School patronage

Mark Hamill

If the purpose of the indoctrination in Irish schools was to make Irish kids follow all RCC doctine unquestioned then, yes it has failed. However that is not the purpose of indoctrination in Irish schools (times have changed in Irleand, people would reject such hard-line tactics). The purpose of indoctrination in Irish schools is to make as many people as possible self-identify as RCC despite disagreeing with almost every piece of doctrine that makes up the RCC. And we can see that clearly working giving the amount of people who self-identify as RCC despite being anything but.

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The purpose of indoctrination in Irish schools is to make as many people as possible self-identify as RCC despite disagreeing with almost every piece of doctrine that makes up the RCC.

Do you have any evidence that anyone at all engaged in education in Ireland espouses the belief, or deliberately acts on the motivation, that Irish schools purposefully indoctrinate students to make as many people as possible self-identify as RCC despite disagreeing with almost every piece of doctrine that makes up the RCC? I'd willingly consider any document to the effect from a religion teacher, or principle, or a corroboratory statement from a parent teacher meeting.. anything at all really from anyone engaged in the process who actually made that statement. Or even evidence of a policy, or approved methodology, for making people identify with something, despite specifically disagreeing with it? I'd say it would be an impressive piece of work. I'd imagine a ton of psychologists are writing papers on it, it's so impressive? Or is your theory a conspiracy perhaps, hidden in plain view from all but those that can see?

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think the problem with specifically religious indoctrination is that it is not done by the parents, but by teachers, often against the parents' will. Coupled with the fact that there are no correct answers, like there are with Maths, English or other subjects taught by teachers.

I'd agree that religious instruction (as distinct from education), against a parents will is a problem; one for which there is a recourse, even if it doesn't seem to be used. However, no one yet seems to be able to show how such instruction (wrong though it is) rises to the level of 'indoctrination', certainly in any greater degree than any other instruction given in school.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

I'd agree that religious instruction (as distinct from education), against a parents will is a problem; one for which there is a recourse, even if it doesn't seem to be used. However, no one yet seems to be able to show how such instruction (wrong though it is) rises to the level of 'indoctrination', certainly in any greater degree than any other instruction given in school.

I think you hold an erroneous view of what indoctrination is. It is simply teaching a doctrine to be held uncritically. Peregrinus is correct in his assertion that the manner in which some other subjects are taught to young children is indoctrination.

Indoctrination =/= brainwashing.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that anyone at all engaged in education in Ireland espouses the belief, or deliberately acts on the motivation, that Irish schools purposefully indoctrinate students to make as many people as possible self-identify as RCC despite disagreeing with almost every piece of doctrine that makes up the RCC? I'd willingly consider any document to the effect from a religion teacher, or principle, or a corroboratory statement from a parent teacher meeting.. anything at all really from anyone engaged in the process who actually made that statement. Or even evidence of a policy, or approved methodology, for making people identify with something, despite specifically disagreeing with it? I'd say it would be an impressive piece of work. I'd imagine a ton of psychologists are writing papers on it, it's so impressive? Or is your theory a conspiracy perhaps, hidden in plain view from all but those that can see?

And I would be willing to discuss this with you if it wasn't for the fact that I've already experienced two long threads with you and I know you aren't here to have any genuine discussions, you are here to twist and stretch everything into fallacious arguments (as demonstrated here where you edited out the part of my post that explains the justification for my claim, and then ask for the justification of my claim).
Don't bother to respond, because I wont be feeding you anymore.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think you hold an erroneous view of what indoctrination is. It is simply teaching a doctrine to be held uncritically. Peregrinus is correct in his assertion that the manner in which some other subjects are taught to young children is indoctrination.

Indoctrination =/= brainwashing.

I agree, it's not brainwashing. But aside from early education, where all instruction as Peregrinus has pointed out pretty much fits your provided definition of indoctrination, no one has yet advanced the proposition or observation that schools are requiring any of their religious instruction be held uncritically? Or at least, any more uncritically than any other subject?

Absolam

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And I would be willing to discuss this with you if it wasn't for the fact that I've already experienced two long threads with you and I know you aren't here to have any genuine discussions, you are here to twist and stretch everything into fallacious arguments (as demonstrated here where you edited out the part of my post that explains the justification for my claim, and then ask for the justification of my claim).
Don't bother to respond, because I wont be feeding you anymore.

