Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Daughter forced to believe in God
Comments
-
-
Skrynesaver wrote: »You have repeatedly impled an equivalence between Religion and subjects where knowledge as opposed to belief is imparted.
This is a false equivalence, hence the availability of opt outs for RE but not maths.
Fair enough, but it doesnt alter the fact and the basis for my argument.
The subject itself is irrelevant, thats what I'm trying to say.
I brought up geography as an example to try to explain the point without the emotion of religion yet that descended into essentially that geography is a real subject, dont force your religious nonsense on me counter-argument.
What the child was deciding is irrelevant, the fact that the choice was given to them and this fact was not explained to the teacher is the ONLY thing I am discussing at this point.
Constitutional rights are irrelevant and just muddying the waters.0 -
The constitutional rights of parents and children are not muddying any waters and can't be dismissed in such a high handed manner.0
-
Fair enough, but it doesnt alter the fact and the basis for my argument.
The subject itself is irrelevant, thats what I'm trying to say.
I brought up geography as an example to try to explain the point without the emotion of religion yet that descended into essentially that geography is a real subject, dont force your religious nonsense on me counter-argument.
What the child was deciding is irrelevant, the fact that the choice was given to them and this fact was not explained to the teacher is the ONLY thing I am discussing at this point.
Constitutional rights are irrelevant and just muddying the waters.
all of this is purely YOUR opinion and nothing else, and it's incorrect as has already been explained to you, yet you persistently keep ignoring it because it doesn't suit you.
I have repeatedly pointed out the constitutional and human rights laid out by Ireland, the EU and the UN as both relevant to the OP and to the points you are incorrectly trying to make, but you keep dismissing them out of hand as irrelevant to what you are specifically talking about now as you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion to fit your own misconceptions.
I've highlighted your main talking points above and I'm going to address them now so we can put it to bed permanently.The Right to Privacy
The European Court of Human Rights have linked the Human Right to education with the Human Right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights so you are not obliged to discuss with the school your philosophical convictions. They have no right to question you on what you do or do not believe in. They are not the thought police and have absolutely no right to question your religious or philosophical convictions in order to see do you fit the legal criteria for opting out of religion.
I think your other (incorrect) point was that whole thing about the OP's daughter not having a say in whether she is taught religion or not, but as I have said previously, this is not (legally) the case, since she has a right to be heard when it comes to important matters that will affect her, as per two specific points raised in the UN conventions on the rights of the child.The views of the child mean that the voice of the child must be heard and respected in all matters concerning his or her rights. For example, those in power should consult with children before making decisions that will affect them.
and also:Participation rights encompass children's freedom to express opinions, to have a say in matters affecting their own lives, to join associations and to assemble peacefully. As their capacities develop, children should have increasing opportunity to participate in the activities of society, in preparation for adulthood.
and that's the start and end of it, both your points are entirely moot, whether you like it or not.
now can we please move on to something else?0 -
This thread, and the posts by those who seem horrified that a mere child would challenge religious orthodoxy, remind me of two aspects of my childhood:
(1) When my brother made friends with a classmate who was an atheist, of atheist parents. You would think this lad had the plague, such was the panic, and we were actually prohibited from talking to him. What struck me so forcibly at the time was the genuine sense of fear that I picked up from my parents.
(2) Religion class in primary and secondary school was all about indoctrination. There was never any appetite from the teachers to engage or answer questions, all tricky questions were just ignored. In fact any really challenging questions from students (no matter how sincere) could result in official retribution.
I think this panic among parents and teachers boils down to this: religion is, by and large, actually indefensible. There are too many hard questions that a child can ask that simply cannot be answered, instead the child is fobbed off with some waffle about "faith" and "divine mysteries".
It's funny how a small child asking simple questions or making simple statements can so badly expose the insecurities of grown adults.0 -
This thread, and the posts by those who seem horrified that a mere child would challenge religious orthodoxy, remind me of two aspects of my childhood:
(1) When my brother made friends with a classmate who was an atheist, of atheist parents. You would think this lad had the plague, such was the panic, and we were actually prohibited from talking to him. What struck me so forcibly at the time was the genuine sense of fear that I picked up from my parents.
(2) Religion class in primary and secondary school was all about indoctrination. There was never any appetite from the teachers to engage or answer questions, all tricky questions were just ignored. In fact any really challenging questions from students (no matter how sincere) could result in official retribution.
