoever else and somewhere down the line comes the children they're in charge in. Having seen at first hand the lengths they'll go to cover up their associates, friends and indeed lovers misdeeds, it's a rather sickening prospect.

Hotblack Desiato

The arrogance and lack of empathy or understanding for anyone else's position is to be expected, sadly.

However, the Association of Missionaries and Religious of Ireland said Catholic parents and their children would end up being discriminated against under the proposals.

“One could envisage a possible situation arising where a Catholic parent could not get a place in a Catholic schools within reasonable proximity in which case, while not being obliged to attend a ’State’ school, might have great difficulty in exercising parental choice in accordance with their conscience and faith-based discernment,” it said.

How about this though?

“One could envisage a possible situation arising where a non-Catholic parent could not get a place in a non-Catholic school within reasonable proximity in which case, while not being obliged to attend a Catholic school, might have great difficulty in exercising parental choice in accordance with their conscience and faith-based discernment,” it said.

Hotblack Desiato

Letter (not mine) in IT:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/baptism-barrier-and-schools-1.3344148

Sir, – Various Catholic groups are objecting to plans to remove the school baptism barrier (“Catholic groups warn of legal action over ‘Baptism barrier’ removal”, News, January 3rd).

It is clear from their contributions that they have adopted a strategy set out by the Iona Institute as far back as 2008. They will attempt to steer any debate toward the question of what the majority wants and hope we all forget about the needs and rights of minorities. If that fails, they will try to make the discussion all about an interfering State in pursuit of a “secularisation agenda” and cast themselves as persecuted victims.

Of course, the question is not what the majority of parents want. The question is what children need. The question is not one of State interference but of how we, as a society, can best balance the competing rights of families of all faiths and none. The question is why religious groups must be allowed to co-opt publicly funded schools to privilege their own. The question is why, when school places are scarce, it is always religious minorities that are forced to the back of the queue.

The question ought to be what, if any, harm might be done by insisting that faith formation takes place outside the classroom so that maths and reading and writing can be taught in an environment where children who live next door to each other are treated equally, with no-one singled out as being “different”. These are the questions that Catholic groups have failed to address and don’t want to be asked. But these are the questions that matter. – Yours, etc,

DENIS McCARTHY,

Dundrum,

Dublin 16.