I don't doubt that's what you think, though I will point that I didn't edit your post at all. Nor do I think your perception of peoples behavior being the result of your theory in any way justifies you ascribing a motivation to others without evidence (of the motivation, not the supposed result). Much as ascribing a motivation to me doesn't justify your inability to back your point.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

I agree, it's not brainwashing. But aside from early education, where all instruction as Peregrinus has pointed out pretty much fits your provided definition of indoctrination, no one has yet advanced the proposition or observation that schools are requiring any of their religious instruction be held uncritically? Or at least, any more uncritically than any other subject?

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that religious education teaches people to be critical/open minded about their doctrines?

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that religious education teaches people to be critical/open minded about their doctrines?

No more or less so than other subjects?
In primary school I don't think anyone is expected to dispute or critically analyse the fact that the country being pointed out on the map is, in fact, Germany. They're just supposed to learn it. Two plus two equals four is not put up for debate. Open minded critical analysis is not a major feature of our primary education system, and it doesn't exactly come into its' own in the secondary system either.
I'm not saying giving religious instruction in this way is a good thing; again, just that the accusations of 'indoctrination' being leveled at faith schools are somewhat overblown.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

No more or less so than other subjects?
In primary school I don't think anyone is expected to dispute or critically analyse the fact that the country being pointed out on the map is, in fact, Germany. They're just supposed to learn it. Two plus two equals four is not put up for debate. Open minded critical analysis is not a major feature of our primary education system, and it doesn't exactly come into its' own in the secondary system either.
I'm not saying giving religious instruction in this way is a good thing; again, just that the accusations of 'indoctrination' being leveled at faith schools are somewhat overblown.

It's completely irrelevant that other subjects use indoctrination. All parents are fine with manners, maths, languages been indoctrinated to their children. However, not all parents are happy with religious indoctrination which is the issue.

Cantremember

All the old tricks are being rolled out here: religious faith is just part of our wider faith, we indoctrinate children anyway....it's just trying to muddy the waters. Here's the thing, this is what the state is paying to have children taught:
2000 years ago god the father sent god the Holy Spirit to impregnate a virgin with god the son who would be born of the virgin while she remained a virgin so that he could be killed as an atonement sacrifice to god the father for humanity's sins against god who is god the father, the son and the Holy Spirit in one person, and after being killed god the son rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and then later his mother ascended into heaven too.
That is what we are arguing about.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's completely irrelevant that other subjects use indoctrination. All parents are fine with manners, maths, languages been indoctrinated to their children. However, not all parents are happy with religious indoctrination which is the issue.

It's hardly completely irrelevant; religion is being taught in religious schools in the same way that other subjects are being taught. The fact that it is being taught at all is really what (some) parents are not happy about; whether or not it is being 'indoctrinated' is just a convenient way to make it seem more outrageous.

Absolam

Cantremember wrote: »

All the old tricks are being rolled out here: religious faith is just part of our wider faith, we indoctrinate children anyway....it's just trying to muddy the waters. Here's the thing, this is what the state is paying to have children taught:
2000 years ago god the father sent god the Holy Spirit to impregnate a virgin with god the son who would be born of the virgin while she remained a virgin so that he could be killed as an atonement sacrifice to god the father for humanity's sins against god who is god the father, the son and the Holy Spirit in one person, and after being killed god the son rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and then later his mother ascended into heaven too.
That is what we are arguing about.

Fair enough, I guess you've no objection to the teaching of islam, judaism, & protestant christianity being paid for by the state? Good to know we're not arguing about that.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

It's hardly completely irrelevant; religion is being taught in religious schools in the same way that other subjects are being taught. The fact that it is being taught at all is really what (some) parents are not happy about; whether or not it is being 'indoctrinated' is just a convenient way to make it seem more outrageous.