I think this panic among parents and teachers boils down to this: religion is, by and large, actually indefensible. There are too many hard questions that a child can ask that simply cannot be answered, instead the child is fobbed off with some waffle about "faith" and "divine mysteries".
It's funny how a small child asking simple questions or making simple statements can so badly expose the insecurities of grown adults.
There is a really simple solution to this issue,make re an opt in rather than an opt out subject in every school.0 -
I'd agree with this. When the school year gets warmed up some sort of structure will emerge. No doubt if it doesn't and RE get inextricably weaved into the school day your daughter will let you know.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that religious instruction is NOT part of the official curriculum.
Teachers are not paid for the time they spend teaching religion and their work is not supervised by departmental inspectors.
Instead, they liaise with the priest of the local parish in preparing children for First Communion, Confirmation and the likes.
However, they were expected to teach religion as part of their employment in a Catholic school.
That pre-condition has been there since the time the National School system was set up.
Nowadays, teachers who object to the teaching on conscientious may refrain from doing so as long as there is somebody else to take their place. In practice, that would mean teachers swapping classes between 12 and 12.30 every day.
Even in a school with a strong Catholic ethos and where the majority of parents believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, such an arrangement would cause serious disruption.
In my experience, very few schools make an effort to observe this arrangement.
The end result is that the teaching of religion in many schools is patchy to say the least.0 -
-
There is a really simple solution to this issue,make re an opt in rather than an opt out subject in every school.
An even simpler solution would be to keep religion out of school in the first place.
If people want to indoctrinate their children into whatever cult they choose they could send them to some sort of Sunday school.
Bloody Celtic Taliban...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
If people want to indoctrinate their children into whatever cult they choose they could send them to some sort of Sunday school.
for instance in one of the over 2600 odd big pointy buildings specifically designed for the use of indoctrinatiing of the masses...
of course then they wouldn't have a young, impressionable captive audience comprising of 90%+ of the population to work on.
when you think about it, they have it made really, yet they're STILL in free fall with church attendance of an almost fully indoctrinated population being at an all time low and non-belief at an all time high. not a great way to run a business at all.0 -
are you sure? I understood it is a subject, with allocated hours and curriculum. that there are programs that can be followed depending on the ethos of the school.I think it's worth bearing in mind that religious instruction is NOT part of the official curriculum.
Teachers are not paid for the time they spend teaching religion and their work is not supervised by departmental inspectors.
Instead, they liaise with the priest of the local parish in preparing children for First Communion, Confirmation and the likes.
However, they were expected to teach religion as part of their employment in a Catholic school.
That pre-condition has been there since the time the National School system was set up.
Nowadays, teachers who object to the teaching on conscientious may refrain from doing so as long as there is somebody else to take their place. In practice, that would mean teachers swapping classes between 12 and 12.30 every day.
Even in a school with a strong Catholic ethos and where the majority of parents believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, such an arrangement would cause serious disruption.
In my experience, very few schools make an effort to observe this arrangement.
The end result is that the teaching of religion in many schools is patchy to say the least.
I find it interesting that some people are shocked a teacher would respect a childs view. as the ops child went to an et originally i think that the experience of autonomy and decision making encouraged the child to think that she would be listened to and not have her opinion disregarded, regardless of her parents wishes.0 -
It's funny how a small child asking simple questions or making simple statements can so badly expose the insecurities of grown adults.
This is so true. So many people are afraid of little demonic atheist children. Surely their faith should be strong enough not to feel threatened by a different opinion. A very good friend of mine is extremely religious - we have some great conversations about religion, atheism, philosophy etc. But he's a minority in this area.0 -
I think it's worth bearing in mind that religious instruction is NOT part of the official curriculum.
But:
http://www.atheist.ie/2014/08/children-have-a-human-right-to-a-neutral-studying-environment-even-in-denominational-schools/Rule 68 of the Rules for National Schools reads:-
“Of all parts of a school curriculum, Religious Instruction is by far the most important, as its subject matter, God’s honour and service, includes the proper use of all man’s faculties, and affords the most powerful inducements to their proper use. Religious Instruction is, therefore, a fundamental part of the school course, and a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school.”Teachers are not paid for the time they spend teaching religion
You say below it's part of their duties, required by the patron as part of their duties, and they are being paid for the duties they peform, therefore they are being paid for this.