No, it is completely irrelevant. Even if parents didn't want Maths, etc taught. We are discussing the religious indoctrination of children. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that children are being indoctrinated against their parents' will is wrong and it's religious education where it's happening not any other subject you randomly drag in.
And it is being indoctrinated by definition, no matter how much you try to allude otherwise.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

No, it is completely irrelevant. Even if parents didn't want Maths, etc taught. We are discussing the religious indoctrination of children. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that children are being indoctrinated against their parents' will is wrong and it's religious education where it's happening not any other subject you randomly drag in. And it is being indoctrinated by definition, no matter how much you try to allude otherwise.

So, indoctrination in things parents agree with is fine, but indoctrination in things parents don't agree with is not. Got it. I suppose we should just hope parents don't start disagreeing with physics, or maths.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

So, indoctrination in things parents agree with is fine, but indoctrination in things parents don't agree with is not. Got it. I suppose we should just hope parents don't start disagreeing with physics, or maths.

That is what we are discussing, yes. I don't know why it was so opaque to you.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but a point I made several pages ago is that any teaching of belief to children of primary school age or below necessarily involves teaching them to accept beliefs uncritically, since children of that age lack the intellectual apparatus to critique things. And I illustrated this by pointing to the way we inculcate ethical beliefs in our children - share your toys, respect the feelings of others, etc. We absolutely do not encourage them to consider critically the proposition that they should respect the feelings of others; we encourage them to embrace that proposition and indeed to internalise it so that it becomes a matter of habit and formation as much as of belief.

But we can educate children about ethical behaviour without resorting to indoctrination, and we do. In the example I gave above, the child is most certainly being asked to consider the proposition, and come to a conclusion. I’d consider asking a child a question like ‘What would happen if everybody did that?’ or ‘Would you like it if somebody did that to you?’ to be questions that require reflection and some degree of critical thinking. We may not be stuffing a copy of Critique of Pure Reason into their hands, but it is still encouraging critical thinking. This in no way resembles religious instruction, which as far as I can see tries to limit questioning; by necessity, the beliefs must be accepted uncritically.

I’m willing to accept that we indoctrinate beliefs on religious questions in our children in the same way that we indoctrinate beliefs on non-religious questions in our children. But when people object to children being indoctrinated with religious belief, I understand them to be claiming that beliefs about religious questions are the subject of indoctrination in a way which is not the case for beliefs about non-religious questions. That’s what I’m looking for evidence of.

Well, it depends on what you mean by non-religious beliefs. I don’t think any here have yet argued that indoctrination is exclusive to religion. The best I can think of from the top of my head is patriotic or nationalistic education; but even then, that’s not quite the same, is it? I can prove the existence of Ireland much easier than I can prove the existence of God. Geography, after all, is not a belief.

If in fact nobody every questioned their religious beliefs, that might be evidence pointing towards very effective indoctrination. But clearly that’s not the case; people question, modify and reject religious beliefs all the time. In greater numbers, in fact, than they reject the ethical beliefs taught to them in childhood. If anything, that suggests that there is less indoctrination in matters of religion than in matters of ethics. I’m willing to consider evidence to the contrary, but unless somebody has some to offer I don’t see that I can.

I suspect your logic is a little shaky here, and if you’re arriving at the conclusion that there is less indoctrination in religion than in ethics, I must just scratch my head in wonder.

Absolam

gaynorvader wrote: »

That is what we are discussing, yes. I don't know why it was so opaque to you.

My apologies; it's perfectly clear we're discussing school patronage, I just wanted to be certain I was clear on the perspective you held on indoctrination.

Cantremember

Absolam wrote: »

Fair enough, I guess you've no objection to the teaching of islam, judaism, & protestant christianity being paid for by the state? Good to know we're not arguing about that.

Face your beliefs. This is the basis of RC belief, practice, dogma and teaching. And this is what the state is to fund. Stop hiding from it.

Cantremember

Cantremember wrote: »

All the old tricks are being rolled out here: religious faith is just part of our wider faith, we indoctrinate children anyway....it's just trying to muddy the waters. Here's the thing, this is what the state is paying to have children taught:
2000 years ago god the father sent god the Holy Spirit to impregnate a virgin with god the son who would be born of the virgin while she remained a virgin so that he could be killed as an atonement sacrifice to god the father for humanity's sins against god who is god the father, the son and the Holy Spirit in one person, and after being killed god the son rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and then later his mother ascended into heaven too.
That is what we are arguing about.