If it was 'voluntary' then they could opt out of it without sanction or permission and not be required to undertake other duties instead.
RE is very much part of the school day, it is not like the original 19th century idea that in National Schools RE would be confined to certain times of day (e.g. next to lunchtime, or end of day) and pupils who did not wish to take part could go home.However, they were expected to teach religion as part of their employment in a Catholic school.
That pre-condition has been there since the time the National School system was set up.
Isn't it odd that the catholic church doesn't pay their wages though? A direct employment relationship i.e. those paying call the shots would make a lot more sense!Nowadays, teachers who object to the teaching on conscientious may refrain from doing so as long as there is somebody else to take their place. In practice, that would mean teachers swapping classes between 12 and 12.30 every day.
Even in a school with a strong Catholic ethos and where the majority of parents believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, such an arrangement would cause serious disruption.
In my experience, very few schools make an effort to observe this arrangement.
The end result is that the teaching of religion in many schools is patchy to say the least.
Patchy, you mean, in that the teachers don't believe in it and/or want to be teaching RE?
If RE is part of the requirements of the patron hiring them (ignoring nitpick that the patron doesn't pay their wages and isn't really their employer) then how can they opt out of it?In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.
0 -
are you sure? I understood it is a subject, with allocated hours and curriculum. that there are programs that can be followed depending on the ethos of the school.
I find it interesting that some people are shocked a teacher would respect a childs view. as the ops child went to an et originally i think that the experience of autonomy and decision making encouraged the child to think that she would be listened to and not have her opinion disregarded, regardless of her parents wishes.
Yes, I'm sure. I spent many years teaching in a Primary school.
The half hour between 12 noon and 12.30 is supposed to be reserved for religious instruction and the curriculum to be followed is drawn up by the diocesan authorities. ( In the Dublin Archdiocese, that's the Education Secretariat in Clonliffe College.)
I think every teacher should respect a child's view and that includes the OP's daughter. But I think it would have been better for all concerned if he had approached the teacher when she joined first joined the class and explained the situation to her.
Forewarned is forearmed, as the old saying says put it, and the reply might have been very different when the girl announced that she didn't believe in God.0 -
all of this is purely YOUR opinion and nothing else, and it's incorrect as has already been explained to you, yet you persistently keep ignoring it because it doesn't suit you.
I have repeatedly pointed out the constitutional and human rights laid out by Ireland, the EU and the UN as both relevant to the OP and to the points you are incorrectly trying to make, but you keep dismissing them out of hand as irrelevant to what you are specifically talking about now as you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion to fit your own misconceptions.
I've highlighted your main talking points above and I'm going to address them now so we can put it to bed permanently.
I think your other (incorrect) point was that whole thing about the OP's daughter not having a say in whether she is taught religion or not, but as I have said previously, this is not (legally) the case, since she has a right to be heard when it comes to important matters that will affect her, as per two specific points raised in the UN conventions on the rights of the child.
and also:
and that's the start and end of it, both your points are entirely moot, whether you like it or not.
now can we please move on to something else?
I know I said that I would address GreeBo's posts when I had a bit more time, but thankfully that task has been made redundant as Vibe666 has effectively debunked GreeBo's argument with the above post.
This thread has obviously caused me to think a lot about the subject matter and the issues that have been raised. There has been a lot of discussion about whether I should have told the school about our beliefs. In this case, that argument was misdirected due the fact that my circumstance was a particularly unique situation where my daughter took it upon herself to declare that she didn't believe in God. But it got me thinking about what would have happened if I did have the conversation with my daughter about God and what she believed before she attended the new school? I have to admit, that when I bought her new school books and saw the title of one of her Religion books "My First Holy Communion and Penance", it píssed me off. Penance! WTF has a 7 year old child got to be penitent about about? Nothing that a child does wrong is their fault and this is a very bad lesson to be teaching them. Maybe I should have had the conversation with her then and not left it up to her to decide off her own bat.
This is obviously opening me up to criticism and makes my argument a lot more difficult to defend, but I honestly believe that it is a discussion that needs to be had. I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there, who like me, weren't aware that they are entitled to have their child opt out of Religion.
I'd like to mention one more thing that probably has nothing to do with this thread or the issues raised but which I think is important to mention. I was awoken this morning by my daughter planting kisses on my cheek and hugging me and telling me that she loves me. I know she loves me and she often hugs me and kisses me but I know that her doing it this morning was because of the way I supported her over this issue. I spoke to her a lot about it and reassured her and told her how proud I was of her. If nothing else, I have been reminded how important it is to support our kids and to let them know we have their backs.0 -
To put it mildly, Rule 68 is observed more in the breach than in the observance, with due acknowledgements to William Shakespeare!Hotblack Desiato wrote: »But:
You say below it's part of their duties, required by the patron as part of their duties, and they are being paid for the duties they peform, therefore they are being paid for this.
If it was 'voluntary' then they could opt out of it without sanction or permission and not be required to undertake other duties instead.
RE is very much part of the school day, it is not like the original 19th century idea that in National Schools RE would be confined to certain times of day (e.g. next to lunchtime, or end of day) and pupils who did not wish to take part could go home.
Isn't it odd that the catholic church doesn't pay their wages though? A direct employment relationship i.e. those paying call the shots would make a lot more sense!
Patchy, you mean, in that the teachers don't believe in it and/or want to be teaching RE?
If RE is part of the requirements of the patron hiring them (ignoring nitpick that the patron doesn't pay their wages and isn't really their employer) then how can they opt out of it?
It's inspirational okay but that's about the height of it. I'm not saying that all schools or all teachers willfully neglect the religious education of the children in their care but very few manage to give it the time it is supposed to get on the daily timetable.
“You say below it's part of their duties, required by the patron as part of their duties, and they are being paid for the duties they peform, therefore they are being paid for this."
I'm afraid that teachers are not paid for the period between 12 and 12.30, the time they are supposed to teach religion. It was a pre-condition of employment for many years that teachers had to agree to provide religious instruction for their pupils.
By signing a contract of employment they were assenting to this arrangement and could be dismissed for failing to do so.
This was the position for many years but at the moment, there is an agreement between the church and the teaching unions that a teacher need not teach religion to his/her class, provided a suitable alternative is found. In the closing years of the last century, a growing number of teachers began to object this pre-condition and the Church authorities feared that a legal challenge might be mounted by some disgruntled teacher or possibly by one of teachers' unions so this face-saving arrangement was reached.
That's an Irish solution to an Irish problem without doubt!
It may work in individual schools but certainly not in the majority.
By “patchy” I mean that results may vary from one school to the next. Some have no conscientious objectors to begin with, others can come to some satisfactory arrangement whereby teachers may swap classes but that will have to be at some other time of the day when a one-to-one swap may be made.
(If Teacher A refuses to teach religion and Teacher B agrees to step in, then B must teach two religion classes each day while A has to teach some other subject to B's class.)
It seems complicated and it certainly is. I guess many schools just don't bother and get by as best a they can, unless some teacher refuses point blank to have anything to do with religion.
Believe it or not, the boards of management employ the teachers while the Dept of Ed pays their wages.0 -
How does this apply to educate together or multidom schools?0
-
How have the unions allowed this to go on? They can't get teachers to supervise yards without strikes but they spend 30 Mins a day without pay? I get instruction time unpaid but not unpaid daily time0
-
Advertisement
-
I'm afraid that teachers are not paid for the period between 12 and 12.30, the time they are supposed to teach religion. It was a pre-condition of employment for many years that teachers had to agree to provide religious instruction for their pupils.
By signing a contract of employment they were assenting to this arrangement and could be dismissed for failing to do so.
Could you clarify and confirm this? Are you saying that there is a specified time in the day when children will be taught Religion and that this is time has been set aside for Religious teaching - nationally? My initial instinct would be to call bullshít, but now I'm not so sure. My daughter's principal mentioned a specific time about when RE takes place. Is this a national thing?0 -
How have the unions allowed this to go on? They can't get teachers to supervise yards without strikes but they spend 30 Mins a day without pay? I get instruction time unpaid but not unpaid daily time
I don't believe it for a moment.In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.
0 -
Nothing that a child does wrong is their fault and this is a very bad lesson to be teaching them.
WTF WTF. Are you actually being serious?
Teaching children right from wrong and accountability is the #1 task of parents, and unfortunately also for educators, as clearly there are many children in society that do not get moral teaching from parents.
Are you trying to say if a child in a fit of temper lashes out and injures another child, its not their fault? A child who steals, lies, bullies, etc. All not their fault? Whose fault is it then? It could arguably be the parents fault, if that's the behavior they see at home, but holding children accountable is vital then, unless we want them to become like their parents.