Bears repeating to those arguing that religion teaching should be paid for by the state.

Cantremember

Absolam wrote: »

So, indoctrination in things parents agree with is fine, but indoctrination in things parents don't agree with is not. Got it. I suppose we should just hope parents don't start disagreeing with physics, or maths.

Or to put it another way, we're indoctrinating children in somethings so we may as well indoctrinate them in other stuff. Kim Jong Un anyone? A bit of Zoroastrianism while we're at it? Maybe an oul drop of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Recently recognised as a religion in Poland I believe.

Bloe Joggs

No one is bringing up the issue of what effect religious indoctrination has on a deeper level, even though those beliefs may have been consciously abandoned. Such a profound level of indoctrination for so long is bound the be embedded in the deeper areas of the unconscious mind and affect an individuals behaviour long after. Remember we're not just talking about specific doctrine, it's also the idea of hell, the special place that guilt plays in a catholic upbringing, the essentially hypnotic ritual of mass and the many other tricks it has up its sleeve. The church, as a meme seeks to neutralise all opposing ideas and sometimes you have to scratch well below the surface to get any idea of how it achieves and maintains this. It's a much more sophisticated operation on a psychological level than many people may be awere of.

Absolam

Cantremember wrote: »

Face your beliefs. This is the basis of RC belief, practice, dogma and teaching. And this is what the state is to fund. Stop hiding from it.

Which belief do you think I have that you think I haven't faced? How is it you know I'm hiding from it?

Absolam

Cantremember wrote: »

Or to put it another way, we're indoctrinating children in somethings so we may as well indoctrinate them in other stuff. Kim Jong Un anyone? A bit of Zoroastrianism while we're at it? Maybe an oul drop of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Recently recognised as a religion in Poland I believe.

Or... and this may be a bit of a shocker, perhaps we shouldn't indoctrinate children? Or, perhaps we should be a little more discriminating about the terms we throw around?

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

Or... and this may be a bit of a shocker, perhaps we shouldn't indoctrinate children? Or, perhaps we should be a little more discriminating about the terms we throw around?

I partially agree that we shouldn't indoctrinate children. I think it's fine at an early age, but I think after the infants any questions about the subject matter should be answered with either "I'll talk to you at break/lunch/after school" or "I'll find out for you". I remember too many times being told "It doesn't matter why" or "because that's just the way it is". Basically I think it's fine to indoctrinate them so long as you undo it at a later date by giving them the tools to critique what they've been taught (like in maths when later you find out how stuff works a little better).

Cabaal

Spotted this on Broadsheet.ie

I hate the daily mail so so much and even they are trying to turn this change into something bad, I'd see it as very much a good thing!




The Irishtimes gives more details

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/quinn-challenges-church-over-patronage-of-schools-1.1769325

Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn has thrown down a challenge to the Catholic Church to give concrete examples of how its schools can be “genuinely inclusive” for children of all faiths and none.

In an address to be delivered at a teacher union conference this morning, Mr Quinn says is it “disappointing” that the church has failed to provide such information to his department as had been promised in previous discussions.

He also suggests that, in developing policies on inclusivity, Catholic schools in areas where there is no alternative patronage should consider timetabling faith formation at the start or end of the day to minimise disruption to class.

lazygal

How very dare the minister try to make.things more.equitable for those non religious children!

yeppydeppy

There's a poll here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/children-religion-classes-students-school-opt-out-1426439-Apr2014/

and it's only 49% yes!

TheChizler

I'm much mire interested in those heartburn magnets!

That's a very vague poll though, I think it should be divided down into religious education and instruction. I'd say no for one and yes for the other.

Or how 'bout hold all instruction outside school?

swampgas

Lots of parents may be concerned about being able to drop off or pick up their kids at different times - it can be a scheduling nightmare with work and especially if there are multiple children and schools involved. They may say "No" for that reason rather than because they are in favour of school-based indoctrination.

I would prefer to see the poll ask "would you prefer it if relgious indoctrination were optional in primary schools" asked first, and a follow up question of " ... if Yes, do you think allowing children to finish early would be a good way of achieving this?"