This is the kind of nonsense that has secular education in the US in the shambles it's in. "Oh lets talk about it little Johnny, why did you hit poor Michael in the face, lets talk this through". No, the correct response is "That's not acceptable behavior young man, you are grounded for the lunch period where you will sit and read a book, and your parents will be informed of this incident".
The value of religious education in schools is that it teaches kids at least some morality, something there is no guarantee whatsoever they will be thought elsewhere. Is it the best way of doing it, no, absolutely not, the best way is as Brian Shanahan has outlined on the other thread, a comprehensive civics class covering ethics, culture, religions, personal morals, etc. The assumption though that when religious instruction in Irish schools is dropped, which it undoubtedly will be, the state will step in with a comprehensive ethics program to replace it is laughable. The same Irish state that couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery? Actually, I take that back, that's the one thing they could organize. With all the resources the US federal and state governments have, when religious instruction was abolished in US schools, guess what replaced it? Nothing.. and people are left wondering why hoards of our youth enjoy driving around shooting each other.
The state's role in education is to do everything possible to produce responsible citizens who are well equipped for the real world when they enter it, and have the skill sets to support themselves and not be a drain on the state or their fellow citizens. Ethics and personal morals have a huge role to play in that endeavor, I would place it at the same level as any academic subject.0 -
The value of religious education in schools is that it teaches kids at least some morality
Morality!? Are you being serious? The history of religious institutions in this country is a pretty damning blow to your argument.
I don't think the previous poster was suggesting that children not be corrected, just that it is pretty messed up to be attempting to burden a child with Catholic guilt by the age of seven!0 -
WTF WTF. Are you actually being serious?
Yep, I'm perfectly serious. Children can not be held responsible for their actions or behaviour. It's the adults who told them that their behaviour is acceptable who are to blame for unacceptable behaviour. I've discussed this subject with professionals and the prevailing science is that kids are never to blame. And in fairness, you'd have to be an absolute goshíte to blame a child for any bad behaviour.
I'll continue the debate with you later about your other points if you don't mind. I'm dog tired at this stage, but I will return to the topic.0 -
Morality!? Are you being serious? The history of religious institutions in this country is a pretty damning blow to your argument.
My argument is that moral teaching from a religious source, not indoctrination from a specific religion, is better than no moral teaching. If you want to bring child abuse into it, that's a different topic with lots of blame to go around. Was there child abuse?, Of course there was, most of it, then as now, in the children's own homes, and the perps were the childrens' own parents or relatives or friends.
The history of Irish schooling btw, and not institutions like industrial schools, given the resources available, is largely exemplary. Irish people educated in the Irish school system are highly regarded worldwide both for their academic capabilities and ethics.I don't think the previous poster was suggesting that children not be corrected, just that it is pretty messed up to be attempting to burden a child with Catholic guilt by the age of seven!
I'll let the poster clarify that when he can, but his first attempt is pretty abysmal. Nowhere did I suggest Catholic guilt is justified, I am talking about basic concepts of right and wrong and morality. However to suggest as he has that nothing a child does wrong is their fault is garbage, and the sort of twaddle one hears from some contemporary pseudopsychologists.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yep, I'm perfectly serious. Children can not be held responsible for their actions or behavior.
Yes they can, and yes they should be, and teaching them that they are responsible for their behavior starts at about the age of 2.It's the adults who told them that their behaviour is acceptable who are to blame for unacceptable behaviour. I've discussed this subject with professionals and the prevailing science is that kids are never to blame.
Children can pick up bad behavior from their parents, or any other source, but they are also well capable of it all by themselves. I don't know what kind of professionals you are speaking to, but suggest you speak to some with a connection to reality. Prevailing science my whole, pseudo psychology more like. Please provide a source for this claim.And in fairness, you'd have to be an absolute goshíte to blame a child for any bad behavior.
Really? You would have to be an absolute gobshyte not to teach children right from wrong, and that there are consequences for bad behavior. If you don't teach them, or a teacher does not teach them, they will likely learn the hard way later in life.0 -
Think you guys should make it explicitly clear what age ranges you're talking about.
(Also, should I move this discussion elsewhere it's a wholly different topic in many ways.)0 -
Could you clarify and confirm this? Are you saying that there is a specified time in the day when children will be taught Religion and that this is time has been set aside for Religious teaching - nationally? My initial instinct would be to call bullshít, but now I'm not so sure. My daughter's principal mentioned a specific time about when RE takes place. Is this a national thing?
It's quite true. I spent years teaching at Primary level and I never got a cent for the time I spent teaching religion- same goes for extra-curricular activities today and for school yard supervision until the late 90s.
Yes, your daughter’s principal is right. The period between noon and 12.30 is, officially anyway, supposed to be reserved for religious instruction. This is the case in all denominational schools and not just the Catholic ones.0 -
My argument is that moral teaching from a religious source, not indoctrination from a specific religion, is better than no moral teaching. If you want to bring child abuse into it, that's a different topic with lots of blame to go around. Was there child abuse?, Of course there was, most of it, then as now, in the children's own homes, and the perps were the childrens' own parents or relatives or friends.
Wow. I didn't even mention child abuse...0 -
Yes they can, and yes they should be, and teaching them that they are responsible for their behavior starts at about the age of 2.
Children can pick up bad behavior from their parents, or any other source, but they are also well capable of it all by themselves. I don't know what kind of professionals you are speaking to, but suggest you speak to some with a connection to reality. Prevailing science my whole, pseudo psychology more like. Please provide a source for this claim.
Really? You would have to be an absolute gobshyte not to teach children right from wrong, and that there are consequences for bad behavior. If you don't teach them, or a teacher does not teach them, they will likely learn the hard way later in life.
Children are never to blame. This is not pseudo science bull****, this is the accepted prevailing view of the experts who know a lot more about it than me or you. I have formed my opinion on this subject mainly from my conversations with my sister who is a Consultant Psychiatrist. She kind of trumps you if for no other reason than you misspelled hole as whole! Her Masters in the subject also pisses all over your amateur opinion.
I'm not an expert in this field, but the experts have told me that children are never to blame. Provide me with your peer reviewed evidence to the contrary and I'll discuss it with you further. Otherwise, I have no interest in your uneducated ramblings.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is there any available evidence of this requirement to engage in unpaid teaching time?It's quite true. I spent years teaching at Primary level and I never got a cent for the time I spent teaching religion- same goes for extra-curricular activities today and for school yard supervision until the late 90s.
Yes, your daughter’s principal is right. The period between noon and 12.30 is, officially anyway, supposed to be reserved for religious instruction. This is the case in all denominational schools and not just the Catholic ones.
I'm sure your word is perfectly good, but seeing as it is a turning point for much of the argument here, a copy of a policy statement or a contract specifying the relevant requirement would be a less subjective reference point?0 -
It's quite true. I spent years teaching at Primary level and I never got a cent for the time I spent teaching religion- same goes for extra-curricular activities today and for school yard supervision until the late 90s.
Yes, your daughter’s principal is right. The period between noon and 12.30 is, officially anyway, supposed to be reserved for religious instruction. This is the case in all denominational schools and not just the Catholic ones.
Thanks for the confirmation. If this is true - that nationally, all state funded schools have a specified time where Religion is taught - this is potentially a huge issue.
I don't understand how you can say you weren't paid for this! Why do you think you weren't?0 -
Think you guys should make it explicitly clear what age ranges you're talking about.
(Also, should I move this discussion elsewhere it's a wholly different topic in many ways.)
Good idea to move this discussion away from this thread and to to create a new one. It's also a fair point to define the age range for this. The argument was raised in a thread about a seven year old and I am talking about children of that age or younger. But for the prevailing scientific view, I'm sure that it is older. Maybe not 17, but certainly at least 9. I'll try to get a bit more info, but for the moment we're talking about a seven year old.0 -
I think the point being made is that if/when a young child misbehaves, it is because they haven't had effective instruction on the correct way to behave and how not to behave, not because they are inherently bad/sinful.
If that is the case then it isn't the child's fault and they cannot be blamed for their actions.
That doesn't in any way man they can't or shouldn't be corrected and/or disciplined appropriately, but the ultimate responsibility for their actions lies with the parent, not the child.0 -
Could you clarify and confirm this? Are you saying that there is a specified time in the day when children will be taught Religion and that this is time has been set aside for Religious teaching - nationally? My initial instinct would be to call bullshít, but now I'm not so sure. My daughter's principal mentioned a specific time about when RE takes place. Is this a national thing?
No there is no such thing. A school may decide on having each class indoctrinate religion at the same time every day, but that's the school's own choice, and as to the claim that teachers don't get paid for indoctrination that is bs of the rankest odour, as it is a part of the normal working day, and teachers would, rightly, refuse to carry it out unpaid.0 -
It's quite true. I spent years teaching at Primary level and I never got a cent for the time I spent teaching religion- same goes for extra-curricular activities today and for school yard supervision until the late 90s.
Yes, your daughter’s principal is right. The period between noon and 12.30 is, officially anyway, supposed to be reserved for religious instruction. This is the case in all denominational schools and not just the Catholic ones.
You just asserted here that every school in the country is being forced to set aside their lunch breaks in order ot religiously indoctrinate children (unlike the workplace schools have lunch at noon or shortly thereafter). This sort of claim puts a sevre dent in my mind to your further claim to be a teacher, so I'm going to ask, please provide us with documentation supporting your assertion.0 -
It's quite true. I spent years teaching at Primary level and I never got a cent for the time I spent teaching religion- same goes for extra-curricular activities today and for school yard supervision until the late 90s.
Yes, your daughter’s principal is right. The period between noon and 12.30 is, officially anyway, supposed to be reserved for religious instruction. This is the case in all denominational schools and not just the Catholic ones.
That is completely untrue. Religious education is part of the curriculum and is taught during normal class time. There is no specified time for teaching of any subject - just a set amount of hours per week that must be dedicated to each subject. Timetabling each subject is a local matter for each school.0 -
-
Children are never to blame. This is not pseudo science bull****, this is the accepted prevailing view of the experts who know a lot more about it than me or you. I have formed my opinion on this subject mainly from my conversations with my sister who is a Consultant Psychiatrist. She kind of trumps you if for no other reason than you misspelled hole as whole! Her Masters in the subject also pisses all over your amateur opinion.
I'm not an expert in this field, but the experts have told me that children are never to blame. Provide me with your peer reviewed evidence to the contrary and I'll discuss it with you further.
First if all I have never used the blame word, I have used the word accountable which is a different word and one you would do well to research. Holding children accountable for their behavior and teaching them right from wrong is not blaming, its teaching them what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
You are the one who made the claim (that children are never at fault for bad behavior) that is supposedly the prevailing view of "experts", so as is standard practice on these boards please provide backup. An anecdotal conversation with a family member is not evidence, so please provide your peer reviewed evidence for your claim and we can discuss it. Based on my knowledge of child psychology, which is quite extensive, your claim is complete bull****.
btw, I misspelled hole deliberately so as not to be rude, but that should be obvious, unless one's intent is purely point scoring.Otherwise I have no interest in your uneducated ramblings
Nice. You have a habit of attacking the poster when anyone disagrees with you. For what it's worth, it's highly debatable whether psychiatry is based on science. Unfortunately like much of the medical industry, it is based on drug sales, although psychiatry is out on its own in this regard.
http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/01/psychiatry-based-valid-science/0 -
Think you guys should make it explicitly clear what age ranges you're talking about.
(Also, should I move this discussion elsewhere it's a wholly different topic in many ways.)
I think its highly relevant to the topic, as the poster has stated elsewhere he does not believe morality should be thought in primary schools. As to age ranges, teaching morality begins at about age 2, and absolutely should be taught in primary schools as there is no guarantee whatsoever it is being taught elsewhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think its highly relevant to the topic, as the poster has stated elsewhere he does not believe morality should be thought in primary schools. As to age ranges, teaching morality begins at about age 2, and absolutely should be taught in primary schools as there is no guarantee whatsoever it is being taught elsewhere.
Whose Idea of morality should be taught? Your Idea of what's immoral might be different to mine.0 -
I think its highly relevant to the topic, as the poster has stated elsewhere he does not believe morality should be thought in primary schools. As to age ranges, teaching morality begins at about age 2, and absolutely should be taught in primary schools as there is no guarantee whatsoever it is being taught elsewhere.
Wrong thing sir.
I'm talking about the blame/responsibility discussion. And it'd be helpful if you set out what age you think the child should be blamed and level of blame should be apportioned to it.0 -
Wrong thing sir.
I'm talking about the blame/responsibility discussion. And it'd be helpful if you set out what age you think the child should be blamed and level of blame should be apportioned to it.
As I said in an above post I have never used the word blame, so irrelevant to the discussion. Children should be taught morality, right from wrong, and accountability i.e. that their actions have consequences for others, and potentially for themselves. As to age, in my opinion this starts at roughly 2.0 -
-
The standard prevailing societal ideas on morality and ethics, age appropriate of course. Treat others as you expect to be treated yourself is generally a good start.
I disagree, I think the family is the place to learn morals. I know some people who would tell you that gay relationships are immoral, I know others who would argue that corporate profit is immoral, and if that is what they think then good for them.
But just like religion, not in school.0 -
I disagree, I think the family is the place to learn morals. I know some people who would tell you that gay relationships are immoral, I know others who would argue that corporate profit is immoral, and if that is what they think then good for them.
But just like religion, not in school.
So children raised by criminals should be taught morality by them? By child abusers, generational welfare families? The family of course is key to child development, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that it results in positive child development.
Your example of gay relationships demonstrates why teaching morality cannot be left to families. Good for them? Maybe, but not good for those at the receiving end of such intolerance.
Back to my original point, the only reason for the state to be involved in education at all is to prepare children for the real world they will enter as adults, and to encourage contributing positively to society rather than being a drain on society. Teaching morality and ethics with this goal in mind is as relevant as any other subject.0 -
FAO: Bajer, Absalom
Please excuse the rush.
I don't have an online link to hand at the moment but I'll ring the INTO head office on Monday and I'll ask what online resources will supply me with the required information. I don't anticipate any problems on that front.
I'll also ask for online references to provide evidence that religious teaching in schools is done on a voluntary basis.
In the meantime, you may care to check the following site and note Paragraph 5.
As I have not posted 50 times, I am unable to insert hyperlinks, so I'll have to use a workaround.
Google for Taney School and look for the ethos.html page.
Par 5
Religious education occupies a central position in the school curriculum and is regarded as a core subject; generally speaking all pupils in the school attend classes in Religious Education. The teaching of religious doctrine is restricted to specific times in the school timetable.
The fact that the school in question is a COI one is irrelevant. (It's still a Primary School.)
While it doesn't mention the time of the day, you will note that it says RE is restricted to specific times.0 -
I agree there's a place in school for some sort or morality/ethics teaching but to suggest this requires a religion is a mistake. While there's no such thing as universal morality there's a lot that can still be taught and discussed in a well prepared curriculum. Why should pick one of many ancient books to be the source of our 21st century ethics teachings?Back to my original point, the only reason for the state to be involved in education at all is to prepare children for the real world they will enter as adults, and to encourage contributing positively to society rather than being a drain on society. Teaching morality and ethics with this goal in mind is as relevant as any other subject.
The church in this country lost it's right to be the voice of morality many times over. It represents a dying voice where most of the people who claim to be part of it don't actually subscribe to or understand its teachings.0 -
I agree there's a place in school for some sort or morality/ethics teaching but to suggest this requires a religion is a mistake.
I agree and have not suggested this. Morality/ethics teaching based exclusively on a specific religion in public schools is indefensible and wrong, and does the children involved no favors. My point is that currently in Ireland, in the great majority of schools, religious instruction is the only source of moral teaching, and this should be replaced by a general morality/ethics class. However, "should", as always, is wonderful in theory, implementing it is the challenge.
My disagreement with the OP is whether morality/ethics teaching should be part of the curriculum at all, which apparently he feels it should not, and whether children should be taught accountability, which apparently he feels they should not. I could be misunderstanding him, so perhaps he can clarify.0 -
Advertisement
-
The easiest way to probably teach kids ethics is to actually teach them the history of ethics. Teach them about the world's religions, the various cultures, how one culture abhors putting a hankerchief containing nasal fluid up your sleeve and another abhors letting your nasal fluid drip onto the street, the history of humanity and the various ethical positions societies adopted down throughout the years.
Instilling cultural values, ethical beliefs and actions in the very young is another matter. That's mostly going to be down to the parents teaching good habits and manners. The state's role is always only going to be limited to the school time and the odd other occasion. That can either be a good thing or a bad. If the parent is 'bad' then the state needs more power, but if the state is 'bad' then the parents needs more autonomy. Then comes the all important problem of actually instilling values in a positive manner. Most of the time this is achievable and practical, the odd unlucky bugger of a parent will get a kid with mental health issues that can't feel empathy or worse, but for most it's just a matter of parents having common sense. If they don't have it then then pertinent question becomes does the society school the kids or the parents? Or both?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement